Answering Newsweek
Magazine claims biblical support for same-sex “marriage.” Trouble is, its arguments simply don’t hold up under critical examination.
For more than 20 years, Citizen magazine has defended biblical truth about family life from attack by cultural elites — especially those in big media who are eager to redefine marriage and deprive boys and girls of what they need most: a mother and father committed to each other for a lifetime.
In the February 2009 issue, we answer the most egregious attack yet on marriage and the Bible — an article in the Dec. 15, 2008, edition of Newsweek by Lisa Miller deceptively entitled, “Our mutual joy.” There’s nothing joyful in seeing Scripture so thoroughly mangled.
But we couldn't wait until February to offer a response to Miller’s dishonest essay. We’ve invited five trusted friends to help us: Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., C. Ben Mitchell, Glenn Stanton, Joe Dallas and Jim Tonkowich.
These authors refute key points in the Newsweek article. Please take the time to read all of them, and share with your friends and loved ones. There’s no more important issue to our culture than the health and sanctity of marriage.
The Integrity of Scripture
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote about the Bible and marriage:
While the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
And here’s a response from Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and board member of Focus on the Family, adapted from his Dec. 8 online article on Newsweek’s cover feature:
Miller’s claim is just patently untrue. Consider Genesis 2:24-25 — Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh. This verse certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator’s intention, a union of one man and one woman.
To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, read Matthew 19:1-8: Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. This passage makes absolutely no sense unless marriage “between one man and one woman” is understood as normative.
The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that “nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.” She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” This passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women — with the women mentioned first.
Miller concedes that Paul “was tough on homosexuality” but she takes encouragement from the fact that “progressive scholars” have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity. As always, the bottom line is biblical authority.
All this comes together when Miller writes, “We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future.” At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever “universal truths” we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.
Even as she attempts to make her “religious case” for gay marriage, Miller has to acknowledge that “very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal.” Her argument now grinds to a conclusion with her hope that this will change. But — and this is a crucial point — if her argument had adequate traction, she wouldn’t have to make it. It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage; it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.
Newsweek could have offered its readers a more careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to same-sex “marriage.” It chose another path, and published this cover story. The magazine's readers and this controversial issue deserved better.
Marriage and Polygamy
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote about polygamy:
Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel — all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
... Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument — in particular, this verse from Genesis: “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” But as (Alan) Segal (of Barnard University) says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.
... Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands’ frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th.
And here’s the response of C. Ben Mitchell, director of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and associate professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity International University:
A mere 50 years ago Lisa Miller’s essay would have been deemed unworthy of publication in any respectable magazine because of its ignorance of basic Bible facts. The article is so outlandish that, were it not for contemporary biblical illiteracy, to respond to it would be to give it too much credit. But — because as Boston University’s Stephen Prothero has shown, 60 percent of Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments and 50 percent of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married — Miller’s biblical revisionism is especially dangerous.
The biblical ideal for marriage is for one man and one woman to enjoy a “one flesh” type of union for life. This much is clear from the creation story. After God made the first man, Adam, from the dust of the earth, He made the first woman from Adam’s side. Genesis 2:24 then teaches, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (ESV). The Hebrew word translated “one flesh” describes a deeply intimate union between a man and a woman that is consummated in the sexual relationship. Note that “a man” (singular) shall leave his family of origin and shall join faithfully with “his wife” (singular).
Everyone knows by painful experience how traumatic it is to violate any aspect of this ideal. If the union of a husband and wife is broken by death, trauma results. If the marriage covenant is broken by adultery, trauma results. Similarly, according to the biblical narrative, if the covenant is violated through polygamy, trauma follows.
Polygamy brings trouble according to the Bible. The Patriarch Abraham, for instance, had a wife, Sarah, and later added to their family an Egyptian servant named Hagar. Now we must understand that this was not a traditional polygamous relationship. Because of her infertility, Sarah invited Abraham to have a child through Hagar (Genesis 16:1ff).
Furthermore, the relationship was disastrous from the beginning. Sarah and Hagar never got along, their lives were miserable, and their children suffered as a result. Gideon, Jacob, David, and Solomon also had polygamous relationships — all of them to their detriment. Remember, the violation of the ideal always leads to trauma.
Interestingly, though Jesus nowhere explicitly condemns polygamy, when asked by his detractors, the Pharisees, about the grounds for divorce, Jesus made a beeline for the creation ideal. “Have you not read,” He answered them, “that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate” (Matthew 19:3-6). The disciples understood exactly what Jesus was saying about the seriousness of the marriage relationship, because they responded, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (19:10). Jesus then said that not everyone has the gift of celibacy. The point is, Jesus believed the Genesis instruction was true: God made humanity male and female, and sexual intimacy between men and women is to be enjoyed only in the “one flesh” marital union of one man and one woman.
