Newsweek's Blatant Anti-Christian Bias

The December 15, 2008 Newsweek magazine is going to be carrying a cover story on the subject of gay marriage and the Bible. This cover story will demonstrate yet once again to anyone who hasn't quite caught the clue that journalism as far as objective journalism in the mainstream media died long, long ago.

This is not a journalistic piece. This is a promotional piece. It is a piece of advocacy. It does not even pretend to present the other side. It does not pretend to go to sources that would document the other side or defend the other side.

It is pure advocacy. It is anti-Christian in its tone and in its content. It is an article by Lisa Miller, Our Mutual Joy. It is a very poor piece. Anyone who has done almost any meaningful study in the Scriptures will know how to respond to it.

Sadly, that means most evangelicals won't because most evangelicals don't do that kind of study. They are not shown how to do that from the pulpit. When they are given entertainment rather than meaningful exegesis, then folks can get away with this kind of thing.

Responding to Newsweek's Gay Marriage Cover Story

What I am going to be doing after this in this video is presenting to you my opening statement. It is only a 20-minute opening statement, so it is fairly short. It is an opening statement that I did a number of years ago up in Salt Lake City in a debate with a homosexual on the subject of gay marriage.

It was supposed to be on gay marriage, but he made it primarily about homosexuality, so we had to change focus. It wasn't quite as focused on the subject as I would like to have been, but I still do address the majority of the issues that the article raised in that opening statement because there really isn't anything new about this whatsoever.

Of course, my book, The Same-Sex Controversy, which I co-wrote with Jeff Neal, is still available from Bethany House as well to respond to these things. There is not much new under the sun as far as that goes.

It is somewhat almost humorous or sad to read Lisa Miller saying things like, While the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

I guess Genesis and Matthew weren't in the copy of the scriptures she picked up. Actually, I would like to allow the opening statement to refute that article, which is not difficult to do. But there was, along with this, an editorial from John Meacham that was also published in this edition.

I think this is what I would like to comment on because I think we need to hear just how vitriolic and deeply biased, deeply prejudiced the left is that is in control of the print media especially. Listen to some of the things that John Meacham says in this editorial.

No matter what one thinks about gay rights, for, against, or somewhere in between, this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt.

It is unserious and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition. What hubris, what utter arrogance, Mr. Meacham demonstrates here. He is responding to some of the last believing Episcopalians in the denomination who, in opposing gay marriage, spoke of the Bible which they regarded as the, quote, final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.

Well, this is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Of course, it's what Christians have always believed. And then notice just the sweeping acceptance of all the left-wing viewpoints about the Bible, no matter how self-contradictory they are.

And we're just supposed to accept all of that. So that to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt. It is unserious and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.

Of course, the Judeo-Christian tradition, whatever in the world that is, has been doing that all along. But it's intellectually bankrupt. See, these are the people who won't even engage in meaningful defense of their position.

They just want to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a Neanderthal. I would direct Mr. Meacham to the debates that I've done with people like John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn and see just how unserious and intellectually bankrupt the biblical position actually is.

He also writes,. Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage there is no such thing, of course begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice, a matter of behavior.

It is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color. The analogy with race is apt for Christians of particular long-sighted scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals.

Notice the horrific illogic of this man's thinking. Well, I think someone did something badly in the past and that means they shouldn't be quoting the Bible now. As if there's a parallel between the two?

There isn't a parallel between the two. The Bible's views on slavery are in a completely different context. He's going to, you know, all these people throw out the holiness code and show no serious ability to actually interpret any of it.

They don't spend any time on this. They've just gone out, they've picked up the books by Mollenkot and others. They just are repeating this stuff over and over again. And we've seen what happens when that stuff is brought into serious debate.

It collapses like the house of cards it actually is. But these folks don't want serious debate.

They're in control.

And they don't want anyone to take away their right to just simply say what they want to say. But that kind of argument, that homosexuality is the same as race, should anger any meaningful civil rights advocate that is watching this because that is an insult, an insult to your cause.

It truly is.

Then at the end of this editorial by Meacham, which again just reveals the inveterate hatred of the left for the Christian faith. He talks about the Newsweek poll confirms what other surveys have also found, that there is a decided generational difference on the issue with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans.

Well, that's hardly shocking given what Hollywood has been doing, huh? One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation and so it will be, I suspect, the sacrament of marriage.

As if Newsweek polls determine what marriage should be about. What amazing arrogance and hubris the left has. And it would be very easy to get angry about things like this. But we must remember that these people are lost and they are going to stand before a holy God and will be judged for the perversion of his word.

