Newsweek's Lisa Miller gives us an example of biblical "scholarship" at its most dishonest
I previously mentioned Newsweek's frightening article in the current edition arguing that pro-life pharmacists and other non-medical health care workers should be forced to violate their consciences by helping to provide the means to abortion. But the same sorry issue also contains another regrettable piece: Lisa Miller's re-statement of the lame, tired, shopworn, altogether unconvincing and depressingly dishonest "religious" argument in favor of gay "marriage."
Miller is right about one thing: the phrase "gay marriage" never appears in the Bible. Of course, neither does the phrase "male childbearing," and for the same reason: the concept is absurd by its very nature. Well, that and the fact that "gay" has been a synonym for "homosexual" only for a few years now, and that even the concept of homosexuality (as opposed to sexual activity among members of the same gender) is a relatively recent development. But that's a good example of the quality of Miller's arguments.
Miller starts her case with a dishonest piece of verbal slight of hand. She claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Of course the Bible never explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman; until fairly recently, its status as such was regarded pretty much universally as self-evident! And in fact, the second chapter of Genesis- pointed to by Jesus in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8 precisely as foundational to His teaching on marriage- says quite clearly
No mention here of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman- or either a man or a woman and a living room sofa! And if Genesis 2:22-24 falls short of providing an "explicit definition" of marriage, it is still the text treated not only by Jesus and Paul but by both the Christian and Jewish traditions as the Bible's foundational teaching on the entire subject. Miller's claim may escape being an outright lie on a technicality, but that does not change its fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
Such transparently dishonest arguments are by no means unusual among liberal biblical scholars in the debate over homosexuality. Biblically literate people who do not approach the texts having determined in advance to find that they permit homosexual behavior or gay "marriage" tend to be massively unimpressed by the revisionist argument- and with good cause. But then, the revisionists aren't really out to make an exegetical case. What they seek to do is to provide an argument- however weak and transparently dishonest- that the text doesn't really mean what it says. All that is required thereafter is the willing suspension of one's intellectual integrity in the service of a conclusion which one believes is the ideologically correct one, and it becomes possible to give lip service to the authority of Scripture without being required in any sense to submit to it.
The revisionist argument is essentially the same kind of argument as the classic negative case in debate. The negative is not required to make sense. It is not required that its arguments be consistent one with another. It is enough that they scatter about enough random objections, even from wholly inconsistent premises, that the affirmative is unable to refute them all. The situation the affirmative describes, the argument goes, is wholly imaginary. Besides that, it isn't as bad as the affirmative claims. Moreover, it's stopped.
Miller's case, and that of the sexual revisionists, is in essence that the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexuality; that its condemnation is less emphatic than traditionalists claim; and that its condemnation is outmoded and should be disregarded by enlightened folks like us. Similarly, it claims, the Bible doesn't really define marriage; that its definition is more elastic than traditionalists argue; and that it should be allowed to naturally evolve into something wholly inconsistent at odds with that definition, but better suited to the times.
And to her credit, Miller is quite open about where she is coming from. Sometimes. "Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history," she proclaims. The "living document" argument is, of course, advocated in connection with a great many texts, both sacred and secular, by those seeking a rationale for setting aside what the words say in favor of what one would prefer that they say. Miller to the contrary, to set aside the meaning of the words of a text in favor of the interpreter's preference is to deny it real authority of any kind, and the brand kind of theology which espouses that sort of intellectual dishonesty has only been prominent in Christianity for the past century or so. To borrow a concept from that kind of theology, and "deconstruct" Miller's "living document" hypothesis, she is really arguing that the Bible remains relevant only insofar as we empty the words of their content, and infuse them with content we prefer. And that, finally, is her approach throughout the article: post-modern biblical scholarship, which is less concerned, really, with explicating the content of the text than with supplying it with alternative content more to one's liking.
