Editorial

Family North Carolina Magazine—January/February 2009

by R. Matthew Lytle, Ph.D.

Newsweek Makes News

by R. Matthew Lytle, Ph.D.

A December 15 article about religion and same-sex marriage made waves across the country. In the article, Lisa Miller, attempts to argue from the Bible that same-sex marriage is acceptable. Her subtitle sums up her thesis well: “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”

While the size of this editorial precludes a detailed analysis of Miller’s article, I will nevertheless respond to some of the more egregious violations of scholarship and logic.

In the first place, Miller argues that the Bible gives a mixed message on marriage. Jesus was indifferent to “earthly attachments.” Plato famously taught of a dualism of body and soul. For him, the soul was the eternal part of a person that is contained (or, perhaps better, imprisoned) within the body like a bird in a cage waiting to be freed from its fleshly (and therefore evil) prison.

While many scholars want to make Jesus a Platonist, the fact is, Jesus was intensely interested in physical and temporal matters. For Jesus, the body is not some prison that is best gotten rid of; it is instead part of creation, which God called “very good” in Gen 1:31. Moreover, while the body and soul are ripped apart at death, the two will be reunited at the resurrection, where the children of God will live with him eternally in their glorified bodies.

Furthermore, Jesus specifically endorsed marriage as the union of a man and a woman on several occasions. As it happens, Jesus performed the first sign that manifested his glory at a wedding (John 2:11). In addition, Jesus specifically taught that “the Creator from the beginning made them male and female,” and immediately quoted Genesis 2:24, saying, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matt 19:4–5, my translation). Albert Mohler rightly argues that this passage “makes absolutely no sense unless marriage ‘between one man and one woman’ is understood as normative.”

The Old Testament, according to Miller, does not present a better picture of marriage than does Jesus. In fact, Miller points out that marriage in the Old Testament often shows great heroes of the faith engaged in polygamy or having concubines. Because of this less-than-favorable picture of marriage, Miller argues that “no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s—to look like what the Bible describes.”

Miller is partially correct here, though she seriously overstates her case. She is correct that the Bible describes a good deal of bad marriage choices like polygamy and concubinage. While this is so, it is important to remember that because the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily condone that action. Indeed, almost all cases of polygamy described in the Bible lead to problems as a direct result of polygamy. For example, when Abraham had a child by his wife’s servant Hagar, that action led to conflict that still remains to this day. Indeed, Deuteronomy 17:17 expressly forbids the king to “multiply wives,” and 1 Kings 11:4–9 indicate that it was Solomon’s many wives who drove him away from God.

In addition, Miller has switched categories in her argument. She makes the assumption that if the Bible describes polygamy, then this is evidence in favor of same-sex marriage. Even if the Bible advocated polygamy (which it does not), this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. If we assume for the sake of argument that polygamy is the biblical standard, then marriage is still described as existing between men and women.

Finally, Miller tries to explain away biblical passages that condemn homosexual acts. She notes that Leviticus twice condemns homosexualty as an “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22–23; 20:13), but then quickly dismisses these passages as culturally-based, archaic codes like those that describe animal sacrifice. While some laws are undoubtedly ceremonial in nature, other laws reflect the moral character of God. The prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus reflects God’s moral character. God makes this clear by prefacing the law with “I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 18:2), thereby indicating that what follows comes from God’s very nature (we see the same things with the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20, which also reflect God’s morality).

Similarly, Miller writes that Paul’s seemingly tough stand against homosexuality is a different kind of homosexuality than what we have today. It is instead talking about the worst of offenses like “self-delusion, violence, promiscuity, and debauchery.” Paul certainly talks about these sins in Romans 1, he also clearly deals with homosexuality (both male and female homosexuality). Miller may try to explain this away, but it is not borne out by the text. She says that Paul is talking about people who “have done everything in this list,” but then neglects to mention that homosexuality is a part of that list.

In the end, Miller’s arguments do not hold water. Her work here is neither scholarly nor good journalism. It is instead a rehashing of many of the tired attempts to twist the Bible to teach something contrary to what the text actually says.

R. Matthew Lytle is director of research with the North Carolina Family Policy Council and editor of Family North Carolina.