Newsweek has caused a stir over its recent cover story “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” which attempts to make a mockery of the Holy Bible, but really only showed the author’s complete ignorance, reading comprehension and lack of depth. The author, Lisa Miller attempted to fight “fire with fire” by quoting and, it is assumed to be, interpreting the Bible’s New Testament scriptures to prove just how ambiguous Jesus’ words were on marriage – any marriage.
Miller says:“Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition,” Miller writes. “The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”
The little deary is trying to educate our stone-age minds so that we can step out of the shadows and into fast lane to secular progressivism. You see it starts right here with Jesus’ notable indifference and ambiguity in the book of Matthew, ch. 19.
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.”
How does any of that show ambiguity or indifference? I see very pointed guidance that addresses one man and one woman.
Now behold Her Ignorance, Lisa Miller continues:
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. 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?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
He was also anything but lukewarm to the idea of marriage. These are Paul’s own words:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Her ignorance knows no bounds. Since she comes off as an expert and says that “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? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.”
That is exactly what is taught Ms. Miller and could go along way in figuring out those pesky stats that I’m sure you are aware of and despise. The ones that show couples that attend church together, pray together, stay together.
Mark Hemingway at NRO’s The Corner has this to say:
Yup, sounds like Jesus was really indifferent on marriage and family question — but hey, thanks for trying to take his followers “at their word.” Marriage is one of the central metaphors of the New Testament, for crying out loud. It’s generally a Christian precept to put the best construction on what a speaker is saying. However, the best I can do here is vacillate between whether or not it’s possible for a religion reporter to be this ignorant or wonder to what extent Miller’s personal politics have made her so willfully uncharitable in describing what a large majority of American Christians believe regarding marriage.
In spite of what Ms. Miller thinks, marriage is not about gender equality or romantic love. Those precepts are emotional drivel. Sure romantic love is involved in the mix but it is also animalistic and fleeting. Marriage is a sacrament between man and woman who live life through the love in one another. It is not romantic love because romantic love is selfish. It is based off how the other person makes you feel. Love is a decision, rational thought, and something that is mutually shared between two people. More importantly, a very basic function of marriage is for procreation. To bring up a new generation where the parents equip them with the tools and values that are needed to one day replace them. That way the generational links remain inter-locked and forever binding.
Secular movements are almost always based off emotion and she did a wonderful job pointing that out. Her child-like mind baffles me considering her supposed expertise in such matters. Marriage has nothing to do with gender equality or romantic love. Romantic love is what made you sneak out of your window at night. It is irrational. Love makes you stay in so that you can get sleep, work hard, and provide for your family the best way that you possibly can.
The article and the author show exactly the type of sophistication and deep intellect “religious conservatives,” and we “social conservatives” whoever they may be, are dealing with. It is almost like I just had a conversation with a child.