While in the midst of my parsed essay Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality another interesting development in this arena has taken place.
New Testament MarriageTopical FallaciesHyper-Pseudo-Inclusiveness
Concluding Musings
Lisa Miller, of Newsweek, wrote an article entitled, “Our Mutual Joy” which is about gay marriage. The subtitle of the article reads thusly, “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”
Sadly, Lisa Miller’s contribution to the issues of gay marriage and the Bible are marred by a stunning lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents. It is so very sad that Newsweek, a very popular magazine, has taken it upon itself to publish and popularize misinformation-shocking, I’m sure. In this essay I will not engage in politics or on the specific issue of gay marriage but will seek to correct the very many errors made by Lisa Miller with regards to the Bible itself. I will also employ ellipses points in order to correlate relevant parts of her article which she has strewn about.
Her article is peppered, as may unfortunately be expected, with arguments from ridicule and embarrassment, non-sequiturs, misinterpretations, misapplications, lack of historical context, and includes the obligatory self-serving quotation of pro-gay-marriage bible scholars. Also, she does not provide citation and so the biblically endorsed skepticism which calls us to double check what is being taught about the Bible (Acts 17:11) is made more difficult for those less familiar with the Bible but who do not want to merely take Lisa Miller’s word for what it states.
Poly and Mono – Marriages
Lisa Miller begins thusly:
“Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists_The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah.”
Lisa Miller’s primary error is that she does not consider, or does not know or does not understand, what the Old Testament (hereinafter OT) law is in and of itself and she does not consider, or does not recognize or does not know, that the Bible includes prescriptions and descriptions: prescriptions amount to “Do this” while descriptions amount to “This is what people are doing.”
The Biblical basis for marriage is Adam (one man) and Eve (one woman), we will elucidate this below. Yet, the Jews/Israelites were to live under the Torah, the Law. Now, watch for the historical context: the law was given after Abraham, after Jacob and after Moses was already married to Zipporah. As for David, Solomon and other kings, it was specifically commanded to kings that they not do that (Deuteronomy 17:17). The fact that they were polygamists does not mean that it was approved by God. In fact, whenever the Bible actually described the relationships within those marriages, they are nothing but trouble; be it Sarai and Hagar, Samuel’s mother and co-wives, etc.”So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes_Sarai dealt harshly with her” (Genesis 16:4, 6).
Elkanah had two wives; Hannah and Peninnah. Of Hannah, Samuel’s mother, it was said that Peninnah “provoked her severely, to make her miserable_she provoked her; therefore she wept and did not eat” (1st Samuel 1:6-7).
Another of Lisa Miller’s major errors is that she does not consider that the OT laws were agreed to by a particular people, living in a particular time, a particular place, and in a particular culture. By this I do not mean what she refers to as “the Bible is a living document” which is a catch phrase meant to imply “Get your scissors out.” This means that the ritual and cultural-life laws were particular to the Israelites while the moral premises are more widely applicable.
New Testament Marriage
Lisa Miller further notes,
“The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better_Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament.
We will consider her statements about the New Testament (hereinafter NT) after noting a perfect example of Ozzie and Harriet in the form of Priscilla and Aquila. This couple (note “couple” meaning “two”) moved from Italy “because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome” (Acts 18:2) they, as a married couple, then traveled to Syria with the Paul (Acts 18:18) and ended up in Ephesus (Acts 18:19). They are found befriending Apollos whom they taught together, “Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Paul writes, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3 and again in 2nd Timothy 4:19).
As for the NT in general, Lisa Miller wrote:
“Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family_ The biblical Jesus was-in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise-emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).”
That Jesus was single says nothing about marriage besides that He chose to not partake. The statement about there being no marriage in heaven and that Jesus never mentions homosexuality is a clue as to Lisa Miller’s apparent lack of basic biblical knowledge. I am not besmirching her for not firmly grasping theological minutia but for not reading a few verses in a row in order to understand what the text is telling her instead of her forcing the text to state what she wants to see in it (this is basic hermeneutics: exegesis vs. eisegesis/isogesis).
The very moment that a question relating to marriage was asked of Jesus He makes one statement that is very relevant to Lisa Miller’s mishandling of the Bible and demonstrates the premise of marriage:
“Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures_” (Mark 12:24).
“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so_’” (Matthew 19:3-8 also see Mark 10:4-9).
