The Boiling Point

Welcome to The Boiling Point, a blog that discusses current controversial issues. These blogs will tackle many of the \’d2hot button\’d3 issues that are confronting and shaping our society, for better or worse. I hope that you will visit my blog each week to gain a fresh perspective of these serious issues. Enjoy the blog. \
In December of 2008, Newsweek published a cover story by Lisa Miller entitled, \’d2Our Mutual Joy,\’d3 which challenged conservative\’d5s beliefs that the Bible condemns homosexuality. This misled author argued that the Bible teaches love as a foundational, is vague when addressing homosexuality, and lacks examples of traditional marriage. She further asserts scholars agree the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. However, is her assessment fair? (see article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1.) \
The endorsement of homosexuality by Lisa Miller, an apparent novice reader of the Bible, was evident by her egregious employment of faulty hermeneutics (principles of biblical interpretation). The gross biblical distortions in her article demonstrate her agenda to promote homosexual marriage, as she repeatedly and intentionally provided a twisted interpretation of biblical principles. \
First, Miller fails to make even the slightest attempt at objectivity as she only includes \’d2scholars\’d3 who agree with her positions. Many theologians who have a thorough grasp and understanding of the biblical languages would emphatically disagree with her \’d2experts;\’d3 yet, she, in typical journalistic fashion, never cites them. Any legitimate and quality article would include balanced interviews and accurately reported conflicting viewpoints. However, this article fails in credibility because of the lack of credible witnesses on both sides of the argument.\
Next, Miller cites examples of biblical marriage, including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. She correctly acknowledges they were polygamists; however, she fails to intelligently distinguish between narrative and endorsement. The Bible does not endorse this behavior; instead, it merely acknowledges that the behavior took place, contrary to many journalists who would never admit their biases and flaws. Jesus, in response to a question about marriage and divorce, replied that the reason Moses gave them permission to divorce was because of their \’d2hardness of hearts . . . but from the beginning it was not so,\’d3 (Matt. 19:8, NKJV). In other words, the Israelites were permitted to divorce in the Old Testament, but it was not God\’d5s original design. Jesus , with great precision, cited the Genesis prescription for marriage in Matthew 19:5-6, \’d2For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (emphasis added), 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,\’d3 (NKJV). The Bible is full of narrative examples of \’d2sin,\’d3 which it never endorses. On the contrary, those who committed heinous acts in Scripture suffered severe consequences, as will a nation that endorses sinful sexual acts, including, but not limited to, homosexuality. Any diligent reader of Scripture would easily understand this simple reality. It would behoove Miller to take some time away from her writing endeavors to thoroughly and objectively the Bible that she so readily criticizes. \
Another flaw in this severely deficient literary work is the nefarious lack of explanation for the absence of any discussion concerning homosexuality in Jesus\’d5 sermons. Miller concludes that since Jesus\’d5 direct condemnation of homosexuality or homosexual marriage is absent from His sermons, then homosexuality is biblically permissible, which is an atrocious logical flaw. The reason the discussion may be lacking in Jesus\’d5 messages is because no one was questioning the immorality of homosexuality. It was a given that homosexuality was a sin. Any serious reader of Scripture can identify the issues on people\’d5s minds in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John): marriage and divorce, forgiveness, greed, selfishness, anxiety, quest for truth, relief from suffering, daily provision for physical sustenance, political tension, unfair taxation, search for a deliverer, etc. Homosexuality was not on the radar. Yet, Miller correctly identifies the Bible\’d5s stark condemnation of divorce, and then, cynically criticizes Christians for not adhering to this commandment. While it is true some \’d2professing\’d3 Christians are divorced, it must also be recognized that not everyone who \’d2claims\’d3 to be a Christian is one, as noted by Jesus, \’d2Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven,\’d3 (Matt. 7:21, NKJV). Second, the idea that Christians no longer have a sin nature and are no longer capable of sin is a concept foreign to biblical Christianity, for the apostle Paul wrote himself, \’d2For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me,\’d3 (Rom. 7:19-20). Finally, the moment she ties divorce to homosexuality, she inescapably condemns homosexuality for the Bible unequivocally condemns divorce. In other words, no one can justify one sinful act by pointing to another sinful; instead, both sinful acts are equally condemned. \
Miller further implies the Bible only sparsely and ambiguously describes homosexuality as being sinful and, according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, never describes female homosexuality as a sin. Once again, this demonstrates her lack of biblical knowledge and honest interpretation. For instance, homosexuality is condemned in Genesis 19:1-11 and Judges 19, in which both occasions were called \’d2wickedness.\’d3 Then, in Romans 1:26-27, lesbianism is implied as it states, \’d2For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise (emphasis added) also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due,\’d3 (NKJV). Notice the key word, likewise, which comes from the Greek word homoios, meaning similarly. Similar to women leaving their natural use, men left their natural use of the woman, committing what is shameful, which comes from the Greek word, aschemosune, meaning indecent.\
Another concern with Miller\’d5s interpretation of Scripture is that she endorses Jesus\’d5 love toward those who are outsiders and social outcasts; yet, she criticizes those areas in Scripture that are clearly and indefensibly against her view. What she gives with one hand, she takes back with the other. For example, she fails to mention that when Jesus received those who were morally promiscuous, He also admonished them to \’d2Go and sin no more,\’d3 (Jn. 8:11, NKJV). While He welcomed them, He \’d2never\’d3 embraced their sin nor condoned it. Miller offers \’d2no\’d3 examples where Jesus endorsed anyone practicing sexual immorality or sinful behavior, though He spent an immense amount of time with those considered to be \’d2sinners.\’d3 He stated that it was \’d2for sinners\’d3 that He came to save, but from what was He saving them? (Matt. 9:13, Mk. 2:17, Lu. 5:32) What does it mean to be a sinner? These are questions that Miller should consider answering in her next article. \
While homosexuals assert their \’d2natural\’d3 attraction to members of their own gender as a defense for their practices, considerate people realize this is not a just reason to allow homosexual marriage or endorse homosexual practices. Those claiming a natural attraction assert they are genetically predisposed to homosexually, and therefore, should not be prohibited from acting on it. When one takes this position, they open Pandora\’d5s Box, for anyone can claim they are genetically predisposed to inappropriate behavior and, consequently, should not be expected to act any differently. For instance, what about the \’d2adultery\’d3 gene, \’d2liar\’d5s\’d3 gene, \’d2stealing\’d3 gene, \’d2racism\’d3 gene, \’d2cheat on my taxes\’d3 gene, \’d2rape\’d3 gene, or \’d2murder\’d3 gene? Consider the pedophile who claims he or she has a \’d2natural\’d3 attraction to children or the married heterosexual that has an attraction toward people other than his or her spouse. If you cannot legislate homosexuality based on a presumed genetic predisposition, how then can one legislate any behavior because all those who practice deviant behavior can claim they are born that way? In regards to the pedophile, adulterer, racist, etc., no sane person would permit them to act on it without legal and moral consequences. Attraction or inclinatin does not equal permission to act; instead, society would demand they exercise restraint, which is a biblical response for those who cannot comply with the biblical parameters of marriage, as indicated by Jesus in Matthew 19:12. This passage is in direct context of the demands of marriage. Those who cannot comply to God\’d5s intended design for marriage and sexual relationship should choose the life of a eunuch, which is a lifestyle of singleness (a state instructed by Paul and Jesus). \
A final consideration Miller mistakenly overlooks in her obvious endorsement of homosexuality is the historical record of nations that embraced homosexuality. Whether one looks to the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah or to the Roman Empire, nations that accept homosexuality do not survive. Apart from Scripture, there are historical and sociological reasons for not embracing homosexuality as an acceptable practice. While this author agrees that homosexuals should not be mistreated, they should not receive special privilege and should not be allowed to have a government sanctioned marriage. \
Currently, there are many debates as to whether homosexual should be legalized. Any law granting homosexuals the right to marry may have social and moral consequences beyond the scope of this generation. Every decision and every law has consequences, some seen and some unseen. Rest assured, endorsing homosexuality and homosexual marriage in our society will have long-term effects that will destroy the moral, emotional, and social fabric of this country. \
Though many launch venomous verbal assaults at him, James Dobson in his book, \’d2Marriage Under Fire,\’d3 correctly identifies that homosexual societies have existed prior to the United States; however, none of these societies have survived. Embracing homosexuality as a society could serve as one component that internally destroys this nation. One need only to look at history to find evidence for this statement as we have seen the collapse of the Roman Empire, not from an external conqueror, but from an immoral, internal one. The decisions of our current lawmakers in regards to these critical issues will determine the moral, social, emotional, mental, and financial success and failure, the poverty or prosperity, and the collapse or construction of this great nation. Therefore, we as a nation must take a stand on this difficult issue and not endorse homosexual marriage, thereby preserving the sanctity of marriage and the future of this nation. \
While this response to Miller\’d5s article will not end the debate, readers must recognize there is no denying the Bible\’d5s condemnation of homosexuality, whether male or female. Regardless, homosexuals should still be treated as people who are \’d2created in the image of God,\’d3 which they are. Still, conservatives must contend for preserving marriage as between one man and one woman, even if opponents unfairly label them as bigots. Bigotry, in its essence, is intolerance toward another\’d5s beliefs, even conservative beliefs. Therefore, those who label conservatives as bigots demonstrate the essence of bigotry and that they themselves are one. \
Jamie

1 person likes this post.

Like

Unlike