2 of 3

But, of course, as any religious journalist knows (or should know), to affirm the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and life is hardly a mindless fundamentalist mantra, but a belief that guides Christians of many stripes, from evangelicals to Anglicans to Presbyterians to Methodists to Roman Catholics. That Meacham knows this to be true and still shouts "fundamentalist" suggests that he's pretty much given up on having a conversation with his intellectual opponents on this issue.

Then again, to suggest his opponents are intellectual is being generous, because Meacham certainly doesn't think much of our intellect. He goes on to note, "Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given" to the Bible, "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."

As if the manner by which God, in his providence, pulled together this book we call the Bible somehow relativizes its teachings. As if the critical attention of scholars is the touchstone by which people of faith do or should make their ethical and theological judgments. Yet to argue otherwise apparently is "intellectually bankrupt." And "unserious."

When a writer of Meacham's stature sweepingly dismisses the history, tradition, ethics, and biblical theology of Christians who have taught and now argue that marriage is, by God's design, a commitment of a man and a woman—well, you know he has pretty much conceded that he's run out of arguments. He says that one could argue for traditional marriage in other ways, but to ground it in biblical theology is "intellectually bankrupt" and "unserious."

Meacham inadvertently practices a kind of modern Gnosticism, an ancient religious perspective that can be found whenever a group assumes that the elect have special knowledge, while those outside remain ignorant. You see this subtly happening when someone refuses to engage in argument, but simply calls his opponent names. But it's not so subtle when Meacham says, "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 is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color" (emphasis mine).

As if this is a proven fact. As if all scientists of sexuality agree that all sexual orientation is as given as skin color. As if we need to quit denying this supposed fact and just recognize reality. This statement does have the virtue, however, of remaining consistent with the rest of his column: If you are part of the elect who does, in fact, recognize this truth, well, you no longer have to take seriously those who are "intellectually bankrupt" and "unserious."

Toward the end of his column, Meacham makes one last desperate attempt to sideline religious conservatives. He argues, "History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion." Meacham is a historian, so surely he knows how often that line has been used, often in the most evil ways. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were sure history and demographics were on their side. As were Lenin and Stalin. Closer to home, and in Meacham's living memory: The free-love, drug-obsessed '60s generation was a social experiment that millions believed was leading us to a new, open, and joyful society. Instead, it left countless teens and 20-somethings wasted, lonely, diseased, and dead. When a writer pulls out the "history and demographics" rhetoric, you know he is at the end of his rope. He is at a loss as to how to counter the argument and logic of his opponents. Instead, he tries to intimidate them with historical determinism: "It's going to happen whether you like it or not, so just surrender!"

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

December (Web-only) 2008, Vol. 53