We should be praying for these individuals, proclaiming the gospel to these individuals because they clearly don't understand it, they don't know it, they haven't embraced it, and are enemies of God. Currently they stand under his wrath and will continue to do so until they flee for mercy in Jesus Christ.

But aside from that issue, we should see things like this again as opportunities. For if we know the word of God and if we are able to, we see someone reading this or someone makes reference to this, you say, well, you know, it's interesting, that article says that the Bible and Jesus never defined marriage as one man and one woman, but could we look at what the word of God actually says?

And then when you go to Matthew 19 and you walk through the text and its clarity and its force, and then you allow that to speak to someone's heart, we pray by the power of the Holy Spirit, opportunities for witness are born of these things.

And so, be prepared to once again encounter those looks of people as if you're some sort of backwoods Neanderthal, if you dare believe that the Bible can speak with clarity to a particular issue. And be prepared to give witness as opportunity arises.

Marriage, Scripture, and the Created Order

As I said, this next section of the video, opening statement in a debate that was supposed to be on this subject,.

It sort of wandered off of it,.

With a homosexual in Salt Lake City from a few years ago. This is available online at www .aomin .org, as are the debates with Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, as well as former Bishop John Shelby Spong on these subjects.

I invite you to examine these debates for yourself and see who is able to handle the word of God right and consistently in discussing the issue of God's intentions and purposes regarding human sexuality.

Thanks for watching.

I have stood in many a situation to defend the sufficiency of the word of God as the sole infallible rule of faith of the Church. God has not left us up to our own devices. He has given the Church His word.

He has preserved that word. He has made that word perspicuous, clear, interpretable. And if we will honor that word, then we can know what His truth is for His people. I have defended that in many a situation, even last evening in the debate that was held in this place.

That was part and parcel of the real issue. If we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, then it tells us what the Church is to be about and what about temples and worship and the sacrifice of Christ and things like that.

When it comes to the issue that now faces our society regarding homosexual marriage, the Bible does very clearly express to us what marriage is. For example, if you'll turn with me in your Scriptures to Matthew chapter 19, the Lord Jesus Himself addressed this particular subject.

And it came up many times in His ministry because of the fact that the Jews had adopted a very lax view of marriage and had given to men the right to dismiss their wives for almost any purpose whatsoever.

And in Matthew chapter 19, beginning of verse 3, some Pharisees came to Jesus testing Him and asking, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all? Now, Jesus' answer takes us back to the very beginning of God's revelation because He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created them from 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 they are no longer two but one flesh, what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. So here you have the incarnate Son of God, the very one that we believe spoke and the worlds came into existence, telling us what marriage is all about.

And He goes back to a passage of Scripture that many in liberal theological circles today do not even believe was in fact penned by God or is just merely a human reflection upon these issues. He goes back to the Pentateuch.

He goes back to Genesis chapter 2. And notice His interpretation. He says, Have you not read that He who created them, God, is our creator? God defines the parameters of male and female and what the family is.

That is God's right as the creator. We as the creation do not have the right to change the parameters that He Himself lays down. Jesus says that God is the creator and He created them from the beginning.

This was not just a cultural thing. This was not just something that was relevant to the period of time of Moses' existence or Leviticus 18. But from the beginning as a part of His creative decree, He created them male and female and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother.

Now here you have the family. You have the family made up of a father, a mother, and offspring. Here is from the beginning God's intention in the family laid out for us. A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

Here is the Lord Jesus' own interpretation of the family unit and the continuation of that family unit. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.

I suggest to you that these words make no sense outside of that which the church has always believed and that is marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact, the very term homosexual marriage would not even be a meaningful phrase from a biblical perspective.

When we look at Hebrews chapter 13 verse 4, which was alluded to earlier, where you have there that marriage is to be held in honor by all, the only way to understand that in the context of Hebrews, especially given its reliance upon the Old Covenant and the Old Testament scriptures, is that the marriage bed is referring to that which is seen here in Matthew 19, seen in Genesis chapter 2, male and female, a man and a woman together in that marriage relationship.

When we go back to Genesis chapter 2 we are also faced with another very important aspect of this and that is the presentation of the words the Lord Jesus quoted is in the context of the fact that there is no helper found that corresponded to the man.

And this is one of the most important things I think we need to focus upon this evening and that is the scriptures use marriage as an illustration of the relationship between the Lord Jesus and the church.

In the book of Ephesians, Paul draws this marriage relationship out and identifies Christ as the husband and the church as the bride. And there is a complementary relationship that exists between Christ, the Savior of the body, and his body, the bride of Christ.