And no sooner does Miller hypocritically bow to the authority of Scripture as a "living document" than she shows her true colors. The verbal slight-of-hand implicit in the following is familiar to those of us who have engaged in this debate before. But its dishonestly remains breathtaking:
Scripture never endorses slavery- though it does regulate it. Paul's argument in Philemon is generally acknowledged by honest historians as having dealt it the blow of which it ultimately died what was admittedly a lingering death in the Western world, and provided the rationale for abolitionists from Wilberforce through John Brown. But leaving that point aside, those who recognize it as a religious authority in any real sense do not see it as advising, but commanding when it pronounces on matters of ethics. Few of us are in the market for slaves these days- which is just as well, since the Bible nowhere provides the sort of advice Miller mentions. And is it disingenuity or honest ignorance which is behind Miller's equation (notoriously also made by our president-elect) of the ceremonial law given to Moses, and regarded by Christians ever since Paul as addressed to, and binding upon, only ancient Israel, and the moral law universally recognized by Christians for two thousand years as binding on all people everywhere and at all times- understood all that time as including the repeated prohibition of both Testaments on homosexual behavior?
Another all-to-familiar (and intellectually bankrupt) argument Miller drags out is divorce. Both Jesus and Paul condemn it strongly. But a strong case can be made that Jesus makes an exception in cases of adultery (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9), and Paul on the basis of malicious desertion (I Corinthians 7:15-16). Luther interpreted I Corinthians 7 so broadly as to effectively permit divorce in any situation in which the continuance of a marriage has been culpably made impossible by one's partner. But even acknowledging that a great many Christians divorce and remarry under circumstances neither Jesus nor Paul would approve, it seems remarkable that Miller can, with no sense of embarassment whatsoever, argue in effect that since some Christians disregard what Scripture has to say with respect to the durability of marriage, they ought also to disregard what Scripture says about its essential nature. If we're going to disobey God with respect to divorce and remarriage, the argument seems to go, why should be obey him in anything?
Miller cites the wholly unconvincing argument subscribed by a minority of biblical scholars- those on the extreme left, whose agenda is often more the promotion of gay marriage than an honest examination of rather straightforward texts for whose authority they have little regard- to the effect that St. Paul, Leviticus, and the entire, massive and universal biblcal condemnation of homosexuality really isn't about homosexuality at all, but about... well, it doesn't really matter what it's really about, as long as it isn't about homosexuality! Some have argued that the sin of Sodom was not sexual depravity, but a lack of hospitality. One scholar Miller cites actually suggests that not people who have committed some, but only those depraved enough to have committed all of the sins listed by Paul or Leviticus are the targets of their condemnations!
Miller expects us to conclude that since changing mores have led to the dropping of "obey" from marriage vows, the very essence of society's most foundational institution should be subject to change as well. We are not talking about the wording of vows, but of a phenomenon unknown in all the eons since marriage- and with it, human society- first appeared: "marriage" between people of the same gender. As non-sequiturs go, that's a dilly. But again, it's not the plausibility of the argument that gives it its utility. It's simply the fact that the argument- however implausible- provides a context for the rejection of the plain sense of the text in favor of what one would prefer that it said. Somehow, Miller- like liberal Christians generally- can't bring herself to come right out and say what she clearly means: that the Bible is irrelevant, and that we really ought to simply disregard it and make up the content of the Faith ourselves as we go along. Indeed, in a moment of rare intellectual honesty, she quotes radical scholar Walter Bruggeman to the effect that the theological argument in favor of turning the Bible's teaching on homosexuality and marriage on its head "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."
Says who? It is by no means obvious to those who approach the Bible honestly and with an open mind that the Bible is "bent toward inclusiveness" in such a way as to disqualify the specifics of what it says about homosexuality in every strata of both Testaments in which the subject is addressed. But suddenly Miller seems to be arguing that the Bible is authoritative after all- when it can be cited (however vaguely) in support of a point which Miller, Bruggeman, and other liberals approve. It's OK to submit to biblical authority when it endorses inclusiveness- but not when it specifically condemns homosexual behavior, and premises everything it says about marriage on the maleness of one partner, and the femaleness of the other. Only when theological liberals like Miller and Bruggeman disagree with the Bible does it not say what it says, and not really mean it, and have stopped meaning it now that we know better.
Miller simply does not tell the truth when she writes that "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)." The very audacity of the lie, and its very transparency, makes those who encounter it more likely to sputter about it than to undertake the slam-dunk task of refuting it. There is nothing honest about the so-called "religious" case for either the acceptance of homosexuality generally, or of gay "marriage" in particular. But then, honesty isn't the issue. Truth isn' t the issue.
