Tish Harrison Warren Says Christians Have a Duty to Defend and Uphold Same-Sex Marriage
There’s not a single defense made for sodomite marriages that could not be made for incestuous marriages
In an op-ed in the New York Times, author Tish Harrison Warren, who was last seen bashing “White Evangelicals” and the “White American Church” as a bunch of violence-loving racists, defends the practice of LBGTQ matrimony by saying that Christians have a duty to ensure gay people can be legally married.
Warren is a priestess in the Anglican Church in North America. (ACNA) and a regular contributor at Christianity Today. The founder of the Pelican Project, she can frequently be found arguing against complementarian ecclesiology and doing things like calling the Dallas Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, “stupid” (that tweet was ‘liked’ by Russell Moore, by the way).
In her article, in the same breath as claiming conservative creds, she writes:
“…though I respect secular same-sex marriage, I am a priest in a denomination that understands holy matrimony to be the spiritual and sexual union of a man and a woman and that I would not preside over a same-sex wedding.”
She notes that “We must find ways to preserve and protect the civil rights of gay people” while suggesting that Christians in business should make gay wedding takes or photograph gay weddings as a matter of “hospitality” and “moral duty.” Warren concludes:
We need to ensure that gay people can continue to be legally married and live according to their deepest values. We also need to ensure that religious people are not compelled to participate in an event or voice approval of a marriage they object to and that they can form churches, schools and other ministries in line with their beliefs.
Gay marriages” are just as wicked and foul as marriage between siblings or marriages between a 30 and 13-year-old. Yet because Warren does not see them as particularity vile and grievous whose implementation and acceptance has paved the way for every sort of perversion a decade on- from not knowing what a woman is to the grooming of children, she argues that so long as society insists on calling them ‘marriages’, we ought to defend their right to do so, with seemingly no limiting factors.
There’s not a single defense made for sodomite marriages that could not be made for incestuous marriages if and when they gain social acceptance. Would Warren argue that “We need to ensure that a father and his adult daughter can continue to be legally married and live according to their deepest values“?
We suspect she wouldn’t, putting the lie to the whole article and betraying how theologically compromised she actually is.