(Read the whole Newsweek cover article first here please).
Quoting chapter and verse, [Richard] Land argued that the Bible lays out a very clear prescription for opposite-sex marriage, starting with the passage in Genesis where God pairs Adam and Eve and proceeding through Ephesians, in the New Testament, when the apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church.
“How can you address the subject of marriage from a religious perspective and utterly ignore the two foundational texts that deal with marriage: Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5?” Land asked. “If a student turned a paper in to me on a religious argument for or against gay marriage and neglected to reference the two foundational texts, I would give them a pretty poor grade based on that alone.”
In addition to contesting Newsweek’s specific scriptural arguments, some social conservatives took issue with the basic premise of the magazine’s story: that conservative opposition to same-sex marriage is based on specific biblical instructions.
“I see it as an attempt to caricature and reduce to a cartoon the social conservative belief in the efficacy of traditional marriage, and try to reduce it to some formulaic, scriptural literalism,” said Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition. “There’s more of a practical, sociological foundation for why we seek to affirm marriage as an institution than I think is generally understood by those who want to legalize same-sex marriage.”
We see the result of a Romans 1:18-32-type rebellion process that has overtake most of our culture…(except for the most biblical orthodox and catholic of Christians) separation of sex from marriage and marriage from responsibility of bearing and rearing children in love and truth, in the nurture, knowledge, wisdom, goodness and admonition of God, following the desires of our own souls and bodies leads to adultery, serial divorce, invitro fertilization, unwed parents, multiple partners, same-sex acts, pedophilia, substance and sexual addictions, confused identities and minds, and finally to journalism such as this.
These are the fruits of rebellion, the disregard for life, one’s own and others, irreverence, disrespect for God’s Word, for God as THE ONE TRUE GOD, as Lord and King…
God in His Word defines Himself as The only One Who has the right to show us The Way Who IS the Way(Love), The Truth, and The Life.
Departure from The God of Truth, Love and Life, freedom, peace and joy is the path of darkness, disease, conflict, confusion, chaos, death.
Correction: God in His Word defines Himself as The only One Who has the right to show us The Way – HE IS the Way(Love), The Truth, and The Life.
Well, while I agree with GA/FL above, I myself would point to a couple other aspects of the classic passage from Romans 1 as being particularly pertinent to this article. First, while Paul in Romans 1:18-32 is indeed using homosexual behavior as a prime illustration of human, and especially Gentile, rebellion against God as the Creator of the whole created order, I think Lisa Miller’s pathetically weak article illustrates the mystery of how God can “hand us over” or “give us up” into the power of our sins and delusions.
Twice in that key text, Paul says it. “God gave them up to degrading passions…” (Rom. 1:26). And later, “…God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done” (Rom. 1:28). Here we are brought face to face with the disturbing mystery that God can sovereignly choose to allow us to become utterly captive to the lies we tell ourselves, and others. And to make sense out of that, I tend to think that the Lord acts as a good parent in such cases, allowing us to suffer the natural consequences of our foolish choices and our wilfull disobedience.
Second, I see Ms. Miller’s article as illustrating the last line of Romans 1, where Paul points to the scandalous fact that when we engage in rebelling against his ways and the created order itself, we can easily end up not only doing so covertly, but going so far as to “applaud” overtly those who do the same things (Rom. 1:32).
Next, please note that the article contains factual errors. Now journalists are allowed to express their opinions of course, but they are supposed to treat the facts as sacred and not distort them in the process. And one clear factual error in this sloppy article is Ms. Miller’s claim that the Bible never so much as even mentions lesbianism. Well, that’s ALMOST true, I must admit, but the single glaring exception is enough to falsify her claim.
That is, in this same text from Romans 1, Paul speaks explicitly of lesbianism in verse 26, “Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural…” It is indeed interesting and significant that the Scriptures are much more pre-occupied with male homosexual behavior than its female counterpart, but the point is that this Newsweek article got the facts wrong. And that’s symptomatic of the carelessness with which the whole article was done. It’s propaganda, not journalism.