Since this is the case, why would anyone expect homosexual marriage to result in anything but heartache and disappointment? If the violation of the marital ideal through death, adultery, polygamy, and divorce is so painful, discerning people should be able to anticipate that homosexual marriage is not going to bring happiness, but eventually the same trauma as every other violation of biblical marriage.
Religious and Civil Marriage
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
“Marriage” in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other — in sick and in health, for richer and poorer — in accordance with God’s will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.
And here’s the response of Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family:
In claiming that marriage in America is actually two separate things, Lisa Miller is simply making things up at this point. This statement has no foundation in actuality whatsoever. When I speak at secular universities across the country on why same-sex “marriage” and parenting are not good ideas, I regularly hear this same argument — that we already have different kinds of marriage, religious and civil. This is worth answering, not because it is a good argument, but precisely because it is as ignorant as it is popular.
There’s an easy way to demonstrate the hole in this idea for people who think it reasonable. Encourage them to marry someone in any house of worship, in a ceremony officiated by any minister. Then encourage the new couple to file their next tax return jointly. Good bet the IRS will contact them shortly, stating the agency has no record of the marriage. Have the couple kindly explain to the IRS agent that they opted for the religious kind of marriage Lisa Miller wrote about in Newsweek and see what the agent says. Challenge them to find any public entity that will recognize the marriage.
You see, anyone can get married in a church, synagogue, mosque or temple. Members of the predominantly gay Metropolitan Community Church “marry” same-sex couples all the time. But if those couples don’t receive licenses from the county courthouse, the whole exercise is moot, and it won’t matter how fabulous the religious ceremony was or how much the mother of the bride wept at the beauty of it all.
This license is much more than a piece of paper or a mere formality. It represents the government’s deep interest in a couple’s marital status because marriage does important things that every society needs. Marriage regulates sexual relationships — those from which babies could come forth — and is the best way societies have to ensure that the people who create the babies have a durable relationship sufficient to usher these children into healthy and productive adulthood. All societies have need for this. Significantly, one of the most consistent findings of modern social science is that among children who grow up apart from their mother or father experience greater rates of poverty, crime, drug abuse, educational failure, teen pregnancy, physical and sexual abuse, and physical and mental illness.
All cultures — ancient and contemporary, primitive and developed, religious and secular — have recognized marriage as the first and most fundamental social institution. Aristotle (never to be confused with the fathers of the Church) wrote quite some time ag
“In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without other; namely of male and female … [thus] the first thing to arise is the family. But when several families are united … that society is the village ... and the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren who are said to be suckled with the same milk.”
Churches in America play no role in regulating or licensing marriages. But the state must ... and does so because natural marriage is the most important and primary civil union.
Marriage and Procreation
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn’t God say, “Be fruitful and multiply”? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproduction technology — and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.
And here’s the response of Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family:
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, in his introduction to Lisa Miller’s article, called the “conservative resort to biblical authority” in opposing same–sex “marriage” “the worst kind of fundamentalism.” (Really Mr. Meacham? Worse than those fundamentalist that premeditated and executed the horrors of 9/11?) Given that, how does he explain his choice of cover art used for the article: a picture of a large Bible marked with a gay-friendly rainbow book marker. What authority are we to assume their article is appealing to and why is that not dangerous?
However, just for kicks, try for a minute to take Meacham and Miller at their word and agree to put aside this “dangerous” resort to conservative biblical authority and make another kind of case. How about a deeply pragmatic one that Focus on the Family and others have actually made for years?
Babies are more than cute little bundles of sweetness and love. They are the next generation of taxpayers, educators and caregivers. And because these new humans don’t automatically arrive on time like the 5:20 bus, you have to be very deliberate and intentional about making them. And if you don’t … well, just ask the Europeans what happens. The BBC recently reported on the “gloom” of one German political minister who warned that his nation’s economy will collapse if its birth rate does not pick up. He is not alone. All European nations are facing this problem and enacting public policies to reward couples handsomely who will, well…“be fruitful and multiply.” But like the biblical authors, apparently these European leaders are yet to realize the genius of Miller’s “brave new world” solution of “international adoption and assisted reproduction technology” as a viable alternative to husbands and wives producing their own children. Silly Europeans!
On this point, consider the French. Two years ago, the Parliament accepted a sober and sophisticated report from their National Assembly explaining:
Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and this is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child … [Therefore] a majority … does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation which are based on the tripartite unit of “a father, a mother, a child”, citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples. (emphasis added)
Be sure, there is both a religious and purely secular procreative case to be made for natural marriage, and we ignore that at our collective peril. Just ask the governments of secular and child-less Europe.