The issue is the classic issue for post-modernists: the desirability of emptying texts and words of their native meaning, so as to re-infuse them with purely arbitrary meaning we ourselves prefer.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Miller is right about one thing: the phrase "gay marriage" never appears in the Bible. Of course, neither does the phrase "male childbearing," and for the same reason: the concept is absurd by its very nature. Well, that and the fact that "gay" has been a synonym for "homosexual" only for a few years now, and that even the concept of homosexuality (as opposed to sexual activity among members of the same gender) is a relatively recent development. But that's a good example of the quality of Miller's arguments.
Miller starts her case with a dishonest piece of verbal slight of hand. She claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Of course the Bible never explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman; until fairly recently, its status as such was regarded pretty much universally as self-evident! And in fact, the second chapter of Genesis- pointed to by Jesus in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8 precisely as foundational to His teaching on marriage- says quite clearly
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
No mention here of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman- or either a man or a woman and a living room sofa! And if Genesis 2:22-24 falls short of providing an "explicit definition" of marriage, it is still the text treated not only by Jesus and Paul but by both the Christian and Jewish traditions as the Bible's foundational teaching on the entire subject. Miller's claim may escape being an outright lie on a technicality, but that does not change its fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
Such transparently dishonest arguments are by no means unusual among liberal biblical scholars in the debate over homosexuality. Biblically literate people who do not approach the texts having determined in advance to find that they permit homosexual behavior or gay "marriage" tend to be massively unimpressed by the revisionist argument- and with good cause. But then, the revisionists aren't really out to make an exegetical case. What they seek to do is to provide an argument- however weak and transparently dishonest- that the text doesn't really mean what it says. All that is required thereafter is the willing suspension of one's intellectual integrity in the service of a conclusion which one believes is the ideologically correct one, and it becomes possible to give lip service to the authority of Scripture without being required in any sense to submit to it.
The revisionist argument is essentially the same kind of argument as the classic negative case in debate. The negative is not required to make sense. It is not required that its arguments be consistent one with another. It is enough that they scatter about enough random objections, even from wholly inconsistent premises, that the affirmative is unable to refute them all. The situation the affirmative describes, the argument goes, is wholly imaginary. Besides that, it isn't as bad as the affirmative claims. Moreover, it's stopped.
Miller's case, and that of the sexual revisionists, is in essence that the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexuality; that its condemnation is less emphatic than traditionalists claim; and that its condemnation is outmoded and should be disregarded by enlightened folks like us. Similarly, it claims, the Bible doesn't really define marriage; that its definition is more elastic than traditionalists argue; and that it should be allowed to naturally evolve into something wholly inconsistent at odds with that definition, but better suited to the times.
And to her credit, Miller is quite open about where she is coming from. Sometimes. "Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history," she proclaims. The "living document" argument is, of course, advocated in connection with a great many texts, both sacred and secular, by those seeking a rationale for setting aside what the words say in favor of what one would prefer that they say. Miller to the contrary, to set aside the meaning of the words of a text in favor of the interpreter's preference is to deny it real authority of any kind, and the brand kind of theology which espouses that sort of intellectual dishonesty has only been prominent in Christianity for the past century or so. To borrow a concept from that kind of theology, and "deconstruct" Miller's "living document" hypothesis, she is really arguing that the Bible remains relevant only insofar as we empty the words of their content, and infuse them with content we prefer. And that, finally, is her approach throughout the article: post-modern biblical scholarship, which is less concerned, really, with explicating the content of the text than with supplying it with alternative content more to one's liking.
And no sooner does Miller hypocritically bow to the authority of Scripture as a "living document" than she shows her true colors. The verbal slight-of-hand implicit in the following is familiar to those of us who have engaged in this debate before. But its dishonestly remains breathtaking:
Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Scripture never endorses slavery- though it does regulate it. Paul's argument in Philemon is generally acknowledged by honest historians as having dealt it the blow of which it ultimately died what was admittedly a lingering death in the Western world, and provided the rationale for abolitionists from Wilberforce through John Brown. But leaving that point aside, those who recognize it as a religious authority in any real sense do not see it as advising, but commanding when it pronounces on matters of ethics. Few of us are in the market for slaves these days- which is just as well, since the Bible nowhere provides the sort of advice Miller mentions. And is it disingenuity or honest ignorance which is behind Miller's equation (notoriously also made by our president-elect) of the ceremonial law given to Moses, and regarded by Christians ever since Paul as addressed to, and binding upon, only ancient Israel, and the moral law universally recognized by Christians for two thousand years as binding on all people everywhere and at all times- understood all that time as including the repeated prohibition of both Testaments on homosexual behavior?
