Through much prayer and
consideration, the Spirit moved me to re-prioritize my blog. Instead of
continuing the series on philosophical proof for God, it was clear to me that
the marriage graphic below deserves special attention. It has made its way onto
my Facebook news feed more than once, and is likely swinging public opinion further
in support of gay marriage (or at least against Biblical ideals). That, or it is at least representative of how majority
said opinion already is.
Yes, I have little doubt that
this graphic deceives people into thinking the debate for gay marriage is only further
settled, as far as religious opposition is concerned. It truly undermines the sacredness of marriage, even making light of the Bible's standards for marriage of man and woman. It does all this at a time when opposition to gay marriage
is starting to be considered hate speech. If that were not enough, however, I discovered
through my research that there is almost nothing online that refutes this
nonsense for more serious seekers. Whereas other topics I’ve planned for this
blog are old - there is enough information for people to do their own
homework - there is not enough to show people how deceptive this graphic really
is. (the exception is a series of videos JP Holding has done on the topic, which
will get links in future posts)
Without further a due,
allow me to present the graphic:
 |
| Biblical Marriage, or Biblical Hocus Pocus? |
Somewhere on the internet, you’ve
probably seen this. If not, I apologize – take a quick look and study it before
reading ahead. It may have come to you
through Facebook, as it did me. Or perhaps you caught it a cleverly planted
atheist site. Or maybe you found it at someone’s self-righteous blog through a
Google search. Either way, it was likely used in such a context to suggest that
Biblical ideals for marriage are not just “1 man + 1 woman”, as the
Christian right is so fond of saying. The further implication is that we have
no Biblical basis for opposing gay marriage, or that Christian standards of marriage are outdated (by evaluating the graphic's assessment on what a marriage between man+woman is)
If these types of marriages were “condoned” by the Bible, after all,
then what could be wrong with gay marriage?
For this series, I will first
look at general arguments for gay marriage (not homosexuality), at least with a
focus on the Bible’s concern for the topic. I have little intent to comment on
political or social arguments, as they were not the target of this graphic (and
often do not strictly appeal to
the Bible). After that, I hope to shed light on ancient perspectives towards marriage and see how that informs a Biblical view of
the topic. Finally, for each post that follows this one, I will evaluate the
types of marriage portrayed and look at contexts related to each. Have those of us who oppose gay marriage been so narrow minded
in our understanding of the Bible? Are we “cherry-picking” verses to uphold our
interpretation and maintaining an oppressive tradition? Can proponents of gay
marriage even make a strong argument using the criteria of this graphic? Follow
me as we seek to “take every thought captive” on this issue.
First, the implication
that this graphic means gay marriage should be condoned (by Christians) is
guilty of the genetic fallacy. In other words, it implies by
association that gay marriage, if no worse than other marriages portrayed,
cannot be un-Biblical. Without proving the specific case at hand (gay
marriage), however, this is merely an appeal to emotion. It is not an argument
- just because other types of marriages are condoned in the Bible (or not
condemned) does not mean gay marriage deserves the same treatment. We have to
see what the Bible actually specifically says on the issue, when and if it does
speak of such matters. So what are some arguments over the Biblical text?
Actually, many proponents of gay
marriage rightly point out that the Bible itself does not speak directly about
gay marriage. It does speak of the sexual aspect of homosexuality (Leviticus
18:22, Leviticus 20:13) And where it does, it clearly speaks of such an act
using strong language like abomination (detestable). But this says
nothing of 2 loving individuals committing to a lifetime of caring for each
other. It is even remarked that Jesus failed to preach or speak against gay
marriage, as did the apostles or prophets. If any of them would have been concerned
about the issue, surely they would have said something! After all, they were responsible
for calling people out on their sins!
This is an argument from
silence, however - it does not address what evidence is available. If we look
at the issue from a cultural perspective, the audience of the Bible
was 1st century Mediterranean, not 21st century USA. Why is that
important? This was a very high context society [1] and not very literate. Writing was a rarity and a very expensive
hobby. People did not (could not afford to) give more information than necessary when writing. They safely assumed their audience (rarely anyone outside their social
circle) knew the pertinent background and history of what was being communicated.
[2]
In other words, the writers of
the Bible would not spend much time condemning gay marriage, since nobody
reading or hearing the text considered it acceptable! For this same reason,
Jesus would not have had to say anything about the issue. The God-fearing Jews
listening to Him already knew and agreed it was wrong! Lee Jefferson’s claims
that “The Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call
same-sex orientation or gay marriage” [3] are, at best, partially ignorant.
Ancient culture may not have seen sexual orientation the way we do (but clearly would not see homosexuality as anything more than a sexual act). But the
Bible would not be expected to overly concern itself with the issue directly.
Also, the idea that marriage itself has anything
to do with “2 loving individuals committing to a lifetime of caring for each
other” reflects modern romantic ideals. This as a standard for marriage is part
of the failure in our country to produce a strong culture of marriage (in my humble opinion, although it's not the solo cause). Marriage,
typically considered more of a formal contract, had a much more mundane purpose
by modern standards. That was to produce children and extend family
reputations. The goal was for greater unity, structure and safety of society,
not the private benefit of individuals involved.
Jefferson of course gives some further
objections to the Biblical text in his scathing critique. Many pertain solely
to homosexuality, but in reference to marriage he calls Genesis 3 “a gender
creation story, not a creation of marriage story. Adam and Eve do not exchange
rings, say "I do" and have a jazz band reception in Paradise.” [4] Certainly,
gender creation is involved in the story, but there is much more being
communicated. Eve was created as a “helpmeet”, or companion for Adam (Genesis 2:18).
This means the gender creation itself served a purpose. Eve was not just a
woman, but a companion designed to carry the attributes of God that Adam lacked.
She was to be the opposite of Adam so God’s full image could be completed in
humanity. What we view as marriage
may not be stated, but what we value
as marriage’s purpose is implied (man and woman complimenting each other in a
unique relationship). One shouldn’t expect a wedding ceremony from this narrative,
either - why hold what would be valued as a public ceremony when the only public
is God himself?
A separate myth used in favor of
gay marriage is that marriage itself is a civil entity, regardless of religious
ceremony or components. Because the definition of marriage has varied between
different eras and cultures, it is said that religion was never the “necessary
component” [5]. Instead, it is argued, the contract itself – a “business
arrangement for the benefit of the families involved” [6] - is the primary
component. Done amongst the members of the larger community, such a marriage
was for the benefit and acknowledgement of that community. Religious aspects of
marriage are therefore seen as less relevant or having played little role in
marriage.
There is much truth to these
points. What I object to, however, is the idea that marriage was somehow separate
from religious affiliation. The reality is religion permeated every aspect of
ancient life. It was never “separate” from anything. Instead, it was woven into
the entire fabric of society. Public rites and ceremonies were done because of
religion - what it was believed God (or gods) had instructed humanity to do.
People strived to live and work within the boundaries they felt had been given
to them by god – the first law systems. Marriage, then, was always as much
religious as it was civil.
This is the nail in the coffin for
those convinced that “public” aspects of marriage were more important than the
religious. It was merely taken for granted that religion was already a
common-ground between members of society. People of different backgrounds did not
mix together in ancient culture. Boundary lines between countries were boundary
lines between customs and beliefs - if you were accepted or taken into another
culture, you adopted their beliefs and customs (think of Daniel’s story and challenges
he faced). In short, religion did not need to be trumpeted as a reason for
marriage - it was already assumed to be!
Even if it could be shown that
religion was irrelevant for certain nations or civilizations, it is clearly not
an accurate portrayal of how ancient Israel viewed the practice. This makes it nowhere
near an ideal that Christians should hold to.
Secular views of marriage are, at best, merely products of post-enlightenment
ideals, when people began considering how to build a “free” society. Much of this sounds tough for people opposed to having
religion as part of their life, or having a particular religious view dictated
to them (as we have much freedom in the US).
But that reflects the fact that there are 2 ways to see religious belief
- either it dictates what you do or it doesn’t. For those who choose to have it
dictate our lives, should we be subject to beliefs of those who do not? (Note
the subtle difference between believing in religion, as most people still do,
and believing that it dictates your life)
It is
always misguided, then, to argue that Christians should support gay marriage
from a Biblical standpoint. Most appeals made to the Bible are products of
misinformation. They are part of an epidemic failure to contextualize the Bible in
America. Sure, a good percentage of Christians support gay marriage (as does
the majority of the population [7]). But they do so not wholly based in
Biblical exegesis or conviction. Instead, such support is also based partly on
emotional appeal and secular notions of marriage that
reign supreme in the political arena.
But what about these other types
of marriage? Do they still make an argument against the Christian right? Do
they represent untold Biblical ideas of marriage, hidden from countless
congregations by fearful, controlling pastors? Should we still reconsider our
opposition to unusual forms of marriage, when they were so clearly practiced by
people in the Bible? We will find out next time with our first look at
unconventional marriages. Stay tuned, as posts should get shorter from here
out.
[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard
L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 11. Kindle.
[2] ibid
[3] Jefferson, Lee. "What
Does The Bible Actually Say About Gay Marriage?" The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Aug. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-jefferson/bible-gay-marriage_b_886102.html>.
[4] ibid
[5] Cline, Austin.
"Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?" About.com
Agnosticism / Atheism. About.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
<http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm>.
[6] Jefferson, Lee. ibid
[7] "Civil Rights." PollingReport.com.
Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm>.
No comments:
Post a Comment