Homosexuality and Slavery
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as “the man and the woman. But common practice changes — and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric.
And here’s the response of C. Ben Mitchell, director of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and associate professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity International University:
Such sweeping a statement as “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition” is breathtakingly dismissive of an ancient text, taken to be authoritative for millennia, and attended with interpretive traditions that, until the sexual revolution of the 1960s, went virtually unchallenged on this particular topic. This smacks more of propaganda than accurate reporting.
Throughout her essay Miller mistakes the Bible’s inclusion of a practice as a recommendation of that practice (e.g., polygamy and slavery). Just because slavery is mentioned in the biblical material does not constitute an endorsement. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul’s instruction to Philemon not to treat Onesimus as his slave, but as a brother in Christ was simply revolutionary (Philemon 1:1-6).
The slavery practiced by the Hebrews was as different from other Ancient Near Eastern forms and from American chattel slavery as chalk is from cheese. For instance, slavery among the Hebrews was not based on race, but was largely an economic arrangement. A Jewish slave sold to another Hebrew because of his inability to pay his debts was to be released after six years. A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery was released during the Jubilee year. A slave could be bought back at any time by a relative. Moreover, in the New Testament both Paul and Peter insisted that slaves be obedient to their Roman masters. Masters were urged to be kind (Ephesians 6:9), and slave trading was condemned (1 Timothy 1:10).
But what does slavery have to do with homosexuality? It is hardly an apt analogy. Not only so, but the nuptial principle of monogamous heterosexual marriage is as old as the book of Genesis. It does not have its origins in the Book of Common Prayer. Furthermore, the principle rules out practices that everyone except the most radical ideologue would find abhorrent. For instance, the principle that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman eliminates bestiality as an option. Because the nuptial pair are to come from different families, the principle proscribes incest. Presumably Miller would agree that bestiality and incest are wrong. But why? Is it merely public disapproval that keeps these practices from being beyond the pale? If so, the likelihood is high that these mores will change in the not too distant future as well.
We must agree with Miller, however, that the Bible has influenced cultural practices tremendously down the ages. The Bible’s support for the dignity of every human being; the sanctity of every human life; the prohibitions against abortion, infanticide, and wife abuse have clearly informed the Western way of life — and thankfully so. The biblical work ethic, the encouragement of innovation, and economic freedom are also rooted in the Bible, as are property rights, principles of fair trade, and even the freedom of speech and of the press which provides the vehicle for Miller’s ludicrous claims.
Most relevantly, the Bible has provided the basis for the basic foundation of Western civilization: the family, marriage, and the limited powers of government under a constitution. All of us are beneficiaries of a great inheritance. We should protect these gifts from our forebears with great care. What we do not value, we will not protect, much less nurture.
David and Jonathan
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.” Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.
And here’s the response of Joe Dallas of Genesis Counseling in Dallas, and a featured speaker at Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conferences
The 2005 film Brokeback Mountain chronicled a decades-long sexual relationship between two men, creating a new punch line for comedian Robin Williams, who now says, when intimating a homosexual desire, “I love you in a Brokeback kind of way.”
But Williams isn’t the only doing the intimating. Newsweek’s religion editor Lisa Miller allows for a pro-gay interpretation of that most celebrated of all bonds between masculine men: David and Jonathan’s friendship.
None would argue these two were just casual buddies. The Bible, in fact, describes their souls as being “knit together” (I Samuel 18:1). Their commitment to each other’s well-being was clear (I Samuel 20:42). And when mourning Jonathan’s death, David declared “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women” (II Samuel 1:26). Believers traditionally have recognized this as an account of an abiding, fraternal bond. We see brotherly love; Miller sees Brokeback. So which one of us needs glasses?
I would argue that David’s heterosexual nature is described in terms no Bible reader could miss. King David, like many Old Testament figures, was polygamous, taking for himself numerous wives and concubines (II Samuel 5:13), his sexual behavior often in conflict with God’s design. But the tension between God’s will and David’s conduct had nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with unbridled heterosexual lust.
Scripture is equally unambiguous about sexual relations. From the Genesis record of God ordaining Adam and Eve’s union to St. Paul’s New Testament remarks on fornication, prostitution and adultery, biblical references to sexual intimacy, whether moral or immoral, are frank, easy to understand, unmistakable.
Why, then, would the normally blunt and graphic Bible become shy when referencing a homosexual relationship between Jonathan and David? Having elsewhere minced no words about rape, incest, or attempts at forcible sodomy, why would it now resort to poetic euphemisms such as “souls being knit together” or “love surpassing the love of women?” If a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan happened, why don’t we read, “And David knew Jonathan?” Because no such encounter occurred.
