All Comments for: Looking for a 'Serious' Conversation | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > December (Web-only)

Christianity Today, December (Web-only), 2008 |

Looking for a 'Serious' Conversation

The Newsweek religious case for gay marriage is mostly an attempt to marginalize the opposition.

A Christianity Today editorial | posted 12/09/2008 04:39PM

The Newsweek cover story on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" has understandably raised the ire of religious conservatives. As many have pointed out (as did Mollie Hemingway, our new columnist, on ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 44 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Elo	Posted: December 21, 2008 3:30 PM


Turk, you obviously do not know the bible that is why you have made such a ridiculous post. Even if I were not a christian, I would still be against gay marriage because homosexuality is a sick pervesion. Also, why would any species want to kill itself off? Isn't that what homosexuality is all about - sex without the ability to procreate?

Thadine

Posted: December 15, 2008 5:04 PM


Thank you for this article. It's refreshing and encouraging to see someone read articles like the NewsWeek one with a critical eye. The media often uses emotionally charged language, and presents opinions as proven fact, but most people just accept what they read without challenging it. Keep it up!

John Wilson

Posted: December 15, 2008 8:47 AM

As for the call to love, the issue isn't whether homosexuals should be loved or not; that is a given. We should love all people. But disagreeing with them isn't un-loving. The CT article wasn't addressing government regulation of the sacraments and the comment about that missed the main point of the debate on whether gay marriage should be considered one. For the last comment, CT didn't purport to address every issue in the Newsweek article. It purports to address the problems with the support the Newsweek article was trying to rest on, which it did a fine job of. The Newsweek article mishandled a lot of information and resorted to bashing instead of dealing fairly with this issue. CT never said it was going to lay all of them out, but rather invite everyone to an even-handed conversation about these things. We are always called to love, but we are also called to "guard [our] doctrine closely". These must balance and our doctrine will conflict with a world that does not know Jesus.

Lynne

Posted: December 14, 2008 4:01 PM

This conflict will never be settled by reference to the bible or religious beliefs because religious beliefs and interpretations of the bible vary widely. Indeed, such arguments are beside the point, as when the bible was used to justify slavery or fight against interracial marriage. While individuals and groups certainly have the right to their own beliefs, our Constitution does not give them the right to impose their religious beliefs on others who believe differently. While marriage may have a religious component for many people, it does not exist without a civil contract. Individuals who love someone of the same sex and who want to establish a family and raise children with the rights, responsibilities and protections offered to opposite sex couples should not be prohibited from doing so because of the religious beliefs of others. In a pluralistic society, this kind of demeaning and devaluing intolerance is truly an abomination.

turk	Posted: December 14, 2008 9:29 AM

I love the scripture wars where both sides can use Bible quotes to make their arguments. It just shows how schizophrenic and ludicrous the Bible is. The Bible can’t even decide whether it’s prime figurehead is a benevolent all-loving deity or a warmongering genocidal devil. It contradicts itself on such important things as Jesus’ lineage, how many days Jesus was dead, and even the 10 Commandments. It prescribes death sentences for such things as eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath, or talking back to one’s parents. Isn’t it time for a progressive, morale society to move on from such a ridiculous and violent tome written 2000 years ago by primitive tribesmen who didn’t understand how rain happened?

Brad	Posted: December 12, 2008 5:17 PM

The newsweek article was nothing more than a full frontal attack on GOD and Christians. You cannot attack GOD with truth, so they use lies just as the Devil does. Also, I have noticed many comments where the commenter claims to be Christian, and is clearly not by the lies they are stating as truth. I feel sad for those people who think they are fooling us. No Christian would condone homosexuality or gay marriage. Period.

Professor of Theology and Law Responds

Posted: December 12, 2008 3:44 PM


Kevin Lewis at Biola has also responded to this article: http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081212_newsweek.cfm

Julian

Posted: December 12, 2008 1:39 PM


The Newsweek article was balanced and you should answer its critiques if you disagree with it. You incorrectly attribute Ephesians to Paul when in fact most biblical scholars reject this authorship.

Joe	Posted: December 12, 2008 10:40 AM

Writers like Meacham and Miller are not ignorant of historical facts, but they understand and interpret them with their own personal worldview, which is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is very clear that those without the Holy Spirit "do not accept the things of the Spirit of God" (I Cor. 2:14, NASB). They are not presenting arguments, but "opinions". This is the reason I canceled my Newsweek subscriptions a few years ago, and I do not subscribe nor read magazines like Newsweek. Unfortunately, churches are not teaching the Biblical worldview to our young people.

Gary	Posted: December 12, 2008 4:55 AM


Nesweek has been a hack magazine for quite some time, same goes for Time. I think CT is actually giving them too much credit, they simply don't do their research and are fine with throwing out poorly backed drivel. We should all try reading the Economist more often, we would be smarter for it.

Dave N.

Posted: December 11, 2008 10:58 PM

Just when Christians need help with an intelligent response to the Newsweek article (which has certainly been generating a lot of discussion) we get this instead. This may be CT's most poorly written article of all time on such an important subject. How about actually addressing some of the points in the Newsweek article itself rather than the theological point of view of the Newsweek author? If anything CT has ADDED to the apparent validity of what Newsweek is saying by printing an article that purports to address the issues and then doesn't.

Boston Matt

Posted: December 11, 2008 10:23 PM


Man, I could not agree more! Thanks for such a well thought out response! I do have one thing to say though. If this article was focused on "religious" arguments, why was Islam no where to be found? Just wondering?

Jason

Posted: December 11, 2008 10:05 PM

Gregory, could you be more ignorant of the positions held by those who support traditional marriage? We do not dismiss the Golden Rule when we oppose homosexual unions, we uphold it. See, we actualy believe that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. We also believe that sin leads to ultimate spiritual death and eternal separation from God, therefore the most loving thing we can do for our homosexual neighbor is point out his sin and implore him to repent so that he can find his joy in God's glory. It is you who dismisses the Golden Rule by neglecting to warn of the wages of sin. If you want to make a biblical argument that homosexuality is not sinful(which you clearly assume), I would love to hear it. But until then do not tell me that I am unloving for oposing behaviour which I beleive to be sinful.

robert r. cargill

Posted: December 11, 2008 9:19 PM

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=42834041807 It Is OK for Christians to Vote No on Prop 8 by Dr. Robert R. Cargill Friday, October 31, 2008 Introduction Christians are regularly asked to vote upon political measures that have tremendous secular significance but often possess few ethical or religious implications. These include tax increases and school bond measures. As a result, Christians are routinely divided along typical political lines, such as party, gender, or age on civil issues, with their faith playing no observable role in many of these decisions. But on certain occasions, Christians are faced with issues and ballot propositions that force them to vote along a different demographic line: that of faith. These measures have included issues of abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment, among others. This year is no exception. [for more, visit link: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=42834041807 ]

E. Hagos

Posted: December 11, 2008 7:34 PM


The highly significant deviation of church-regulated Christian marriages from the Biblical model has surely contributed towards the challenge of high rate in divorces and the rise of gay marriages for emotional sanity.

Mike S

Posted: December 11, 2008 6:24 PM

The problem with defending a position that flies in the face of the way God made us is that the minute you win you lose. As this article points out the 60 free love generation won over the culture and the everyone still loses because of it. Similarly the more we reject God's laws the more damage we do to ourselves. If Meacham et al are correct and we continue in this path, then our country and culture will in the end implode from the weight of the consequences of our own sin.

Al	Posted: December 11, 2008 3:16 PM

Excellent editorial. And it should also be emphasized that Newsweek is in the midst of a circulation numbers plummet -- and last spring they experienced their second major buyout of staff so as to drop a significant percentage of the employees. So as I read one of the most outrageous pieces of propaganda one could ever imagine, I couldn't help but conclude that this was a deliberate (and desperate) plea for publicity and readership. Nothing so unprofessional gets produced by very experienced professionals without some long staff meetings, a lot of brain-storming, and as much editing and tweaking of the final version until the article was as abrasive and one-sided as possible.