And that complementary relationship is seen in the male-female relationship. In Genesis chapter 2 we are told that it was not good that the man was to be alone and that the man could not find in the created order one that was complementary to him, one that met his needs.

And so we have the creation of woman and when woman is brought to man, man sees that he is flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, that he meets that which he himself lacks. You see, in the creative decree of God, God has made the male-female relationship such that the female completes the male and the male completes the female.

That there is a complementary relationship. There is no complementarianism in a homosexual relationship. It is a situation where you have a mirror image, you do not have the creative decree of God being fulfilled in that situation.

And that's why you do not have, even though Paul writes in a situation where homosexuality was well known, Plato had already written about almost every aspect of homosexual behavior, homosexual relationships.

Paul was well aware of these things. He had read the Greek philosophers. He was a man of the world. He understood these things. Many times he is presented as if he just, he didn't address these things because he didn't know about them.

No, that is not the case whatsoever. He knows about all these things and yet we have no reference whatsoever in the New Testament to this kind of radical redefinition of the nature of marriage and male-female relationships that would be required if, in point of fact, Christians were going to support this concept of same-sex homosexual marriages.

Now, obviously I've spent significantly more time already on the issue of marriage than we did in the opening presentation. I want to address that first because the fact that I think it's important to be recognized that there is a positive biblical presentation given to us as to what marriage is and how it functions.

There in Genesis 2 you have male and female, father, mother, offspring. These are all elements of what God intended marriage to be about and that's how he created us. But, of course, the presentation that I am responding to this evening has primarily focused upon, well, but is it really wrong to be homosexual in the first place?

And this evening we can hardly exhaust the amount of information that needs to be discussed. Obviously that is something that comes up in this particular issue. In this particular debate, the first and foundational issue for someone who claims the Bible is the Word of God is to determine whether in point of fact the Bible addresses this issue.

And we have been told that no, the Bible doesn't address the issue of, specifically, a monogamous homosexual relationship that is based upon love and the assertion that God made me this way, this is the way he created me, and therefore all those passages that address the issue of homosexuality are not speaking about me.

Allow me in just a few moments that I have to make some comments on the passages because most of the relevant passages were indeed referenced. That is Genesis chapters 18 and 19 in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 in regards to the holiness code that is contained there, Romans chapter 1, the Apostle Paul's description, and then the use of the Greek term arsenokoites in 1 Corinthians 6 -9 and 1 Timothy 1 -10.

Now, in essence, what I would like to try to explain to you is the consistency of the biblical revelation at this point. There is no reason whatsoever in looking at the biblical text and accepting it as a consistent revelation from God to believe that there is any difference in the presentation from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation.

Indeed, the situation in Genesis really goes beyond the concept of gang rape. In point of fact, that only becomes an issue after Lot has identified the desire of the men, and notice it's the men of Sodom, the desire of the men of Sodom in Genesis 18 as wicked.

And notice that that's the very same term that God himself used in Genesis 13 when he said that he needed to find out, that he needed to test the men of Sodom to see if the wickedness, the men of wickedness, that was truly the case.

And when he says, the angels down back in Genesis 13, there is this cryptic statement that the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked. Now, this is before anything about gang rapes or anything else. It is about the everyday activity that went on in Sodom.

This is clearly seen in Genesis 18, because when Lot encounters the angels, the visitors, he doesn't know that they're angels at this point in time, when he encounters them, he wants to get them out of the city square as fast as he can.

He knows what the city is like. The issue of gang rape has not even come up, and that whole situation does not even arise until after the men have surrounded the house and demanded these men be brought out so that they might know them.

Only then does Lot identify this as wickedness. And so the issue of what is an abomination, which was brought up in the opening presentation, in reality does come out in Leviticus 18 and 20, where there we are told that this activity is toeva.

Toeva is a Hebrew term that, it was quite rightly said, is frequently attached to idolatry. In fact, in the book of Isaiah, those who choose to worship idols are said to be themselves toeva. That is, a person who chooses to go against God's law, whether it be in idolatry or in sexual behavior, is toeva, in God's sight, is an abomination, and the law brings penalty to bear for those activities.

And so in Leviticus 18 and 20, these things are brought out. Now, many people seem to dismiss the relevance of Leviticus because, well, that's just the old law, but please notice something. This is the section of the Old Testament that the Lord Jesus quoted from more than any other.

This is the section that says you shall love the Lord your God. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. And it is the only place in the Bible where we have prohibition against bestiality and incest.

And so, obviously, these prohibitions were not merely cultural at the time. Jesus did not interpret them in that way. He did not interpret the law in that way either, and neither did the Apostle Paul.

