Newsweek, ‘Haven’t you read?’

I like a good debate as much as anyone, but it’s not a good debate if it’s based on bad research. Such is the case of Newsweek’s cover story, “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” Religion editor Lisa Miller tries to make Scripture prove the acceptance of same-sex marriage.

She makes two major errors in her research:

"While the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman."

Jesus would have answered, “Haven’t you read . . . that at the the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

Miller also argues, "Nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." Again, I want to ask her Jesus’ question, “Haven’t you read . . . ?”

“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. . . . Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” (Romans 1:24, 26).

This is an important issue that deserves objective, accurate and fair scholarly study. Miller’s includes little of that.

So, what do you think? Where do you turn for objective, accurate and fair scholarly study on this issue?

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (19)

That article was one of the worst I've ever read when it comes to research. I loved the line where it says "recently progressive scholars..." as if to say that the Bible has now changed and actually supports gay marriage.

But, I'm encouraged, because the Holy Spirit has a way of doing the unexpected. I'm excited to see how He uses this article for His purposes. Let's not get too upset.
Acceptance is what is at stake here. They, being those who choose to live that life style are seeking acceptance. That is why it is so important to them that a marriage be allowed as in the marriage of a man and woman. This would vindicate all that they perceive and give them legitimacy. First God did not make a mistake and make them that way, they choose to do what they do. Second, we need to pray first, help second and love all; all the time. Telling them they are wrong just makes them defensive and adds to the belieft that we don't care. No scholar or Pastor/Preacher will convince someone who believes they are doing what is right, that they are doing wrong. Plant that seed of love deep in their hearts and let God do the rest. In God's Grace John
I don't think any one place gives completely unbiased opinion and fact about this issue. But a combination of web sites has provided me with the information I need to form my opinion.

I also read this article and was shocked at the level of opinion and non-factual "evidence" that was laced through each statement. As a college-level journalist myself, I have been surprised that the journalism taught in textbooks is not followed in the mass media.

My opinion on the matter is one of compassion, though. Not towards the media (never!), but towards homosexuals. They are sinning, no question about it. But as Christians we are told to love one another as Christ loved. His ministry on earth reflects that entirely. However, this doesn't mean we compromise our morals and make marriage (an institution that's been around since the beginning of time) legal.
Not long ago, Bill O' Reilly questioned Newsweek about the very apparent pro-Obama stance in their reporting prior to the election, as well as the fact that amongst major pollsters, their polling results were, overall, the most inaccurate throughout the election season. In a nutshell, the response from Newsweek was that it will be a learning experience. It's obvious that they are still in need of some learning about good reporting. Equally as obvious is how mainstream media news reporting seems to be more interested in using its mediums to try and influence and shape the thinking of their audience, rather than reporting facts. In many cases, it seems like good, objective reporting and the expression of well formulated opinions by well informed people has been diminished for the sake of advancing some agenda. It is no surprise, and of course, very unfortunate that all too often the agenda of secular media does not line up with Biblical truths.

This article is a good example of why I did not renew my subscription to Newsweek, a few years ago, and switched to Time, which isn't always better, but somewhat. Jesus probably saw no need to comment on homosexuality, it simply wasn't an issue. Greeks did that sort of stuff, Romans less often, and even practitioners did not call it marriage. Everyone knew that marriage was between a man and a woman, until perhaps fifty years ago, or less. Romans is not a compelling response, because Paul wrote after Jesus, and arguably could have been expressing his own opinion. Miller could argue that the Bible is wrong, or that it is not an accurate representation of divine will, but there is no basis at all in the Bible to overtly support either homosexual conduct or gay marriage.

I disagree that "they choose to do what they do." Its possible, but there is no clear evidence for it. When people raised by committed, married parents find themselves drawn to persons of their own gender, it seems quite possible it is not a matter of choice. There are, or course moving testimonies of people who have chosen to abandon that temptation and forced themselves to pursue heterosexual partners (often via extramarital affairs, to start with). Its a very confused picture. What exactly is sin, in this context? If we remove the personal sense of guilt and blame, and simply say, well, this is a deviation from what God intended. we may be closer to a fair assessment. I'm content to leave that between the individuals concerned and God, but articles like Miller's offering overt justification are woven from thin air.
I used to be in a political debate forum, and this topic would come up every once in a while. I was always surprised at what was said, such as "Homosexuality is not talked about in the Bible" and "The Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore it must be OK." Well, obviously you have never read the Bible...