Much more could be said along the same lines. Lisa Miller never bothers to cite a single conservative scholar who has written in support of the view she opposes. She ignores such NT heavyweights as Presbyterian seminary professors Robert Gagnon and Marion Soards, Methodist prof Richard Hays at Duke, or Lutheran NT expert Karl Donfried. In other words, there was not even an attempt at being fair and objective here.
But that just reflects the sad state of this public debate. The liberals keep asking everyone else to patiently “listen” to them. But the whole process is totally one-sided. They don’t listen to us, since they imagine they already know the conservative viewpoint. Alas, this article shows that the team at Newsweek doesn’t understand the rich and profound biblical teaching about marriage at all.
David Handy+
See today New York Times, on the new homosexual activism and its temper, and the news report on ssm before the Iowa court. And you can see the writer’s bias in the article. The press in general, and Newsweek and Time, are not only way over on the left, but they are active nurturers of this agenda, and this means ignoring the other side, since they know, if THEY ignore it and the rest of thr press ignores it, the public will believe exactly what it reads and hears. Tell me why I should not despair. Larry
God is God, Larry. The NYT is… an old gray dying lady.
Very sad to me that the managing editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, is a Sewanee graduate and last year was given an honorary degree. And he, also, writes a piece defending Ms Miller’s poor writing and scholarship. Very sad, indeed!
[i] Comment in poor taste deleted by elf. [/i]
Elves, why are Plinix’ comments allowed to remain?
And Plinix do try to avoid terms like “rear guard action” when discussing same sex marriage.
plinx,
SSM is a novel indulgence of progressivist and elite whites that is actually taken advantage of by very few gays, and mostly older ones at that. Both groups are demographically doomed to marginal status. The government-issued piece of paper will not change much other than to bump up health insurance premiums for everybody. As the credibility of the secular State erodes, it will continue to issue certificates of “validation” and other baubles to its various interest groups, like Hitler handing out field marshal batons as his Reich crumbled. Frankly, I’m getting to the point where there seem to be much bigger fish to fry than whether two men playing house get a piece of paper from the courthouse clerk.
Comment that struck too close to home deleted by elf.
There is (one can hope) a silver lining in all this. The Newsweek piece is so horribly written that it illustrates the intelluctual poverty of those supporting ssm. That may have an effect that its publishers did not intend.
I speak from experience. My own journey towards political conservatism began when I saw the left’s ridiculous response to a political event (the Falklands War). My views as a legal/judicial conservative were awakened when I actually read iconic opinions of activists courts (such as Roe v. Wade). My evolution toward a more traditional understanding of issues of faith and morals started when I read Spong, and a book on the bible called “The Good Book” (by the University Chaplain at Harvard). In each case, the basis for the liberal or activist or re-appraising position (as applicable) proved itself so weak that I was persuaded that the other side might have the better argument.
Sometimes light = disinfectant.
Why is this surprising? Tis the seaon for Newsweek to have an antichristian issue. Will this one replace the annual “What Really Happened at Christmas?” article, the one using all the most grotesque art they can find, quoting scholars like John Spong? Old news.
On the other hand, there are those celebrating the Newsweek feature for highlighting for the American secular public the fact that there ARE Christians who read the Bible too faithfully to take it literally and that there actually might be a church they could attend that would preach the Good News of the Jeus of Nazareth rather than the Narrow News of the Jesus of Judgement.
I’ve gotten several emails from folks who have renewed or newly subscribed to Newsweek because of this feature … so from my side of the aisle it’s all good!
Bad exegesis when they bother with exegesis! That’s the ticket. Of course, they got the idea from a certain production that did not wow! the Anglican Communion produced as rationale for aberrancy in the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC.
The best non sequiter in the article is the disconnect between children and what goes on in the bedroom. No surprise there. No children result from homosexual realtionships, ever. Just don’t tell
NEWSWEEK.
e “gotten several emails from folks who have renewed or newly subscribed to Newsweek because of this feature … so from my side of the aisle it’s all good!”
Exactly, Susan, this is what we’re worried about. Bad writing that is treated as knowledge loses its faults as those who say they have learned, turn falsity into truth when they say, “Well, if I know it, it must be so.” Reading the Newsweek piece at least tells me why there is so much dark matter in the universe. Larry
So, per Susan Russell, shoddy and dishonest journalism is ok if it serves the cause. It’s ok to caricature other people’s positions and ridicule them not for what they believe, but what you say they believe. It’s ok to disregard facts that don’t meet your needs. It’s ok to bypass whole traditions of biblical interpretation in favor of cheap, cute one-liners.
