Five Answers for Kevin DeYoung (And Also For Christians Who Believe the Bible Does Not Support Gay Marriage)

 I take it that Kevin DeYoung believes that the Bible does not support gay marriage. I'm going to disagree with him there but before I go any further, I want to take a second to say that I really appreciate the first two paragraphs of the piece he wrote for the gospel coalition to which this is a personal reply. The piece has now popped up on my FB timeline several times, re-posted by various conservative leaning christian friends and acquaintances of mine. If you are at all involved in the Christian community in America and, well, any form of social media really, then you have no doubt run into loads of articles, books, essays, and blogs on this topic lately. Where Mr. DeYoung's article stood out to me (in a totally good way) is in the willingness his opening show to discuss the issue as a theological matter about which believers can disagree and still be believers. Granted he clearly thinks that my interpretation of the Bible and of philosophical theology are potentially quite problematic, but few on his side of this issue seem to want to make even that basic dialogue protecting concession and I am grateful to him for it.
   As such, it seems only gentlemanly to oblige him by answering his five questions. I have no doubt that many others have but, he was asking me too, so I figure I owe him an answer. And since his was an open letter, mine will be an open reply.

Note: I have re-typed Mr. DeYoung's original questions but not his follow up explanations. Please go read the complete questions here.

Question 1: On what basis do you still insist that marriage must be monogamous?
  Pretty much on the same basis that I did before I held my big gay friendly position. The Passages Mr. DeYoung sites are fine, maybe throw in 1 Timothy 3 and Jesus teaching about agape, and His assertion that marriage joins the two into one. Why does Mr. DeYoung want to assume that I don't take those passages seriously? I would remind him that it is dangerous to read into a passage more than is actually there. A man and a woman becoming one is descriptive not limiting. If I tell you that I think you are awesome, that does not preclude the possibility that other people might think you are awesome as well. So too, if a man and a woman are joined into one flesh my marriage, that does not preclude the possibility that a woman and a woman might be joined into one flesh. I suppose that it doesn't logically preclude two men and a woman either but then, isn't that what Paul's epistles are for?

Question 2: Will you maintain the same biblical sexual ethic in the church now that you think the church should solemnize gay marriages?
  Yes, why shouldn't I? Mr. DeYoung provides a lot of statistics which are just as likely to be a result of the State's and Church's failure to recognize and solemnize same-sex relationships in the form of marriage as they are to be a result of the "same-sexness" of those relationships. Even if his implied cause is accurate, truth is truth and I would certainly expect the church to keep teaching it.

Question 3: Are you prepared to say moms and dads are interchangeable?
  No I'm not. Is Mr. DeYoung prepared to say that families without a mom or dad are inferior?

Question 4: What will you say about anal intercourse?
  Mr. DeYoung is correct. I have nothing to say about anal intercourse. I am somewhat surprise to see that he does have something to say about it. Mr. DeYoung's church must be an interesting place to go. Is Mr. DeYoung aware that quite a few heterosexual couples practice anal intercourse or that there are other ways for gay men to have sex?

Question 5: How have all Christians at all times and in all places interpreted the Bible so wrongly for so long?
 They haven't. I mean it is a tad odd for Mr. DeYoung to know what "all Christians at all times and in all places" have believed on any topic - let's change "all" to "most" shall we? In that case I imagine that the church has managed to be wrong on this topic by the same methods which led her to be wrong about slavery for 1700 years or the misogyny inherent in western patriarchy for, well, 2000+ years