Posted on 12/08/2008 9:43:31 AM PST by This Just In
Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 at 6:50 am ET Printer Version E-mail Permalink Bookmark and Share
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
She concludes: "Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?" She answers, "Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."
Now, wait just a minute. Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.
But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.
As for the New Testament, "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere" to be found. Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties." Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments. Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.
But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative.
As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel. His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry. But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married. Paul will himself assume this when he writes the "household codes" included in other New Testament letters.
The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.
Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.
In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.
Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.
Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that "Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching." In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory. "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller simply asserts -- apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.
Miller picks her sources carefully. She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here]. Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument. The deck is decisively stacked.
She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.
As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."
"A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism," she asserts. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."
All this comes together when Miller writes, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.
Even as she attempts to make her "religious case" for gay marriage, Miller has to acknowledge that "very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal." Her argument now grinds to a conclusion with her hope that this will change. But -- and this is a crucial point -- if her argument had adequate traction, she wouldn't have to make it. It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage -- it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.
Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek's responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda: "No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism," Meacham writes. "Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."
Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us. He insists that "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt." No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches -- and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey.
The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.
Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question. It chose another path -- and published this cover story. The magazine's readers and this controversial issue deserved better.
However, the religious angle on homosexual marriage is of little interest to me. Just because something is condemned by the Bible or other religious teachings— or if something is promoted by various religious doctrines, should not be the basis for any such practice to be banned in the law — or to be required by it either.
Here is the crux of it all — the promoters of same sex marriage contend that the Constitution ( of whatever State or even the federal Constitution) REQUIRES the State to recognize, accept, and give full status to people of the same sex getting married to each other. This is the most absurd, ridiculous proposition I have ever heard of, yet the high courts of at least 3 states have so found. It is no different that saying there is an existing constitutional right to —say, marry a horse or a cow or an automobile or a television set. There has never been a society in the history of humankind on earth where “legal marriage” between same sex couples has been a normative practice or something given legal status of any sort— much less legal status akin to men getting married to women. How does a practice which has never been accepted by a society- much less given legal status— suddenly become a constitutional requirement? John Adams in authoring the MA constitution had in mind that men getting married to men was such a fundamental human right that it was embodied as part of the “liberty” guaranteed to the people of MA by that document? Obviously, an absurd idea. Yet, the MA Sup Ct. so found.
To me, the issue is not to be guided by religious doctrine of any kind. To me, the fundamental issue is whether we actually have a constitution which advances the cause of freedom by restricting the power of govt, or whether the constitution is to be used as a document which IMPOSES TYRANNY at the hands of the elite liberal clique which simply say, “To Hell with the will of the people and to Hell with interpreting the constitution as a brake on govt power. We are the ones who know best, and you WILL follow whatever dictates we deem socially appropriate at the moment.”
Same here. For me voting yes on 8 was a First Amendment issue. I want to continue to tell people, especially my children and other young people, that I think homosexual behavior is a perversion. Gay marriage is a political tool for gays to use to become a constitutionally protected minority. I will not be able to "discriminate" against gays and if I say their behavior is unsanitary I will be charged with hate speech.
I have no religious affiliation but many of my friends are active in their churches. If gays become protected by anti-discrimination laws there will be churches sued for discrimination. Bigotry against Christians is already widely accepted. One of our country's founding principles was freedom of religion, not freedom of fornication style. The Newsweek turd burglars forgot to mention that pillar of the debate.
I agree, partially. There are two things the homosexuals have to overcome, moral approbation and biological reality.
Morality comes from religion, and I believe in it, so I have a moral objection to homosexuality. Unfortunately, the leaders of the popular culture have been working hard to break down and discredit all traditional morality. The homosexuals in the “arts” and entertainment have been right there helping this to happen because it ultimately benefits them to eliminate all traditional concepts of sexual morality.
Biological reality is another thing entirely. Sex and sexual attraction have an obvious and important biological purpose. Men and women have complementary parts for a reason. To pretend that the things homosexual do to imitate the procreative act are the same as, and deserve the same respect as, the procreative act is ridiculous.
“It’s a business call...”
That’s a pile of bovine dung. It is about more than just money. It’s about ideology. Homosexuals represent a small percentage of the population. Conservatives/Christians represent for more in potential revenue. If you don’t believe that, examine the top money making films within the last ten years. You would think that with all the media focus on gays, they would have a consistent and major share in the market, and yet they don’t.