Al	Posted: December 11, 2008 2:50 PM

Dan Thompson

Posted: December 11, 2008 12:46 PM


Out of curiosity, is this the same Meacham that wrote the latest Andrew Jackson bio?

Mark M

Posted: December 11, 2008 12:32 PM

I too agree that there should be some kind of 'leave the civil unions to the state/leave marriage to the churches' solution but that's not what the issue is about. The issue of marriage to certain homosexuals seems to be an issue to which they consider necessary for being seen as legitimate. They actually want to have the title of 'married.' I've yet to see the rational for this as opposed to accepting civil unions made from the homosexual left. I do think that this was a good critique of the article, though, and showed how much ignorance of scripture there when it comes to the issue. (It may not even be ignorance per say, more of a selective reading.) Christians do need to know how to argue the issue from a biblical perspective, at least when homosexuals and those who empathize are trying to twist the Bible to their point of view.

Gary	Posted: December 11, 2008 10:30 AM

In response to Ben's assertion that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, I would like him to simply ask himself the question, "By what standard am I able to make my assertions?" All of us--including postmoderns who presumably reject foundationalism--have a "code," a system of values, or an internal gauge for determining right and wrong. And that system is based upon presuppositions, apart from which we all are unable to make an arguement for anything that remotely approximates an absolute value, such as "the marriage debate is a civil rights issue." For my money, I concede that God exists, that He has spoken to us in His Son, in His Word, and in His creation. So I will humbly try my best to love Him and my neighbor as myself, because apart from Him and His grace, I would selfishly do my own will--always. In short, "Father knows best."

Ben	Posted: December 11, 2008 8:25 AM

The marriage debate is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. While the political opinions may be opposite, the intellect and reasoning behind the arguments of both biblical conservatives and liberals are the same. Reading an article like this saddens me and I believe does more damage to the "Christian" name than helps. Jesus was not a political figure and we as christians should care more about the issues that face human kind rather than spend countless dollars and hours arguing political semantics. Quit drawing battle lines on petty issues and preach what Christ did. "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the poor, and love your neighbor as yourself".

PBodanza

Posted: December 11, 2008 4:24 AM

As a Chistian Magazine, you must assume your readers are looking for encouragement and a Christian response to this discussion. You provided neither. The first and most basic premise is that Miller does not have the capability of understanding spiritual matters. She gets a lot wrong - leave it at that. Here's something she got right: at least half of the Christains in American get divorced. Christians are called to live differently in the culture in which we have been placed. But, as the body of Christ we are failing at that. We live compromised lives which opens the door for the world to mock us. NT writers encourage and admonish Christians, not non-Christians. We are reminded of who we are in Christ and how, based on that truth, we should live as those who have been set free of sin. We are not instructed to try to force culture to agree with us, but to live in our culture as one who is changed because of Jesus–one who is different-just as Jesus did. Let's focus on that.

Richard H

Posted: December 10, 2008 8:34 PM

"History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion." I'm not sure how demographics work in favor of an "inclusive" view of marriage. If we were Malthusians and thought a reduced population were in order, then "marriages" that could produce no children would be seen as demographically positive. But then Mr. Meacham is just claiming that the modern meta-narrative of progress will inevitably result in what he desires. As a Christian, my eschatological vision is a bit different.

Travis

Posted: December 10, 2008 3:37 PM

I thought that Millers article in Newsweek had and agenda and a point that she wanted to make before putting in the research and I felt it showed. This article I felt did about the same thing. I think the bible is clear on marriage, on homosexuality, and on love. Love should absolutly come first, and verses should be quoted in context with an understanding of their intent and audience. I think Newsweek chose versus and saw them thru a lens to make their point and CT is attacking them for doing so.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment