Newsweek's desperate case for gay marriage

On December 6, 2008, Newsweek magazine published a front-page article by Lisa Miller, entitled, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." Miller's article has created a firestorm of controversy in the religious community. And no wonder. Miller appears to have had more training from the political community in how to write spin than from Biblical scholarship in how to interpret scripture.

The so-called "case" that Miller builds for gay "marriage" is arrogant, ignorant and desperate.

The arrogant case

Miller arrogantly attacks scripture's clear meaning, referring to the bans on homosexuality in Leviticus as "throwaway lines in a peculiar text" and then has the audacity to say that Paul was "not talking about what we call homosexuality at all" in Romans 1:26-27. For the record, here is the text that she finds so unclear: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. 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." (Romans 1:26-27, ESV) As if this claim is not outrageous enough, Miller even claims that the Bible "neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Apparently she has not read Genesis 2:18-24, Proverbs 5:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12. Miller is so haughty as to pronounce from her throne on high that "no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes." Which brings us to another major problem with the article: ignorance.

The ignorant case

When Miller says that "no sensible modern person" wants a marriage like one in the Bible, it appears that she missed the Song of Solomon, and the rapturous married love that is celebrated in that wonderful Old Testament book. Actually, her quote is referring in particular to the polygamy of Old Testament heroes like Abraham, David and Solomon. What she fails to notice is that the Bible is brutally honest about its "heroes," showing them with all of their faults. In fact, scriptural narrative reports the problems that resulted from polygamy, including the jealousies of Abraham's wives, David's sexual sin, and how Solomon's wives drew his heart away from the Lord.

Miller refers to Jesus' encounter with the woman at the well in John 4 as a "message of acceptance." Jesus reveals himself to the woman at the well, "no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend." Again Miller misses the point. Jesus does not praise the woman, but rather points out to her that she is living in an immoral relationship, while at the same time showing her that he cares for her soul, in much the same way that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, but told her "go and sin no more" (John 8:11).

The desperate case

Finally, Miller is so desperate to try to justify homosexual marriage that she makes incredible stretches of logic and ridiculous claims. She repeats the popular claim of gay activists that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, simply because David spoke of their deep love for one another in 2 Samuel 1:26. It is amazing how anybody could read about David's lust for Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 and think that 2 Samuel 1:26 referred to homosexual love.
In dealing with Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, Miller's article makes the laughable claim that "recently progressive scholars have argued" that Romans 1 was really condemning the promiscuity of emperors Nero and Caligula.
In her final leap of logic, Miller lists the marriages of Moses to the foreigner Zipporah, of Queen Esther to a non-Jew, and of Mary and Joseph as examples of "marriages that defy convention" in the Bible. Desperate to find anything to back up her preconceived ideas, Miller reasons that since these marriages were unconventional, the Bible must therefore justify gay "marriage" as well.

All of this reminds me of something my father, a retired U.S. Army chaplain, told me about Bible interpretation. To illustrate that any two scriptures can be taken out of context and made to appear to say something that they do not really say, Dad gave these two verses: "Judas went and hanged himself…Go ye therefore and do likewise." Lisa Miller's Bible interpretation is just about as dangerous, and Newsweek magazine should be ashamed to print such dribble without even considering another viewpoint for balance.

Letter from a homosexual struggler

Below is a letter I received a while back from a friend of mine, a former minister of another denomination, who struggles with homosexuality. I met with him and befriended him during a crisis time in his life, when he lost his church because of his homosexual activity. He believes homosexuality is wrong, and wants to change, but it is hard. He now lives in another state, so we don't meet together any longer, but we still correspond from time to time.
He has given my permission to quote him. To protect his identity, I have waited a while to publish his letter, and I have edited some of the names and personal references. What he says needs to be heard by the conservative, evangelical church.
Here is part of his letter:

The priest at a local [name of denomination] church recently contacted me regarding a position at his parish. Shortly after leaving [name of church] Church, that parish had advertised for an administrator. I had applied since I needed work as well I figured that making sure the yard got cut, the toilets flushed, etc. wasn't out of the bounds of my abilities and the limitations of my"situation." Well, he and I talked back then, but the position was only a part-time thing and I needed full-time work, so it ended there. Lo and behold, he called recently and asked if I was interested in working in Christian ed for them. I explained to him my status and all and he still wanted to talk to me. He said he felt led to pursue this with me. He knew a little of what had happened, but, of course, not all the dirty details. Even after that second talk, he still wanted to pursue things. He and his leadership are willing to take the risk involved, and, even though this would only be a part-time position and requires me to continue to work full-time at [name of department store], I really would love to feel useful again. It's so difficult to go day by day feeling totally useless and insignificant, and walking around as an example of failure in ministry. I would be working on a consultant basis and not as a regular employee as another way to distance the parish from any negative reactions as I'm sure the grapevine will begin its work once it filters out.

I know that on several levels you might think this a bad idea, bad for the church as a risk, bad for me as someone who is still so wounded and fragile, bad for me someone so much more conservative (at least in belief if not in practice) from this priest, etc. I am taking all that in account, but both my counselor in [name of city] and my ex-wife [name] have been very positive about the way this is structured and all as a means of bringing me back to the land of the living.

One thing in this has been hard to swallow in this however. It has been the "liberals" and gays that have been the most practically helpful to me in [name of city].
It was a gay business owner who first gave me a job and a place to live, another gay [name of business] is providing me a place to live now, the manager of [name of department store], which employs some openly gay managers and salesmen, has been just great about my schedule and all, and it's a pro-gay priest who is giving me a chance at ministry again. What kind of message does that send, Bob?

He asks a good question, doesn't he? If we are going to say that homosexuality is a sin, are we willing to help the sinner change? Or will he find that the only person who really cares about him are those who consider homosexuality a normal lifestyle?

Barack Obama quotes the Bible (sort of)

Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) quoted the Bible in Ohio yesterday. Unfortunately, his references were sloppy, slippery-slope distortions of God's Word.
According to CNSNews.com, Sen. Obama was at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, when he was asked about homosexual marriage. His reply: "I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
Say what?
It is not clear what he meant by the reference to the Sermon on the Mount, since Jesus' sermon, recorded in Matthew 5-7, never mentions homosexuality. Perhaps Obama was referring to not judging others (Matthew 7:1) or the Golden Rule, doing to others as we would have them do to us (Matthew 7:12). The only thing that is clear is that there are no clear references to homosexual marriage in the Sermon on the Mount, although Jesus does teach faithfulness in heterosexual marriage (Matthew 5:27-32).
As for the "obscure passage in Romans," the Illinois Senator was obviously referring to Romans 1:24-27. Hardly an obscure passage, the apostle Paul begins his greatest theological treatise by stating that men are "without excuse" in their sin, and illustrates this with the sin of homosexuality, which the apostle describes as degraded, unnatural, shameless and a perversion.
Thus Senator Obama dismisses a clear passage of scripture as "obscure", and then makes his own obscure reference to another passage. If anything is "obscure," it is Senator Obama's ability to interpret God's Word.

Christ Church of Savannah leaves Episcopal Church

The leadership, called the "vestry," of Christ Church, the Mother church of Georgia, has voted to leave the Episcopal Church and put itself under the authority of a bishop in Virginia who is under a conservative bishop in Uganda, Africa.
Church leaders defended their decision on their website, saying that they are not leaving the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church has left them by denying the authority of scripture. While not directly mentioning the issue of the ordination of homosexual bishops, the liberal rejection of Biblical sexual morality is a major factor in Christ Church's decision. This is a local result of an international split, as the Anglican worldwide communion has called on the Episcopal Church in America to discontinue ordaining gay bishops, but the Episcopal Church has not agreed to make such a pledge.
The Episcopal Church will probably take Christ Church to court and try to seize their property. Unlike Baptist churches, which are owned by the local congregation, the denomination generally owns the property of local Episcopal churches. Bishop Henry I. Louttit issued a statement asserting the denomination's claim to the church's property.
"Christ Church is and will remain a parish of the Episcopal Church in this diocese and will continue to occupy its present facilities," he said.
Who will win a court case? Christ Church points out that they were in existence 50 years before there was an Episcopal denomination. The congregation was founded in 1733 when Oglethorpe founded the new colony of Georgia, thus making Christ Church the oldest congregation in Georgia. They feel that since the vestry of the church had possession of the property long before there was an Episcopal Church in America, they have strong legal reason to keep control of their local church. "We are confident of our ownership of the property," said the pastor, known as "rector," Rev. Marc Robertson.
See an article in the Savannah Morning News that discusses the legal case for and against Christ Church keeping ownership of their building.
This brave congregation needs the prayers of other Christians as they seek to be faithful to their Christian heritage, no matter what may happen in their future.

UPDATE: The bishop says they will take Christ Church to court.

What if your baby was gay?

Dr. Albert Mohler caused a stir recently with a blog entry, "What if your baby was gay?" I read the whole article and thought it was pretty good. You can read it here, but read the whole thing. Don't stop midway through the article, or you may misunderstand. He discusses how a Christian should respond if scientist were able to prove that there is a genetic tendency toward homosexuality. Dr. Mohler's analysis is consistently pro-life, pro-heterosexual, yet loving to the value of all people. Very thought-provoking article.