Susan Russell and her ilk represent a kind of fundamentalism that should concern reasonable people.
They even have their own Five Fundamentals:
1.) God made me gay and therefore gay is a natural human attribute, and not disordered.
2.) Sexual activity is a right and necessary for a healthy life. God does give some a special gift for celibacy, but I certainly don’t have that gift.
3.) Marriage to anyone I choose is a fundamental human right and if I can’t have it, you are relegating me to second-class citizenship!
4.) Religious fundamentalism is the most destructive force in the world. Christianity, except when “reformed” to accept 1 through 3 above, is an oppressive regime responsible for everything bad in the 2000 years.
5.) Disagreement on any of these tenets is a psychological sickness called homophobia! Agree with me or you are sick.
Challenging these can even cost you your job.
The Newsweek piece is full of inaccuracies and there is nothing new there. It trots out the same justifications for homosex that have been around for 40+ years. For more, see this:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/12/newsweek-authority-on-bible.html
After I read the article and the editor’s justification for the article I called Newsweek and cancelled my subscription. Meacham essentially told his magazine’s orthodox readers to quit reading if they didn’t agree with their editorial stance. I took his advice.
Newsweek’s Jon Meacham draws fire from NRO’s Mark Hemingway in “Newsweek Comes Out of the Closet . . . as a magazine with a political agenda” at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNjODViYTllYjJmNzBhNDJlZjAzNDY2OTU0ZmU1YWE=. Notes Hemingway, [blockquote]According to a story in Folio yesterday, “Sources say that the magazine is considering slashing up to 1.6 million copies from Newsweek’s current rate base of 2.6 million, which would put the magazine’s rate base at 1 million. Newsweek declined to comment.â€
Odd that Newsweek would have so much to say about the inherent correctness of gay marriage this week — opposing views be damned — but nothing to say about their rapidly diminishing circulation. Perhaps they don’t want to consider that these two developments might be related. [/blockquote]
I read this thing again. It is blatant propaganda, scarcely disguised.
Its dishonesty has already been commented on sufficiently.
What is much more important, as to truth content and significance, are the later articles on science and technology, stem cell use and life- extension. This matter is essential reading.
I don’t mean that we can ignore the ssm demagoguery. What Newsweek has done is make lying an effective substitute for truth, and many who read will believe exactly what they are told. Propaganda is a dreadful evil precisely because, if it is well done (as propaganda) it is convincing. I wish #8 were right, but I doubt that there are many readers who will do any analysis at all. Larry
I find it interesting to read on the thread about +Chane’s letter that he wrote it because he is somehow afraid of ACNA. It looks to me like the protests here come from those afraid that Newsweek is telling the truth. The “bad writing,” shoddy journalism, poor exegesis, cancel my subscription crowd perhaps doth protest too much.
But these protests are a symptom of a common theme in orthodox Christianity – the apologetic. Christianity as seen by the orthodox has been on the run since at least the dawn of the age of reason. When people learned to think for themselves, orthodox Christianity had to create entire fields of “academia” devoted to disproving common sense and reason. The “third leg” of the Anglican “stool” has threatened traditionalists since its inception with the Cambridge Platonists. The problem is that they do the opposite of rational inquiry in that they start with their conclusion and work tirelessly backwards to support it. Case in point – same-sex marriage can’t be right, so let’s find what we can to support our argument. When those arguments fall short, we become inundated with 1500 “scholarly” books on the meaning of an ancient Hebrew word or phrase, all proclaiming God’s wrathful “love.”
Above we’re told: And to make sense out of that, I tend to think that the Lord acts as a good parent in such cases, allowing us to suffer the natural consequences of our foolish choices and our wilfull disobedience.
The most irrational, unreasoned view of the traditionalist/orthodox Christian worldview is to see their God as a parent figure.
The main points of the article stand unchallenged
-The Scriptures offer little if anything as a role model for marriage
-Many Christians randomly choose to follow certain laws of the moral code of Scripture while justifying the breaking of others
-Many Christians rail on about same sex relationships yet accept serial heterosexual monogamy as Scripturally sound
Brian, The biblical worldview and the worldview of Western Christians may not always align, but the Church has a responsbility to align its doctrine and order with the Reality presented in Scripture.
Christians tend to turn God into a parent figure but this is not the biblical worldview.
Marriage is a social and political institution throughout the Bible. Because of that, there is no single role model. The 2 wives of Afro-Asiatic chiefs is an example of that. That said, the prophets make it clear that the marriage bed (of one man and his wife) is to be undefiled.
“Many Christians randomly choose to follow certain laws of the moral code of Scripture while justifying the breaking of others.” And the biblical worldview tells us that we are all sinful and we all must repent.
-Many Christians rail on about same sex relationships yet accept serial heterosexual monogamy as Scripturally sound. The biblical worldview regards homosex asgrossly disordered, verging even on the occult. Western Christians have indeed accomodated both homosex and divorce.
Brian from T19,
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you have it backwards. It’s the proponents of the “gay is OK” delusion who are being irrational here. The traditional and biblical view of marriage as inherently a complementary union of a man and a woman is not only supported by the clear and consistent teaching of both Scripture and Tradition, but it’s overwhelming supported by sound reason as well. And, on the contrary, the promoters of the false notion that homosexual behavior is simply a morally neutral variant of sexuality for a certain minority of people is totally without any reasonable basis. It has no valid scientific verification whatsoever.
Thoughout the ages, God has raised up great thinkers and apologists who could outdebate their heretical or pagan opponents: consider Orgen versus Celsus; Athanasius versus Arius; Augustine vs. the Manicheans; Aquinas vs. the Muslims; and not least, to give honor to one of our greatest Anglican theologians, think of Bishop Joseph Butler who successfully refuted the Deists of his day. Or consider C. S. Lewis who took on all comers at Oxford’s famous debate forum and routinely triumphed easily over all his skeptical, cyncial opponents.
You think I doth protest too much?? Well, you can go on thinking that, if you like. But I can honestly say, I have no fear whatsoever of the opposing side in this dispute. The case against the advocates of the “gay is OK” delusion is a slam dunk. As Lisa Miller’s article shows all too plainly, the attempt to justify homosexual behavior is doomed because the evidence from Scripture, Tradition, AND REASON is all overwhelming opposed to this innovation. The case for legitimizing homosexual behavior is in fact exceptionally weak.
David Handy+
Brian’s argument, like Newsweek’s, makes a fundamental apples-and-oranges error. The past opened to us in scripture is normative. It was common for a man to have multiple wives although we see little of this in the gospels. By normative here I mean the pairing of a man and a woman. But homosexuality is radically abnormal, and nothing will make it otherwise. I have remarked on this often before, that the bell curve is what it is because it simply reflects the real world, not the ACLU or Brian or Larry. He has therefore compared that which is universally normative with that which is universally abnormal, treating them as if they were equalities. This isn’t true, won’t be true, and cannot be made to be otherwise. The liberal agenda may force homosexuality on America by virtue of liberal courts and the widespread hunger to participate in social novelty, to add “the cutting edge” to one’s social union card, but this still won’t change the curve: Normal will remain what is always has been, and homosexuality and its wishes will remain at the extreme distance from this reality. Larry
From #10, Mtr Russell+: “On the other hand, there are those celebrating … that there actually might be a church they could attend that would preach the Good News of the Jeus of Nazareth rather than the Narrow News of the Jesus of Judgement.”
Certainly one would hope this to be hyperbole. But if not, what does Mtr Russell think when she says that portion of the creed ” … He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.” This is the last sentence about the Jesus portion of the Trinitarian Nicene Creed. There is good news, no doubt. But that good news of Christ’s redemption only comes after repentance. If our priests do not teach this (and Mtr Russell does not /- in fact, her Good Friday “sermons” call the atonement depraved and sociopathic thinking), then how do they call themselves “Christians?” They (and she) are simply saying that Jesus is our buddy and we can do anything we want to, call it anything we want to, and He will support us in whatever we want, like our best friend, who is loyal to us whether we are right or wrong. That’s an empty life and not one the Lord calls us to lead. If she believes and is teaching that as the life to which God calls us, then she needs to be inhibited and deposed, because she is leading her flock into the ways of sin and away from God. She is leading her parish into hedonism and narcissism and calling it Jesus’ way. But, alas, it is the secular blasphemy of our time, as shown quite openly by the Newsweek article and by Jon Mecham’s defense of it and by Mtr Russell’s support of it. I pray for the Lord’s mercy on all of us.