This past election cycle should be another example of their ideological push/propaganda. A far more deeper intent is revealed in this document (please read carefully):
Communist Goals (1963)
Documention below
Congressional Record—Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
[From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [”]united force[”] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Concerning your bet, I wouldn’t be surprised if the layoffs come in the not too distant future, although, I must ask; if you state that it’s all about money, and you believe that Newsweek will begin laying off employees soon, aren’t you refuting your previous statement?
“It went gay about forty years ago.”
I’d like to see a headline that reads, ‘The Religious Case for Gay Marriage’ from forty years ago.
“I have NO PROBLEM with Newsweek giving the finger to traditional Americans. “
I do. I am sick of media bias.
I have NO PROBLEM with Newsweek going out of business otoh.
The last sentence of my post reflects my feelings - Newsweek's bias will sink them...
For some reason, the phrase “Newsweek Religion Reporter” makes me laugh. It seems like we could solve this whole argument alot more efficiently if we “re-interpreted” one Commandment in particular.
“It’s a business call - they’ve determined there are enough gays to support their magazine - and they don’t need Americans with traditional values. It’s their call.”
Well, for a magazine that’s all about the bottom line, they missed the memo in California concerning Pro. 8. I’ll say it again, they missed the memo in CALIFORNIA, you know, one of the Sodom and Gomorrah’s of our time (namely, Hollywood. No offense to those living in Bakersfield and rural CA), concerning Proposition 8; which was passed AGAIN.
It’s about ideology, not money.
Our laws and the English common law were based on the fact of the Judeo-Christian belief in God ie natural law.
Our Declaration of Independence referred to the fact that our Creator not a man made government gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Negating God and His laws turn all of us over to the whims of men.
Paschal’s wager is still alive and well.
Bares repeating:
“Our laws and the English common law were based on the fact of the Judeo-Christian belief in God ie natural law.”
“Our Declaration of Independence referred to the fact that our Creator not a man made government gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
“Negating God and His laws turn all of us over to the whims of men.”
And lest anyone forget, let us remember the very first signed document that became the basis for our form of government back in 1620 by 41 pilgrims (of 102 passengers) whom traveled to this country and built the Pilgrim Colony:
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT
“In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.”
Well said, victim soul
To say that our laws and system of government evolve from and are ultimately based on the natural law and that the Founders’ entire understanding of the natural order were based on Judeo-Christian concepts, is not to say that various ‘abominations’ listed in the Bible must be proscribed in the law. There are many beliefs which are rooted in Judeo-Christian/Biblical doctrine which are accepted and followed only be certain sects and rejected by others. At the same time, there are many ‘sins’ which are not addressed in the law, nor should there be.
I accept what the Bible says about homosexuality in my own mind and life, and no “government” or Court is going to tell me otherwise. The liberal judges who somehow claim the most basic of our societal documents REQUIRES the government (and thus all of us as a people) must accept homosexual marriage are simply imposing what amount to religious beliefs into the fabric of government. Only they are doing so purely from the secular side. Socialism, radical environmentalism, and a host of other beliefs are the religion of the Left. The Constitution is not a religious document and should not be used by either side as such.
I wonder why Newsweek does not even try to reinterpret the Holy Quran to make a case for same-sex “marriage”.
It's a business call - they've determined that there are enough gays to support their magazine - and that they don't need Americans with traditional values. It's their call. Anyone want to make bets on how long it'll be before we hear of major layoffs?In a few weeks. There are not enough sodomites to prop up the magazine.
It’s about ideology, not money.Ideology is not going to pay dividends, salaries, or the electric bill. When Newsweek goes under, I hope that some wealthy conservatives buy the magazine and hire the right people to write columns.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Not around here it ain't.
Do you happen to have some sort of an active link to that terrific posts from its source?
Gee. Who would have thunk it?
Newsweak - A dogmatically liberal magazine, removed completely from the truth, but arguing as if it were the authority.
Perversion is exalted. People of faith are slandered. We are told to be liberated by our sexual proclivities. New Yorkers want to go to bars with funny gay friends. It makes them cool and “with it.” Lisa Miller gets invited to the shee-shee cocktail parties. Tripe is exalted as art. Reverential works are considered fascist.
We will soon be like Canada where the anti-homosexuality sermon is litigated as hate speech.
Will you you join me in protesting in California, like they are doing in Washington state?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.