Just when I thought it would be a slow news day, Newsweek, that once-respectable (weren't they all) source of balanced reporting and insightful commentary turned laughable left-wing cesspool, comes through handsomely. In terms of sheer inaccuracy and transparent bias, they have outdone even themselves.
The very subtitle of Lisa Miller's horribly-written, atrociously-researched attempt to plead that Scripture supports gay marriage shows how little she knows about the Bible and how much less she and her pathetic periodical are interested in presenting an accurate picture of Christ's teachings on love, as opposed to their desire to be a sloppy, dribbling mouthpiece for the homosexual agenda.
I'm not anti-gay; I'm pro-truth. And the truth is not what Ms. Miller babbles, which is that "Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side." The Bible does teach a lot about love. But it also covers morals and societal responsibilities, which gay marriage proponents obviously eschew and which also provide compelling arguments for the traditional definition of marriage.
The basis of the article--a house built on sand if their ever was one--is that the Bible actually provides a bad model of marriage, starting with Abraham fathering Ishmael with Hagar because he and Sarah were unable to conceive. Ms. Miller evidently wants her ignorant readers (probably the only kind Newsweek has) to believe that the patriarch snuck off with the servant because his wife was unable to validate his manhood by giving him a child. Readers of this blog, however, will not need to be reminded that Abraham slept with Hagar at Sarah's nagging. As desperate as she was to conceive, Sarah realized how much their childlessness also grieved her husband. Putting Abraham's happiness above her own, she insisted that he father a child with her servant. To Christians, this is an excellent model of marriage: a couple supporting and cleaving to each other despite their hardships, a valuing the health of their union over their individual pride and wants. Even after Ishmael was born, causing Hagar's view of her own status in the household to become inflated, Abraham was a devoted husband to Sarah, and Isaac's birth proved that God was ultimately pleased with both husband and wife.
Of course, the kind of secular-progressive radical feminists who read Newsweek and write its drivel are revolted by the idea of a woman making any sort of concession for a man. This kind of never-back-down, never-give-up attitude surely contributes more to the sorry state of marriage today than any Biblical passage.
Ms. Miller is correct that many prominent Old Testament figures were polygamists. This contrasts with the language of modern Defense of Marriage legislature, which defines marriage as the union of "one man and one woman." However, while it most certainly condemns homosexual relations, the Bible does not condemn plural marriage. The only restriction placed on marriage between men and woman comes from Titus 1:6, which states that a church elder must be "the husband of but one wife." Rather than an endorsement of monogamy, this stipulation was meant to ensure that an elder devoted enough time to his responsibilities to the church. As any husband knows, a wife demands a lot of time and money, and a man with more than one wife is in danger of not having enough resources left for his spiritual responsibilities.
It is also true that Paul wrote in one of his many letters that it is "better to marry than to burn." While readers of Scripture may interpret this as an insult to marriage, it is hardly an endorsement of gay marriage. Paul's devotion to the church superseded all earthly relationships, and he wished that all Christians were so committed. Understanding that he could not force others to live his way and that man was meant to multiply, Paul preaches virtuous marriage between a man and woman as an alternative to being married to the church. He was hardly "lukewarm" toward the institution of marriage, as Ms. Miller's article claims, and vehemently opposed to any homosexual relationship.
This entry has covered only the first paragraph of Newsweek's disgustingly inaccurate, insulting, and ineffective attempt to portray Scripture as endorsing gay marriage. As Jesus himself never married (no matter what Dan Brown says), and in light of Paul's personal preference and the popularity of polygamy in the Old Testament, Ms. Miller may argue with a modicum of coherence that biblical support for marriage between one man and one woman is shaky at best. However, in seeing this as support for gay marriage, she is falling victim to a non-sequitur that is nearly as common to gay marriage advocacy as is intolerance of religion.
Heterosexual marriage is in a sad state in this country. However, giving legal credence to the farce of gay marriage will only expedite the decay of this treasured and holy institution. Perhaps this is what gay-rights activists want. This is all the more reason to save traditional marriage now by returning to it Biblical values such as faith and selflessness. Lack of support for heterosexual marriage in Scripture (even if this were the case) is far from an endorsement of gay marriage, just as deficiencies in marriage today by no means excuse the further subversion of the institution.
No comments:
Post a Comment