For in Romans 1, as you well know, when he addresses this issue, mentioning first lesbianism and then male homosexuality, he does not do it in the context of saying, well, if you don't love God and if you turn your back on God, then these are bad things to do.

Folks, think with me for just a moment when we look at Romans 1. Yes, there are many sins that are listed at the end of Romans 1. It's been said, well, this isn't descriptive of me. I haven't hated my parents.

I haven't done all the stealing and the lying and all these things, and therefore this is not descriptive of me. Please recognize something. Could we honestly say, as we look at the descriptions of the sins, the idolatry, for example, could an idolater look at Romans 1 and say, well, look, I don't hate my parents.

I love God. I just happen to love other gods as well. Therefore, this passage is not applicable to me. Well, of course not. That is atomizing the text and not allowing the text to stand as a whole. The fact of the matter is Paul utilizes in Romans 1, verses 26 and 27, this concept, and he's illustrating what idolatry does.

It twists the creator-creation distinction. Man twists the relationship that is to exist with God. God is the one that defines what human sexuality is to be about. God is the one who defines who we are to be.

God is the one who defines what worship is to be, how we're to be related to everyone around us, and we choose to twist that because we are suppressing the knowledge of God. We do not have to do everything in the list of vices at the end of Romans 1 for these things to be descriptive of us because there's murder and there's lying and there's fornication and adultery.

You don't have to be guilty of every single thing for this to be descriptive of each of us as an individual. And so Paul does specifically refer to male and female adult homosexual relationships in Romans 1, verses 26 through 27, and he does as well in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 9, and 1 Timothy 1, verse 10.

Here, however, he uses a specific Greek term, arsenikoites. And it seems, if we look historically at the situation, that Paul actually possibly coined this very term. Why do we say that? Well, because we don't see any specific reference to it prior to Paul's use in the history of literature.

And where might he have gotten it? Well, Paul would very frequently use the Greek septuagint. The Greek septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and he would preach from that septuagint.

And so what the Apostle Paul would frequently do is he would take terms that were found there in the septuagint, and he would combine them, knowing that his audience would be drawing from the same source, so that they could see the application he was making from the text of Scripture.

And both of the terms that are put together, arsenikoites, means men together in sexual relationship with one another. And both of those terms are found separately in the Greek septuagint. In Leviticus, it's 18 and 20, the very section of the holiness code that says you shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman.

And so in both of those places, in 1 Corinthians, written to the church at Corinth, that Paul himself, he was involved in the planting of that church, he had preached in that church, he knows they have the Scriptures, and then writing what, 1 Timothy 1 .10, writing to Timothy that he also knows would have the same background, same context.

He uses this term that is descriptive of homosexual orientation and activity. Now, in so doing, he says in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 9,. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now, let me mention something before my time expires. That's a long list. And I would imagine, if everyone in this room is honest, that somewhere along that line, that passage nailed everybody in here.

You see, there's terms there, thieves. How about covetous? The entire advertising industry in our land exists to make you one of them. To make you covetous. To make you want what somebody else has, and you won't be happy unless you have it.

Drunkards. Goodness. We all have to wonder about how we're getting home tonight, simply because of that, right? Revilers. Swindlers. You see, in none of these situations could someone say who was covetous, Yeah, Paul says covetous, but I don't hate my parents, that's not me.

No.

He's speaking directly to the heart of each person who's experienced this sin. And folks, I hope in the discussion this evening, we don't miss the first part of verse 11, because for me, it is the most important aspect of this discussion tonight.

Such were some of you.

Were.

Not such are some of you. Such were some of you. Why is that so important? Two things. Why do I feel this is such an important topic? Why did I write a book with my brother Jeff Neal a few years ago on this very issue for Bethany House Publishers?

Because I just like to get involved in debates and arguments? No. Two things. A. Out of my love for God, fidelity to his truth, fidelity to his word, I must say that God's law is clear on this issue, it's clear on the subject of homosexuality, and I will not betray my faith to God by closing my eyes and saying, well, I'm just going to go with my emotions, I'm going to go with my feelings, and I'm not going to listen to what God's word says.

God's word says homosexuality and covetousness and idolatry are sins, and I will not compromise that. But you see, the reason I will not compromise that is it doesn't show love for God, and it does not show love for anyone else.

Because you see, Paul says, such were some of you. But you see, there is something that continues that verse. It says, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the spirit of our God.

There is a proclamation, there is a message of hope for every one of those in that list. And when it says, such were some of you, that means our present tense can't be for those who want to hold to those promises, but God is the one who in his love makes those promises available for those who will believe him.

Thank you very much.