Newsweek and Unnatural Affections

by Peter Smythe on December 14, 2008

This week Newsweek created a brouhaha (I like that word) with its cover story on gay marriage.  The primary article, written by the journalist Lisa Miller, has received all kinds of criticisms for advancing a particular dogma rather than reporting on the issue in an unbiased fashion.  Interestingly enough, the editors of Newsweek aren’t defending the article as an opinion piece (see National Review article).

In her article, Miller asserts the psychedelic claim that the Bible, especially the New Testament, supports rather than condemns homosexual conduct and gay marriage.  Frankly, Miller’s theological holes are so deep and wide that it’d take more than a week’s worth of effort to climb out of them.  Instead of jumping down those holes, I thought I’d throw out a few comments just from what I see looking down.

In highlighted text, Miller claims:

Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices.  Why would we still accept its stance on homosexuality?

Miller’s rhetoric is based on a false logic that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Plan of Redemption.  We no longer heed Leviticus on blood sacrifices, not because mankind has become so enlightened, but because Jesus took upon himself flesh and became a curse for us on the cross (Gal. 3.13 - “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law”) .  God had instituted the Levitical priesthood with its blood sacrifices both to “cover” sins until the promise to Abraham could be fulfilled and for a type and shadow of Jesus’s ultimate sacrifice on the cross.  Without Jesus and the accomplishment of his heroic mission, we’d all be looking for Azazel each year.

Miller actually begins her piece with this paragraph:

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 New Testament model of marriage is hardly better.  Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments - especially family.  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.

The Old Testament narrative is not a pop self-help book filled with celebrity role models showing us the way to self-actualize Christianity.  Rather it stands as part of God’s revelation to mankind of his fallen spiritual nature, his absolute need for a Savior, and God’s wonderful promise to bring about redemption (remember Luke 24.27 where Jesus says, “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”).  As New Testament Christians, we are not instructed to follow Abraham’s out-of-Urban lifestyle, but his faith in God’s gospel:

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.  (Galatians 3.8, NASB)

Her analogous reference to the Old Testament saints is also misplaced as they were unborn-again men and women who stood in the shoes of Paul’s Romans 7 man enslaved to sin.  New Testament Christians are endued with the power to overcome sin and perversion: “For sin shall not have dominion over you …” (Romans 6.4).

Citing Jesus’s celibacy, well … that is just ignorance gone to seed.

Miller reference to Paul’s admonitions about marriage and “animal” lust are made well outside the gate of context.  Below is Paul’s statement on lust in its setting:

But this I say by way of concession, not of command.  Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am.  However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.  But I say to the unmarried and to the widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.  But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7.6-9, NASB)

[Note: I don’t see the word “animal” anywhere in the Greek.]

Paul speaks of a personal desire for people to stay single for the purpose of promoting the Gospel.  Later in his letter he explains that marriage involves a lot of time and effort that might otherwise be directed to the Gospel:

But I want you to be free from concern.  One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of this world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.  (1 Corinthians 7.32-34, NASB)

Ask any married guy about Paul’s “concerned … how he may please his wife” and you’ll get a good idea of why Paul wrote what he did.

As part and parcel of her justification for religious gay marriage, Miller portrays the Word as a kind of New Age crystal that has allowed man to achieve an ever-escalating epiphanic potential:

Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.  In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married - and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In a word, the Bible is a dead document in that the canon is closed.  God’s revelation of his grand plan of redemption was given to Paul (and subsequently the other apostles) and it has not changed nor will it.  While man may continue to discover the world around him through his five senses, allowing him to produce nifty things like iPhones and Segways, his need to be born-again to escape the present wickedness in this world remains an absolute constant (see 1 John 5.19 - “the whole world lieth in wickedness”).

To her credit, Miller acknowledges Paul’s proscriptions against homosexuality (actually God’s proscriptions if you believe 1 Tim 3.16 - “every writing is God-breathed”), but then tries to narrow Paul’s censures to a select few two:

Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who “were inflamed with lust for one another” (which he calls a “perversion”) is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery.  In his book “The Arrogance of Nations,” the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly.  “Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all,” Elliott says.  “He’s talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list.  We’re not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage.  We’re talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God.”

[Note: Paul’s “inflamed” scripture is found in Romans:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged that natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.  And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.  (Romans 1.26-32, NASB)]

While, arguably, Paul might have had Nero and Caligula in his mind while penning Romans (Paul’s usual M.O. was to respond to specific situations with redemption truths, e.g., the letters to the churches), his statements cannot ingenuously be limited to just to those two.  In 1 Corinthians 6.9-11, Paul writes:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality … will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you . . .

Paul, by his own admission, did not address 1 Corinthians to Nero and Caligula, but to those “not wise in the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (1 Corinthians 1.26).

Miller sums up her article with the grand statement:

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.

We are not all God’s children.  We might be made in God’s image and likeness, but the unborn-again man is a spiritual child of Satan:

By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (I John 3.10, ESV)

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8.44, ESV)

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic like skin color, but a lascivious practice that is condemned in scripture - not just in the Old Testament, but also in the New.  Consequently, gay marriage, while it may be recognized as a legitimate union in our state legislatures, should not be sanctioned by the Body of Christ.  And, yes, I’m serious.

{ 1 comment }

These Blogs They Are A-Changin’

by Peter Smythe on December 12, 2008

The Blogs

After playing with three different kinds of themes/websites for over a year, I decided that it would be a good thing to streamline things a bit.  I found myself spending more time on software tweaks than on content.

While I’ve decided to stick with Wordpress for my two blogs (my photo site is professionally managed), I’ve hunkered down the “professional” Wordpress way and bought a single template for the both of them.  Frankly, the template is pretty handy - you wouldn’t think that this design and my law firm site (here) came off the same theme.

The Design

I decided to go with a fresh look here and take the Baskerville font over to the law site (legal readers aren’t used to fonts without serifs and they pride themselves on reading all the small print).  The larger Helvetica font should be an easier read.

One nice tool that I’ve implemented is the most recent comments widget.  Now readers can see who is saying what where.  Over the past few months I’ve received a number of comments on old, old articles and there hasn’t been a widget in place for anyone to know about them.

Smythe Writes”

I am still working on this one.  I first began the blog under the name of “The Real Faith” but grew disenchanted with a “corporate” name for the blog.  I changed the name to “Peter Smythe - Intelligent Holy Ghost Christianity,” but now that will pose a conflict with my law site.  I recently changed my law firm name to “Peter Smythe, P.C.” so I need to avoid “Peter Smythe” on another blog site to prevent any confusion (lots of lawyers do not like to read about the Gospel).

I’m working with “Smythe” because that is what everyone eventually calls me (I hate hearing “Pete” - it’s not my name).  My wife even calls me “Smythe.”

If anyone has any good ideas about a name, the design, or any other tweaks, please let me know.  Blog themes certainly aren’t sacred (although some would argue with that).

[Update: I’m kinda, sorta leaning towards the current header.  The fact is that John, the apostles, Paul, and the generation following the apostles were all voices in the religious wilderness.  Real Christianity has never been mainstream and never will be.]

{ 2 comments }