Another all-to-familiar (and intellectually bankrupt) argument Miller drags out is divorce. Both Jesus and Paul condemn it strongly. But a strong case can be made that Jesus makes an exception in cases of adultery (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9), and Paul on the basis of malicious desertion (I Corinthians 7:15-16). Luther interpreted I Corinthians 7 so broadly as to effectively permit divorce in any situation in which the continuance of a marriage has been culpably made impossible by one's partner. But even acknowledging that a great many Christians divorce and remarry under circumstances neither Jesus nor Paul would approve, it seems remarkable that Miller can, with no sense of embarassment whatsoever, argue in effect that since some Christians disregard what Scripture has to say with respect to the durability of marriage, they ought also to disregard what Scripture says about its essential nature. If we're going to disobey God with respect to divorce and remarriage, the argument seems to go, why should be obey him in anything?
Miller cites the wholly unconvincing argument subscribed by a minority of biblical scholars- those on the extreme left, whose agenda is often more the promotion of gay marriage than an honest examination of rather straightforward texts for whose authority they have little regard- to the effect that St. Paul, Leviticus, and the entire, massive and universal biblcal condemnation of homosexuality really isn't about homosexuality at all, but about... well, it doesn't really matter what it's really about, as long as it isn't about homosexuality! Some have argued that the sin of Sodom was not sexual depravity, but a lack of hospitality. One scholar Miller cites actually suggests that not people who have committed some, but only those depraved enough to have committed all of the sins listed by Paul or Leviticus are the targets of their condemnations!
Miller expects us to conclude that since changing mores have led to the dropping of "obey" from marriage vows, the very essence of society's most foundational institution should be subject to change as well. We are not talking about the wording of vows, but of a phenomenon unknown in all the eons since marriage- and with it, human society- first appeared: "marriage" between people of the same gender. As non-sequiturs go, that's a dilly. But again, it's not the plausibility of the argument that gives it its utility. It's simply the fact that the argument- however implausible- provides a context for the rejection of the plain sense of the text in favor of what one would prefer that it said. Somehow, Miller- like liberal Christians generally- can't bring herself to come right out and say what she clearly means: that the Bible is irrelevant, and that we really ought to simply disregard it and make up the content of the Faith ourselves as we go along. Indeed, in a moment of rare intellectual honesty, she quotes radical scholar Walter Bruggeman to the effect that the theological argument in favor of turning the Bible's teaching on homosexuality and marriage on its head "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."
Says who? It is by no means obvious to those who approach the Bible honestly and with an open mind that the Bible is "bent toward inclusiveness" in such a way as to disqualify the specifics of what it says about homosexuality in every strata of both Testaments in which the subject is addressed. But suddenly Miller seems to be arguing that the Bible is authoritative after all- when it can be cited (however vaguely) in support of a point which Miller, Bruggeman, and other liberals approve. It's OK to submit to biblical authority when it endorses inclusiveness- but not when it specifically condemns homosexual behavior, and premises everything it says about marriage on the maleness of one partner, and the femaleness of the other. Only when theological liberals like Miller and Bruggeman disagree with the Bible does it not say what it says, and not really mean it, and have stopped meaning it now that we know better.
Miller simply does not tell the truth when she writes that "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)." The very audacity of the lie, and its very transparency, makes those who encounter it more likely to sputter about it than to undertake the slam-dunk task of refuting it. There is nothing honest about the so-called "religious" case for either the acceptance of homosexuality generally, or of gay "marriage" in particular. But then, honesty isn't the issue. Truth isn' t the issue.
The issue is the classic issue for post-modernists: the desirability of emptying texts and words of their native meaning, so as to re-infuse them with purely arbitrary meaning we ourselves prefer.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments