PART 2 OF CRITIQUE OF LISA MILLER'S ARTICLE IN NEWSWEEK OF DECEMBER 15th.

The third and final question to be discussed is "How she defends gay marriage from her interpretation of the Bible.

As noticed in our discussion of the second question, she asserts that the Bible should be interpreted as a living document which means that its meaning changes as societies and cultures change. What it meant 2000 years ago is not determinative of what it means today. That conclusion obviously opens up numberless possibilities. Meaning lives in the times we live in and in the mind of the interpreter. Conservative scholars(she shows no knowledge of scholarship including conservatives) believe meaning abides in the origin of the text, namely the author or authors. Postmodern interpreters deny that meaning is ever determined by the author for we are unable to determine the author's mind. Even if we could, they argue that it would be a waste of time because as the interpreter engages the text by interpreting it, a new text is actually born and that is the meaning that is real.

How does she handle the texts of scripture that address homosexuality. Some such as Sodom and Gomorrah, she ignores. There are two texts in Leviticus that appear to condemn homosexual practice. These two texts she dismisses as, in her own words, "throw away texts". which is basically what she does with them. She equates these two texts with other Old Testament laws that we no longer practice. I disagree with her conclusion on these two texts, but since many in churches of Christ would probably wonder what's wrong with her conclusion since they too dismiss much of the Old Testament, I see little value of going into a prolonged argument to show why I think these commandments have value today. Clearly we are justified in omitting some practices that are embraced in the Old Testament, but some do have lasting value.

Next she considers Jesus and Paul. She argues that neither were particularly interested in marriage and that neither defined marriage as between members of the opposite sex only. In fact she argues that neither define marriage in any way. Check out Matthew 19:1-8. Jesus is asked about divorce and his view of what Moses said about the subject. In Jesus' response he appeals to Gen. 2:22-24. Both in Genesis and Matthew the only marriages under consideration are those between a man and a woman. We might add, the marriage under consideration was monogamous and not polygamus. Paul, in Ephesians chapter 5 compares Christ and His bride, the church to a marriage of a husband with his wife. Again the only marriage Paul is aware of is a marriage between a man and a woman(cf5:31).

She dismisses a couple of other texts where Paul appears to be critical of homosexuality and applies them only to prostitution or adults with children. Thus Paul nowhere condemns a loving homosexual relationship, but only a perversion of such relationships or rape, etc..

She does admit that Paul seems hard on homosexual relationships, but says that progressive scholars have discovered ways to harmonize Paul with gay marriage. In her article she quotes three scholars and is always careful to remind the readers that each is a scholar. Again no conservative scholar is quoted. Either conservative scholars are now extinct or never existed.

She realizes that the most critical text in Paul and the N.T. is Rom.1:26-28. The text reads as follows:
"Because of this(cf19-25) God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Her comment on the text includes the following: "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all...He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this text(including 29-31). She mentions that one scholar thinks he's talking about Roman emperors. "We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people..". If you're not happy with that interpretation, she offers the additional comment that "in any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce---and at least half of the christians in America disregard that teaching. Thus if nothing else works, you are still all hypocrits.

I taught ministy students for 28 years and if one had written a paper with such a flimsy argument as the above, lets just say he wouldn't have done so well. As to her view of Rom.1:26-28, an interpretation must be based upon context, grammar, and historical setting. Just which of those three would offer even a grain of support for her view. I guess she could say, "well they did have emperors and many did express homosexual lifestyle with younger males. Yes, but did I somehow miss the verse in Rom.1 that mentions emperors? That text must be hidden with the one that mentions the "really, really violent people". Yes later verses do mention some sins that might include violence, but to argue that the person spoken of by Paul in Rom.1:26-28 would have to also be guilty of the following sins is beyond absurd.

She also alludes to the Anchor Bible Dictionary as asserting that the Bible no where mentions female homosexuality. Maybe she ought to check out some of her scholars or else read Rom.126-28 which mentions "women changing natural relations for unnatural relations".

Several decades ago a homosexual author John Boswell wrote a work defending homosexuality and in it he suggested that "against nature" in Rom. 1 means "against one's natural urges". Since a homosexual's natural desire is for a relationship with the same sex this passage cannot be discussing those born homosexual. Instead, he asserted that the text is speaking of heterosexuals who are behaving as though they are homsosexual. In other words, heterosexuals are behaving in an unnatural way. Again, how would one know this by reading the text?.

Articles such as Miller's and even more clearly Meacham's comment, assume that homosexuality is biologically determined. Miller writes that "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". Meacham adds that "Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice--a matter of behavior--but it is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color". How can you blame someone for being white or black? By the same token, how can you blame someone for being heterosexual or homosexual? The analogy to race is not just an effort to silence critics, but its the basis for making the whole issue a civil rights issue so that any voice in our society against gay marriage or homosexual behavior shoul be labeled as a proponent of hate speech. In Canada a minister could be arrested for a sermon that might include some of the points I have raised and if some have their way, such will soon be the law of our land.

The question as to whether homosexuality is biologically determined is not the slam dunk that such authors as Miller and Meacham seem to suggest. Very few studies have been undertaken and if time would allow I could show that those thus far conducted have been with extremely small samples and very predjuiced methodology. Further the two major studies that supposedly suggest a biological basis for homosexuality were conducted by homosexuals. While their homosexuality does not negate their findings. only evidence can do so, their orientation does raise the possibility of bias, especially when at least one of the scientific studies was conducted by a man who admitted his goal was to prove a biological origin of homosexuality. Even if homosexual preference could be shown to be in at least some cases biologically determined, it would not change the teaching of scripture. Heterosexuality which most of us would believe is biologically determined has constraints placed on it by scripture. Only the married are to practice it and then only with one's own spouse.

There is far more proof that alcoholism is produced by genetic factors in many cases, but such knowledge does not negate the biblical teaching on drunkenness. With God's help we are expected to refuse urges and desires that are sinful, even if we have a desire to satisfy such urges. Being single is no sin whether one has heterosexual urges or homosexual urges. One can go without sin by simply not acting upon such urges. In 1Cor.6:9-11, Paul says some of the Corinthians prior to their becoming christians, had acted upon homosexual urges, but now that they are christians they are no longer to behave in such manner.

Most of my post has so far simply addressed the homosexual component of the gay marriage issue, but the "marriage" element needs to be at least briefly touched upon not only from a biblical perspective as we have already done, but also from standpoint of history and science. While I'm not an authority on either, I do know enough to questions some of the assumptions of people like Miller and Meacham. Miller claims monogamy never became a general practice of the churches until the sixth century. Such an assertion is blatantly false. Not only was mogogamy the practice of christians in N.T. times, as well as the first five centuries of church history, it has been the practice of nearly all civilizations since the advent of writing. Most scholars believe that human governments and languages began in the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys of Mesopotamis. We have written laws going back to 2000 b.c. and such laws address marriage as between one man and one woman. Even evolutionists would tend to agree with such a conclusion and would argue that marriage arose in order to provide a father for the home. The human species is one of the few animal species where offspring have both parents raising them. In most species the male impregnates the female and then deserts her and the rearing of the child is left to the mother. Since the human child remains dependent far longer than nearly any other species, it becomes much harder for the woman to rear the child by herself. Evolutionists believe that this need gave birth to biological forces and sociological forces that evolved into marriage.

As we have learned in recent decades the brain functions in response to hormones generated and transmitted to the brain. The brain then responds with certain types of feelings and behavior. For example oxytocin is a hormone generated in females during sexual intercourse and childbirth. The feelings produced by oxytocin include attachment and loyalty. It is as though the female is programmed to attach to a certain male and her offspring. In the Bible a woman is to cleave to her husband and love her children. It seems that God has wired her so that such would be natural. So whether viewed from the standpoint of evolution or creation, marriage seems to be composed of two elements a male and female, as well as offspring. God said "be fruitful and multiply" and chose marriage scripturally and biologically as the means of doing so. If such is the case, then marriage cannot be divorced from reproduction as would be true should our society embrace gay marriage. I am well aware that reproductive tecnology can produce children where at least one of the gay parents can be a natural parent, but such was not in God's mind nor apparently was such in the mind of previous humans biologically or historically.

Everyone knows that the male hormone that tends to define him is testosterone. This male hormone produces an aggressive person who at times can be aggressive to the point of violence. It seems that this hormone was given him in order to assist him in protecting not only himself but his offspring. Yet sometimes he is excessively violent even with his family, but such is not as common as we probably assume. Not only does testosterone make one physically aggressive but also increases sexual interest. What we may not know is that recent scientific studies suggest that testosterone levels decrease after marriage and increase again only if the man secures a divorce. In other words testosterone helps the man desire a sexual partner, but the decrease in levels after marriage helps him settle down and become a loving husband. Again biologically we seem to be wired for mogogamy and caring for the children that we bring into the world.

Hopefully the discussion in this critique has helped us see that there are good reasons biologically, historically, and biblically for maintaining marriage as an exclusively heterosexual experience. Objecting to gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle does not make us haters any more then opposing adultery, fornication, greed, and arrogance makes us haters.

Let us not be intimidated by an agenda driven movement or media. Also let us remember that when we ignore biblical teaching by running to a no fault divorce court rather than working out our problems we surrender our influence and grant it to those who oppose our faith.

I'm not going to bother with reading this post so if there are multiple mistakes that need editing, well get over it! Love ya!