Posted on 12/09/2008 5:38:02 PM PST by SeekAndFind
RESPONDING TO NEWSWEEK's DISTORTIONS OF THE BIBLE REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
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true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties."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.
It’s not “same sex marriage” or “gay marriage” . . . it’s HOMOSEXUAL marriage . . . if they’re so damn proud of being homosexuals, then why sugar coat it.
The LAST thing that homosexuals want to do is get married . . . if they DID want to get married, they’d change their disgusting life style, get emotional help, and have normal relations with someone of the opposite sex.
This whole “marriage” thing is nothing more than an attempt to stick their finger in the eye of heterosexual marriage to trash and distort it to their level of perversion. They’re free right now to set up any kind of contract to take care of anyone they want to for the rest of one’s life . . . but, no, they have to $hit all over one of the last vestiges of a normal family life. Disgusting!
This article is actually a response to Newsweek’s “interpretation” of the Bible which they claim supports gay marriage.
The original article is here ( written by Lisa Miller) :
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
Newsweek? Sorry, I don’t read gossip magazines and therefore all the better for it.
And Newsweek’s advice is taken so seriously that its circulation is dropping like the proverbial (fill in your own object).
Remeber when news magazines reported news?
Christians who study the bible and pray for illumination have an understanding of Christianity.
Although there are some variations, this understanding seems to cut across denominational lines.
And it never seems to square with what non-Christians, or those who pay only lip service to Christianity, say the Bible is saying.
Just my observation.
w.t.f.i.newsweek?
They arrive at conclusion #1 by asserting a right to interpret Scripture independently of what Church Fathers and Councils have taught through the centuries (this they reject as mere "tradition") --- a fairly typical Protestant notion; and they arrive at conclusion #2 by saying sola fide--- faith only, relying on God's superabundant clemency, and independent of "works" and personal "righeousness.".
Mouse around to "Gay Christian" websites like this one, and you will see a host of arguments in favor of the moral OKness of gay relationships, many of them based on the assertion that such Greek NT words as arsenokoitai and malakoi do not refer to all man/man and woman/woman sex, and therefore not all man/man and woman/woman sex is prohibited.
Before anybody jumps up, arms waving, to tell me that this is all balderdash, let me say I know very well that it's balderdash because the correct interpretation of Scripture is triply fortified by (1)Tradition (the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church) and (2) Natural Law, as interpreted by (3) the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
I esteem the Rev. Albert Moller as highly intelligent and very faithful. but I don't see how he can reach the firm conclusion he does, or persuade others, on the basis of Scripture alone without reference to Tradition and Natural Law.
I have never seen anybody (including the esteemed Moller) refute the gay theology people convincingly on the basis of Scripture alone.
I would love to be proved wrong about this. Can anybody steer me to a website, say, where the gay exegetes are refuted point by point, and without reliance on resources other than the Bible itself?
GetReligion has a wonderful response to the original article and to Newsweek editor’s defense of it.
So - how do they interpret the following scriptures?
Romans 1:24-27
1 Corinthian 6:9&10
(1Co 6:9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (sodomites),
(1Co 6:10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(1Co 6:11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
(1Co 6:12) All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
(1Co 6:13) Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
(1Co 6:14) And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
(1Co 6:15) Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
(1Co 6:16) What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
(1Co 6:17) But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
(1Co 6:18) Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
(1Co 6:19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
(1Co 6:20) For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
The above passages when read in faith through Christ are used by God the Holy Ghost to sanctify our spirit, and our mind and soul. If one is on the defensive or feels guilty of sin, then they first need to place faith in God through Christ and confess all sins, known and unknown to Him so that they might study Scripture through faith in Him.
Some people might be so scarred in some sins that they arrogantly ignore when they are told point blank they are unrighteous. Some are so hardened in their hearts, they will even attempt to rewrite Scripture in order to become more righteous in their own eyes.
If the homosexual can first come to God on His grounds rather than the homosexual’s, then the first hurdle will be cleared. For some, it might be easier to understanding the meanings of the Scripture by focusing on a vice they might not be so scarred in thinking or doing and grasp the Word through faith in Christ. As the Holy Spirit works in their spirit, mind, and hearts, they have an opportunity to repair the scars of their past thinking by His work in them.