#21 Larry says:
Larry, the problem with your oft-repeated “bell curve” argument is that it equates what is normal with what is normative.
By your argument, being a genius is “abnormal” — geniuses live far out on the end of the bell curve — and genius should therefore be prohibited. Same thing with extraordinary talent in music, or dance, or sculpture, or indeed anything else; all are radically abnormal, if you define “normal” by statistical distribution.
In fact, normal and normative have the same source. And since you mention it, genius is abnormal, of course. But the conclusion
YOU draw is not mine, that genius is therefore to be “prohibited.” (I must say though that suggesting that a genetic trait be prohibited is sort of funny.) I said nothing about prohibition. I simply pointed out that Brian’s argument is false, for he is comparing two things which are fundamentally different – and therefore cannot be compared. Was Rembrandt abnormal, or Chopin? Of course. Since the answers here are obvious, where do you challenge me with stating a matter incorrectly?
Homosexuality is radically abnormal. Heterosexuality is normative.
Does this, by definition, mean that heterosexuality is good? Obviously not. Gender distinctions are not value judgments.
Is the radically abnormal subject to a value judgment arising out of its radical abnormality? Of course. In those cases where the normative establishes the standard of value, then the radically abnormal become a serious debit. We may take hearing voices. Many (including myself) have thought they have heard a voice when none was in fact present. And this, in point of fact, is normal. It is harmless, and this sets a standard. But when someone hears voices which actually use words to direct action, especially destructive action, then this is clearly bad, and it is also radically abnormal, since very few people hallucinate to this degree. Again, if a woman thinks herself too fat, and undertakes to diet for the sake of health, this is normal. If she starves herself obsessively, thinking that this is making herself more beautiful when this is patently false, then this is radically abnormal, even in this day and age, and is uniformly regarded as bad and undesirable. Does this make such a woman a bad person? Not on these grounds alone. The judgment is of her behavior, not her personal worth.
Can the radically abnormal can be seen as a good? Only if his genius shows itself in work worthy of merit. In this case, as in all other cases of “genius,” it is the product thereof, not the genetic set, that is being judged. I don’t know anyone who regards being a genius as a good-in-itself, worthy of praise. Einstein is an obvious case.
Yur couonter argument simply has no legs to stand on. Larry
Gay activists retell history as if science has definitely proven that homosexuality is an “identity†associated with a “gay geneâ€. Speculation that a “gay gene” might exist began with a study done in 1993 by researcher Dean Hamer, PhD. That study linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to male sexual orientation. Geneticists doubt the validity of Hamer’s report since after 6 years of trying to replicate and verify Hamer’s findings, most researchers have concluded that there is no gay gene. (http://www.narth.com/docs/fading.html)
Hamer himself is a gay man. Interestingly, he claims that science remains “just as clueless” as ever about the environmental influences on homosexuality. Gay activists almost always insist that “I was born that way,” and “How I became gay doesn’t matter.”
Alice, thanks for your solid information!
Nevertheless, Alice, statistics favor the view that omosexuality is genetic, even if a specific gene has not been found. For example, a family that has one homosexual child is statistically more likely to have another. I have forgotten now what the probability is; it is a long time since I have worried about such data. Such a correlation strongly suggest – but does not prove – a genetic cause. Moreover, homosexual propensities are often manifested very early, and no social cause has ever been found for them. Now, there may not BE a set of genes for homosexuality. The defect may be the environment in the womb,e.g., chemical imbalances that affect hormonal development.
In a very real sense, it makes little difference. What is at stake is behavior. Defective genes have made me very nearsighted, but this is no excuse if I drive a car without glasses – with the expected result. Larry