BY ROY ADAMS

See also the editorial on page 6 of this issue, "Biblical Marriage," by William G. Johnsson, plus the official Seventh-day Adventist Church statement on marriage.

HE LEVEL HAD been building for decades. Back in the 1970s, isolated squeaks. Then in the eighties, louder noises--more focused, more intentional, more strident. By the nineties, with the press in the United States and Canada virtually co-opted, the volume of the gay and lesbian voice rose a zillion decibels. Today it's virtually impossible to escape the concerted push for full acceptance by a well-heeled, well-financed homosexual lobby, the media falling all over itself to push the agenda.

But the event that would thrust the issue into the face of the American public over the past several weeks came from a totally unexpected source. When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling June 26 against a Texas anti-sodomy law that banned private consensual sex between adults of the same gender, many social analysts knew instinctively that we were watching the opening up of a veritable Pandora's box of
unintended consequences.

I would hazard that the vast majority of the U.S. population knew nothing about the existence of the Texas statute in question, nor (I would hazard again) would the vast majority have any interest in its perpetuation. But its dramatic strike-down by the High Court was universally seen as a signal of something far beyond the event itself. A "landmark decision," a Newsweek cover story called it, opening the way "to a revolution in family life." "There is no question," the article said, that "the . . . case represents a sea change, not just in the Supreme Court, . . . but also in society as a whole."¹

Implications
Expressing the majority opinion for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed "a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." An example of that, his opinion said, is when "two adults . . . with full and mutual consent from each other . . . [engage] in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."²

So what, then, when two adults (brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son), with full consent from each other engage in conduct common to an incestuous lifestyle? On what grounds can society proscribe such behavior anymore? And what moral principle would we use against polygamy where all the parties involved are consenting adults?

"The [court's] decision did not spell out what this could mean for laws banning gay marriage, gay adoption and related controversies," observed David Von Drehle in his analysis of the ruling. "But dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warned from the bench that the constitutional grounds for maintaining those prohibitions are now gone."³

That Scalia is absolutely correct might be seen in what's already happening elsewhere. In Ontario, Canada, for example, where the homosexual lifestyle has virtually been accepted now for decades, the government has now taken the next logical step. On June 10 Ontario's highest court unanimously ruled that "the common law definition that marriage be between 'one man and one woman' offends the equality rights in the [country's] Charter of Rights [and Freedoms]."⁴ British Columbia's high court had taken a similar action in May.

Now, as a consequence of these developments, no doubt, Canada's federal government has drafted a bill "to rewrite the definition of marriage," and has forwarded it to the country's supreme court for a ruling on its constitutionality.⁵ Same-sex marriages are now legal in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Episcopal Church, after approving the election of the first openly gay bishop August 6, went the next logical step the following day, passing a resolution to give dioceses "the option of blessing same-sex unions."⁶ The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court any day now is expected to hand down its ruling on a same-sex union case pending before it.

All of a sudden, the gay and lesbian cause has grown into a movement, advancing like a steam roller across the social landscape, crushing everything in its way, and belching out charges of bigotry and homophobia at anyone who dares to raise a voice in opposition or caution. What is to be our stance as a church?

No Silence Now
The Adventist Church has a well-defined position on marriage. Marriage, we affirm, "was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus Christ to be both monogamous and heterosexual, a lifelong union of loving companionship between a man and a woman."⁷ And in a carefully worded statement it has declared itself on the subject of homosexuality.⁸ The church does not look to any state to set its moral standards. On the authority of Scripture, we maintain that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. And though the concept has been under constant attack across the centuries, never has the assault on its sacredness been more brazen or more egregious than now.

Seventh-day Adventists believe and advocate the separation of religion and state--and we should continue to do so. The wisdom of the centuries teaches us, however, that there are certain moral imperatives, certain basic standards of decency, certain bedrock traditional values that, transcending distinctions of faith and religion, cannot be abandoned without plunging a society into moral anarchy. When civilization repudiates the moral foundation that underlies the Judeo-Christian and all other legitimate religions, it falls apart. Are we now headed down that road?

Gays and lesbians should always find a warm welcome in the Adventist Church--not, however, as gays and lesbians, but as human beings created in the image of God. Any person who would insult, belittle, or otherwise harm someone because they're gay or lesbian is not Christian. But no one who genuinely accepts the authority of Scripture can give either encouragement or comfort to the gay or lesbian lifestyle. It's absolutely critical that every Adventist understand that vital distinction.

The highly respected evangelical theologian J. I. Packer was one of those who walked out in protest when "in June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions."⁹ In an article explaining the reason for his action, Packer argued that the Westminster decision "falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth."¹⁰ He referred to what he called "the delusion of looking to God--actually asking him--to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This," he said, "is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous." His words bring to mind God's devastating question to Israel in Psalm 50:16: "What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips? You hate my instruction and cast my words behind you" (NIV).

Invoking the memory of Martin Luther, Packer quoted the great Reformer in a statement I've pondered ever since seminary days. Said Luther: "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Adventists have always talked about the spiritual crisis of the last days. That crisis is here. We are seeing before our very eyes a brazen, deliberate, concerted attack on the three foundational pillars in the book of Genesis: Creation, Sabbath, and (in this case) marriage. Clearly there's a sinister force behind it all, and we should face the issue with the utmost seriousness. Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high. And normal considerations of tolerance and political correctness cannot apply--in fact, would be irresponsible.

This is the time for faith communities to speak out--with compassion, clarity, and faithfulness. The oldest and most sacred social institution is under siege. The stability of society and the credibility of the church are at stake. In the words of Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, what we are facing here is "moral Armageddon."¹²

_________________________
¹ "The War Over Gay Marriage," Newsweek, July 7, 2003, pp. 38, 41.
² Washington Post, June 27, 2003, p. A1.
³ "A Debate on Marriage . . . Now Looms," Washington Post, June 27, 2003, p. A1.
⁴ Canada Online: "Ontario Court Pressures Federal Government on Same-Sex Marriages," http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/samesex/a/ontctappsamesex.htm.
⁵ Toronto Star, Aug. 6, 2003.
⁶ Washington Post, Aug. 7, 2003.
⁷ www.adventist.org/beliefs/main_stat16.html.
⁸ www.adventist.org/beliefs/main_stat46.html.
⁹ Editorial note in J. I. Packer, "Why I Walked," Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 46.
¹⁰ Ibid., p. 47.
¹¹ Ibid., p. 50.
¹² Newsweek, July 7, 2003, p. 42.

_________________________
Roy Adams is an associate editor of the Adventist Review.