They loved deeply, to be sure. But to say love that is deep must also be sexual displays a narrow, limited view of love one wouldn’t expect from an accomplished journalist.
The depth of love and the nature of love are separate, a distinction Miller egregiously misses.
Jesus at the Well
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well — no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend — as evidence of Christ’s all-encompassing love.
And here’s the response of C. Ben Mitchell, director of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and associate professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity International University:
Here again Miller is guilty of telling only half truths. Unquestionably Jesus reaches out to and welcomes everyone. But Miller is not making the point that Jesus reaches out to everyone, she is claiming that Jesus does not care about sexual behavior. This is, after all, the burden of her essay.
One glance at John 4 finds Jesus meeting a woman gathering water at a well. In an act that would have astounded his contemporaries, Jesus not only initiates a conversation with a woman, but with a woman from a socially distained group, the Samaritans. His aim is to evangelize the woman, to point her to the water of eternal life in Christ. Jesus obviously deals gently with the woman, but his language is not entirely free of confrontation. After all, when Jesus instructs her to call her husband to the well, Jesus in His wisdom knows that she is cohabiting with a man, and that she has had numerous husbands in the past. The woman said, “I have no husband.” Jesus responded, “You are right in saying ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true” (John 4:17-18). She knew precisely what Jesus was getting at.
The Great Physician was doing a bit of diagnostic work to bring about conviction. It obviously worked because the woman responded “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet ... ” (v. 19). This woman understood her need for water more thirst-quenching than what had drawn from the well. Jesus is, indeed, an extraordinarily welcoming and loving Messiah. We must not, however, mistake Jesus’ mercy for grandfatherly indulgence. After all, later Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
In another encounter with an adulterous woman, Jesus calls her to “sin no more” (John 8:11). And, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus holds back very little when he says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If you right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell” (Matthew 5:27-30). So Jesus takes a very hard line against sin.
His apostle, St. Paul, took an equally welcoming but hard line toward the notoriously sinful Corinthians when he said, “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). That is, Paul says that those who continue to practice sinful behaviors without repentance will not inherit eternal life. Thankfully, there was evidence among some of the Corinthians that they had embraced Jesus Christ and forsaken their sinful lifestyles, including homosexual practice.
Miller is engaged in a bit of false advertising if she wants readers to think that Jesus does not care about how His followers live. In fact, He calls them to sacrifice no less than their own lives in order to follow Him. That’s what German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer called “costly discipleship.”
Same-Sex 'Marriage’ and Mainline Churches
Here’s what Lisa Miller wrote:
More progressive denominations — the United Church of Christ, for example — have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations will do “holy union” or “blessing” ceremonies, but shy away from the word “marriage” because it is politically explosive.
And here’s the response of Jim Tonkowich of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.:
Leaders of America’s Protestant mainline and old-line denominations believe same-sex “marriage” is the great civil rights struggle of the day. They are absolutely convinced of the justice of the cause. But faithful church members know what is true and what is false and resist the idea. The United Church of Christ is the only denomination to approve same-sex “marriage.”
The United Methodist Church’s 2008 General Conference, for example, reaffirmed the denomination’s position that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman” and that homosexual practice is “incompatible with Christian teachings,” despite intense lobbying from pro-homosexual activists. And the 2008 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to remove “fidelity and chastity” as a requirement for ordination, stopping short of redefining marriage but preparing the way for ordination of openly practicing gays and lesbians and immoral heterosexual relationships. But the decision of the Assembly is not final; it must be ratified by a majority vote of the presbyteries — the local governing bodies of the church. And it’s likely that the presbyteries will reject the Assembly’s decision.
In each case, these churchgoers exhibit what theologians in the early church identified as sensus fidelium — the “sense of the faithful.” By the grace of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians have an instinct, an inner sense about whether some teaching is or is not in harmony with biblical truth. The people in the pews may not be able to refute the arguments marshaled in favor of same-sex “marriage.” They may not be able to untangle the twisted logic that takes Bible texts condemning homosexuality and distorts them into condoning it instead. But they know that the results are contrary to Christian truth and morality and they reject them. Every one of the mainline denominations has faithful members and renewal groups working diligently — even heroically — to bring their churches back to biblical faith and morality. Their efforts need to be supported.
But if leaders in these denominations — and evangelical churches that are tempted in the same direction — refuse to listen, they should expect unpleasant consequences. Just ask Episcopalians, whose leaders embrace the homosexual agenda while 1,000 leave the church every week.
If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.