Thus, when Lisa Miller writes “the Bible and Jesus_neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.” She is mistaken on both counts; Jesus premises marriage upon that which the Bible as a whole premises marriage: one man and one woman which exclude any and all other forms of marriage. Paul also quoted Genesis to this affect when addressing marriage (Ephesians 5:31).
She is actually somewhat aware of this fact and so she quickly calls upon someone to explain it away:
“Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument-in particular, this verse from Genesis: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.’ But as [Barnard University Bible scholar Alan] Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.”
This is rather confused: firstly, the issue is the view of marriage as held to by people who believe the Bible to be divine revelation but here we are to consider it as merely manmade (childish references to leather bindings aside). Consider the statement: the Bible that premises marriage upon one man and one woman “was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.” But if it was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world why would they contradict polygamy?
But what of Paul?
“The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. ‘It is better to marry than to burn with passion,’ says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. 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?…
The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord’s lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. ‘To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband.’ It probably goes without saying that the phrase ‘gay marriage’ does not appear in the Bible at all.”
Note that 1st Corinthians 7 begins with Paul noting that he is answering specific questions, “concerning the things of which you wrote to me.” We do not know what the question was but may infer from his answer that it related to a person who is in God’s service and to marriage.
Thus, Paul writes,
“It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife [note that this is singular], and let each woman have her own husband_I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Paul was an unmarried itinerant preacher and thus, saw the benefit of being unmarried, v. 32-35:
“He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord-how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world-how he may please his wife_The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world-how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.”
Thus, those who want to serve can better focus if they are unmarried. This is nothing against marriage but in favor of focused service. Moreover, if you are a preacher who does not have “the gift of celibacy” do not torture yourself or spend the time you should be preaching checking out chicks (this is a loose paraphrase). You want to marry, marry, you do not want to, don’t-but there is a right way of going about either choice.
Thus, for Paul “celibacy was” not “the Christian ideal” but the ideal for those who wanted to devote themselves to service. Oh, that our culture today would heed the advice “It is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Topical FallaciesBut what of Lisa Miller’s question as to whether “any contemporary heterosexual married couple” would “turn to the Bible as a how-to script?” She answers herself thusly, “Of course not.” Well, there you have it. She further stated, “We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual.” Yet, the answer is “Of course we can, but not according to your lack of basic biblical knowledge.”This is part of her argument from ridicule and embarrassment. This one was an “Of course” not, come on now, you’re not foolish enough to disagree with her are you?Another is “no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else’s -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.” Oh you do? Well then, you are not sensible.
Another is, “A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism.” Oh, you are a literalist? Well then, you are immature. Yet, this merely serves to demonstrate her further lack of knowledge: to take something “literally” means to take it as it is intended-historical reference is taken as such, a cultural reference likewise, symbolism is takes as such, etc.
Lisa Miller makes reference to the Anchor Bible Dictionary and states that it “notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.” By this reference we either see that she lacks enough knowledge of the Bible to know its contents or chose a self-serving reference. She should have been aware of Romans 1:26-27 “For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful.” Men and women exchanged the natural (Greek: physicos) for the shameful.
Let us see what happens when Lisa Miller is forced to admit that “The Bible does condemn gay male sex_” She finished this statement thusly,
“_in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as ‘an abomination’ (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world_Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality_”
This is certainly a fascinating tactic: if you come across texts that contradict your preferred presuppositions simply “throwaway” the texts and keep your preferred presuppositions. However, Lisa Miller mixes accuracy with fallacy and so we must parse her statements carefully.
The haircuts or blood sacrifices are of the aforementioned category of OT Law for a particular people/place/time, yes. However, what about the “abomination”? The text in question is Leviticus 18:6-23 which forbids sexual relations with the following:
“anyone who is near of kin””your father or the nakedness of your mother””your father’s wife””your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother””your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter””your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father””your father’s sister””your mother’s sister””your father’s brother” or “his wife””your daughter-in-law””your brother’s wife””a woman and her daughter” or “her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter””a woman as a rival to her sister””a woman” who is menstruating”your neighbor’s wife””with a male as with a woman””any animal”
Moreover, v. 21 states “And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Moloch, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD”-a reference to child sacrifice.
On Lisa Miller’s view, these are throwaway lines-why would we regard its condemnation of incest?Why would we regard its condemnation of bestiality?Why would we regard its condemnation of adultery?Why would we regard its condemnation of child sacrifice?Etc.