It is important to note that the body is the temple of God the Holy Spirit, who provides a temple for the indwelling of the Son. There is a parallel in the OT Tabernacle and Holy Temple, where the body is comparable to the Tabernacle, and the Shekinah Glory was the indwelling of Christ inside the Holy of Holies. That indwelling was manifest by the cloud and pillar of fire, but the indwelling was invisible to those outside the Tabernacle.
Only those qualified and holy could enter the temple without repercussion. Likewise, the body is a temple for the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit. He provides a dwelling place for the Shekinah Glory or the Son. He knows those who are His. He in us and us in faith in Him.
Those who practice fornication simply are defiling the temple. So those who seek to be in faith in Him, shall walk in fellowship with Him, avoiding anything that defiles what He has provided for our relationship with Him.
Too many people associate sexual immorality in a legalistic sense as being the problem. It is also a problem of immorality, but it is much more than that.
It’s interesting to note that even in early neurological mapping studies by Custance and Penfield, those areas of the brain which were identified with sexual immorality also had physical proclivities towards immoral positions of physical violence. Although perhaps not fully documented in a one to one relationship, there are many associations in studies of physical bodies on sexual immorality with abnormal thinking in other areas of social interaction. In more fundamental times, homosexuality was simply identified as aberrant abnormal behavior.
In many aspects there are parallel abnormalities associated with fornication, adultery and alcoholism.
In other ways there are similar condemnations against murderers, liars, and the covetous. (Rev 22:15)
Many homosexuals have found solace by associating with those who share their own desires. Such is the case also with liars and extortioners, murderers, and the covetous, but none provide holiness, nor any sound mechanism of returning to God on His terms.
Homosexuals will attempt to counterfeit good works as a substitute for holiness, in the same way a Mafia criminal might perform many good works for the Church as a substitute for returning to God by faith in Christ alone. Neither are sufficient for forgiveness of sin.
Good-bye you filthy, amoral bumwad. Don't forget to turn out the lights.
The folly of abandoning the literal interpretation of scripture first in order to build an unholy so-called "heavenly" interpretation in place of it to support one's preheld notions ...
I agree!!!!!! It is God’s Word; the Holy Scriptures that corrects us and cleans us in thought, spirit and deed:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine; for reproof; for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than a two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)
This is just speculation, but it is possible that Paul was married at one time before the Damascus Road. I don’t think that a respectable Pharisee like Saul could get away with being unmarried and stay in the good graces of the Sanhedrin. Also, everyone got married, and married very early in life back then. What might have happened to his wife and any possible children who can say. Perhaps when Saul became a follower of Jesus, they would not believe and the marriage was ended since a Pharisee becoming a Christian would have been a bad thing for them, leading to becoming an outcast and being persecuted. Paul did give up everything for Jesus, and a wife and family could possibly have been one of those things he had to give up.
Note to reporters: if you intend to honestly portray a traditional Jewish perspective, not a new age liberal perspective that some Jew holds, talk to an Orthodox rabbi. You'll find few who'll tolerate gay marriage, and none who would accept it amongst Jews.
A key part of this article: not only is it the vast majority...worldwide, but it's the vast majority history-wide.
Homosexuality has never been acceptable in all of Christian history and before that in all of Jewish history. It has always been a death-dealing behavior, killing its practioners, and God has rightly called it sinful/deadly.
I remember the first "theologizing" events regarding homosexuality by ultra-liberal theologians. They've been in the past 2 decades, they've all been from extremely tiny slices of the western church, and they've all been by those with the agenda to "create" a "biblical" argument to support their conclusion, and not to find what the truth of the bible is.
We can be certain, however, that the radical, anti-God media will attempt to make this unthoughtful theological approach out to be the norm.
Then she needs to go back to Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (and) 1:28 - God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth......"
Then Genesis 2:22-24.
Romans 1:27 - Men abandoned natural relations with woman and were inflamed with lust for one another. (keeping in mind that Paul was addressing Romans in his letter. It is a historical fact that Rome had a huge community of homosexuals)
My opinion is that even without the above scriptures, what they do is not natural because life cannot be created without a male sperm and a female egg. I'd also like to point out that that in every homosexual relationship that I've observed, one person acts female and the other acts male. Which tells me that no matter what their mouths say, in their minds they know the truth.
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.