Matthew
Since gay marriage is inevitably going to be legalized in this country, and people are inevitably going to read this Newsweek article and think the worst of Christians, we might start trying to think of ways to, publicly and as a church, make ourselves intelligible to people - the next generation is going to see this as a Rights issue and identify the church as being on the wrong side of it, and that will be the end of that, unless we do something about it.
Don't be too pessimistic. First, check out http://www.churchstatelaw.com, and more specifically, the many cases listed on Church Autonomy. Then, look up a Tenth Circuit federal appeals case in which St. Adrian's Episcopal Church was sued by a former youth pastor dismissed for a homosexual "marriage." Churches have autonomy to talk about these things, internal to the church, in whatever manner church belief may direct. Even civil rights law cannot intervene. Its unconstitutional.
I'm with you on the technicality of it being unconstitutional, but I tend to think the Constitution is over for. Since Bush's effectively figured out how to ignore it (and we've collectively decided that's more or less fine, or at least boring), I figure eventually, for popularity if nothing else, within 10 years some President will have rewritten the constitution to legalize it.

That misses the point of what a constitution is. It is the fundamental law of the land. It is the foundation upon which all government authority rests. If the USA had no constitution, the federal government would literally have no legitimacy at all, no right to rule. It is true that if a constitution is not vigorously upheld, advocated for, practiced, by informed citizens, it can became a worthless piece of paper. The constitution of the Soviet Union had more rights in it than any other in the world, but they were routinely ignored from the very beginning. GWB is not the first president to ignore the constitution, but he didn't exactly get away with as much as Stalin did. The constitution is there for us to make use of to keep our country on track. It is still OUR country, until we let someone take it away from We The People.
By saying that it is not a choice is saying that God made a mistake. Do you really want to say that. God made man and woman to be together as one. If you think for one minute that homosexuals are made that way then you are agreeing with the politically correct and saying that maybe, just maybe God made a mistake. I hope you understand that God does not make mistakes, therefore it is a choice made by people who for one or for several reasons have choosen to divate from what was made by God. In God's Grace John
I am not willing to apply human logic to evaluate God. When you say "If its a choice, then God must have made a mistake" that is what you are doing, however sincere your intent. "My ways are not your ways, says the Lord." (I really don't remember book, chapter and verse, but I remember it is in the Bible). Maybe God set a process in motion which was going to include some statistical deviations from the norm. Maybe God was more concerned with the idolatrous use of homosexual rituals in pagan worship than in the pursuits, or choice, of two individuals in the 20th century. Maybe God has chosen to allow a minority of us struggle with this question. I don't know. I know that marriage is what it is, and that courts should define their terms at the beginning of their analysis, instead of at the end. I know that I have never had to struggle with homosexual impulses, which is a matter of grace, not personal merit. I take no sense of virtue from it. I know that a woman I hope to marry had a brother who died of AIDS, and I'm certainly not going to condemn him. Let God judge, I don't wish to.
You know I'm not finished, I'm angry in that someone would want to agree to keep the peace or to show how wonderful a Christian can be. The truth is what it is and it's not Jane and Jane or Adam and Adam. Yes we are to love those who for whatever reason choose to sin. We all sin and fall short of what is expected of us. But and here comes the but, don't try to reason your way out of the fact that homosexual activities are not a sin. That they are somehow normal in that consenting adults all over the world do this. It is not right that I or others who believe in the concept given us by God is somehow wrong, because society deems homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone. Saying that I still say that we should love all, no matter who they are, but we in turn hate the sin. Don't give it legitimacy by saying it's not a choice. In God's Grace a sinner.
John, I would make some disctinctions and set some context here.

First, I would distinguish homosexual activity and homosexual orientation. I doubt most people choose their orientation, just as few choose to be inclined toward alcoholism or Cystic Fibrosis. These are effects of sin on creation, not God's mistakes. How one chooses to live with these conditions, how one honors God within them, is more the issue.

Second, I'd also put homosexual sin in the context of other sin, sexual or not. How many adulterers or lustful men are in your church? How many liars? Or Gluttons? Who's the worse sinner, a monogamous gay couple or the guy who's been cheating on his wife (or taxes) for years?

I'm not making a case gay marriage here, but I am saying Christians need some thoughtful nuancing here.

Because its not a choice does not make it legitimate. There are people who simply cannot control their impulses to rape and kill small children. Its not a choice, but it is necessary to keep them in secure custody to prevent them from doing so, whether it is their fault or not. I do not view homosexual relations between consenting adults the same way, but I can admit it may not be a choice, and still say, this is not what God intended as the purpose of sexual emotions.
James,

Thanks for your thoughts.

But I think your Matthew 19:4-6 quote is not used appropriately. Remember Jesus was talking about divorce in Matthew 19. He was answering a question about two people in a committed relationship who then decide to break the commitment. Jesus wasn't talking about who can come together in marriage.

I still agree with the quote that you cited, "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 sounds true to me.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now