You see, she conveniently keeps the context of the text hush-hush, if she is even aware of the context.
Lisa Miller further notes:
“Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was ‘one spirit’ and whom he ‘loved as he loved himself.’ Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;You were very dear to me.Your love for me was wonderful,More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.”
This misinterpretation of the text is homophobic. Two men cannot love each other without people like Lisa Miller pointing to them and yelling, “Gay!!!!!” Yes, David and Jonathan are a wonderful example of brotherly love. Their love was “More wonderful than that of women.” The love between a man and woman entails sensuality and sexuality-this was not like that.
Hyper-Pseudo-Inclusiveness
Lisa Miller also writes about her view of inclusiveness which of course, excludes the exclusivists. She actually presents a fallacious watered down concept of inclusiveness, with a little help from her friends.
“Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. ‘I don’t think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process’_
Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace.The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well- no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend-as evidence of Christ’s all-encompassing love.
The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: ‘There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.’ The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, ‘is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness.’”
There is one conspicuously missing detail here: biblical inclusiveness is about come as you are, certainly. Yet, it is also, and more importantly, about don’t stay as you are.
Judaism should not leave any portion of humanity out of the religious process, very good. But it is a “process” and it is meant to change people. Would the good Rabbi allow an idolater to erect an idol to Ba’al or Moloch in his synagogue? What about an unrepentant, currently practicing, serial murderer?
Jesus reaches out to everyone, very good. But by doing so He was not approving of their sin. Being brought into His embrace was premised upon repentance. It does not follow that because Jesus revealed Himself to the Samaritan woman at the well that He approved or simply did not care.
That “There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ” has anything to do with gay marriage, much less that it approves of it, is either a scholarly hoax or the utter bankruptcy of the homosexual movement’s attempts to rewrite the Bible.
Note that in the NT a story is told of a church that was so very proud of their inclusiveness that they looked the other way when it came to sexual deviancy.
“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles-that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you_
6 Your glorying is not good_
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’” (1st Corinthians 5:1-2, 6, 9-13).
This man who was considered a part of the church was to be put out of the church so that he may be broken down and brought back into the church in order to be built back up.
Lisa Miller offer another example of inclusiveness,
“Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over ‘holy unions’ since 1992. ‘I’m against promiscuity-love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships.’”
This sounds great but, just who is he to judge? Who is he to condemn promiscuity? Who is he to exclude the promiscuous? And who is Lisa Miller to agree?
Following is another argument from ridicule and embarrassment as Lisa Miller writes:
“If we are all God’s children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color-and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that.”
Well, I must not be serious or semiserious because I disagree. This very popular correlation between sexual preference and skin color is not only fallacious but it is resented by the African American civil right movement. In fact, a popular new saying is “Gay is the new black.” Yet, a person cannot choose the color of their skin (except, perhaps, for Michael Jackson), they cannot escape racism by selecting a differently pigmented epidermis. Whether a person is born with sexual impulses towards their own gender they still make a conscience choice to follow that impulse, they choose that lifestyle, they consent to carry out the homosexual activity.
Concluding Musings
Of the very many fallacious statements made by Lisa Miller about the Bible, once has me particularly flummoxed as she claims that the Bible, “provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites.” I actually have nothing to write about this since I have no idea what it means.
I must admit that I have often wondered and puzzled about the incredibly powerful homosexual movement. They have succeeded and having both homosexuals and their non-homosexual supporters judge all things according to homosexuality:Which political party or candidate to support is determined upon their position on homosexuality.Who is intolerant or hateful is determined upon their position on homosexuality.What religion or theology is true is determined upon their position on homosexuality.
All things are viewed through a lens of homosexuality, this is incredible power.
She chose the closing statement of her article very well as it demonstrates very clearly that the homosexual movement’s appeals to the Bible are nothing but an attempt to read their preferred presupposition into a text that simply does not accept or approve of their lifestyle.
“My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: ‘I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.’ And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for ‘Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.’ Let the priest’s prayer be our own.”
Note the premise: Psalm 139 is a text of scripture relating to the question of homosexuality, thus saith a priest mind you. Psalm 139 is “a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves,” true.
I would also agree that if Jesus were alive today, He would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us. Yet, Psalm 139 is not stating we are all imperfect, so live and enjoy your imperfection. Rather, it states (v. 23-24), “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts, and see if any wicked way is in me; and lead me in the way everlasting.” Let this, David’s prayer, be our own.