Jeff Sharlet Plays Fast 'N' Loose, Again
Faith and Philosophy
| January 31, 2006
| Tim
When I read this quote from World Mag blog:
Is it possible to be any more biblical illiterate than Rolling Stone Jeff Sharlet? In an article entitled "God's Senator," Sharlet quotes Sen. Sam Brownback as saying, "You'll know 'em by their fruits." He then notes: "He [Brownback] was citing scripture -- Matthew 7:16 -- but he just called gay Swedes 'fruits.'"
... I wondered if Aaron Earls (who wrote that) might have gotten it wrong. Sharlet certainly is snarky, so I wondered if he truly could have been that ignorant: perhaps Brownback was just making a joke? According to Brownback, he wasn't joking.
So I thought I'd look at Sharlet's latest offering. Last time I encountered Sharlet, he had just spun -- before a large gathering that already seemed to reek of "progressive" paranoia -- a series of discipleship meetings into an effective plot to gain absolute control of Norwegian politics.
Sadly, it looks like Sharlet's still up to the same old stuff: the bit everyone's talking about isn't even the worst distortion in the article.
For example, apparently trying to imply a parallel between medieval religious violence and Catholic Senator Sam Brownback's views, Sharlet writes:
They are God's promise keepers, His defenders of marriage, His knights of the fetal citizen. They are the select few who embody the paradoxical love promised by Christ when he declares -- in Matthew 10:34 -- "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
I can't decide whether Sharlet is grossly incompetant -- and is actually incapable of opening a bible and reading the verse in context -- or whether he's simply content to blatantly lie to his Rolling Stone audience, assured they won't know enough to catch the dishonesty.
The verse Sharlet cites is not, in fact, about using violence or force to spread Christian beliefs -- akin to the popular myth of the crusades, as his audience will surely hear it. Quite the opposite: this chapter and verse is about persecution against those who would follow Jesus; persecution sometimes coming from within one's own family. That sword -- a sword of hatred, not love, as Sharlet falsely implies -- is being brought against Jesus's followers, not carried by them:
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another..."
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me... and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me... whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
(Matthew 10:21-23,34-39 excerpted)
To imply such a verse instructs Christians to use "the sword" to spread the gospel or JudeoChristian values is simply ludicrious. If Jeff knows as much about his subjects' mental states and self-image as his writing implies, one wonders how he fails to absorb even a tiny fraction of their understanding of the key bible verses he claims motivates them.
The answer is simple: he's making both up; exaggerating or distorting as is necessary, and simply gets caught in the act from time to time.
Sharlet also seems to dwell in some kind of bizarre "progressive" ideological bubble, one where the suggestion that Christians around the world are being persecuted by both secular and Muslim governments is laughable:
Given to framing his own faith in terms of battles, [Brownback] believes that secularists and Muslims are fighting a worldwide war against Christians -- sometimes in concert [....] he thinks of uncountable unborn babies, of all the persecuted Christians.... Brownback, sir, thinks that secular America is crazy.
The senator stares, his face gentle but unsmiling.
He isn't joking.
Perhaps we should expect such ignorance from the readers of Rolling Stone, but is it too much to ask that a writer like Sharlet appear at least minimally informed about world politics and human rights?
In the parallel reality Sharlet -- and probably much of his Rolling Stone readership -- occupy, it is apparently not an imprisonable offense to be caught with a bible in Saudi Arabia, there is no current plan to levy a poll tax on Palestinian Christians, there is no systemic persecution of Christians by Muslims in countries like Sudan (est. 1.5 million killed), Pakistan, and Indonesia; there is no relentless battle against Christians being waged in rabidly secular countries like China, Cuba, and North Korea.
Or, to the extent that such realities threaten to intrude, it's enough to dismiss them as another absurd joke, one which (as usual) demonstrates how much more Sharlet knows than his subjects:
A dapper man with a soothing voice, Woo is perhaps the brightest thinker in Brownback's circle, a savvy internationalist with a deep knowledge of Cold War history. Yet when I ask him for an example of the kind of project the human-rights act might fund, he tells me about a German doctor who releases balloons over North Korea with bubble-wrapped radios tied to them. North Koreans are supposed to find the balloons when they run out of helium and use the radios to tune into Voice of America or a South Korean Christian station.
Hahaha! Balloons with radios! Hahahaha! Didja get it? Hahahaha!
Never mind that, in fact, the USSR was partially undermined by getting foreign news to its citizens. Never mind that totalitarian governments like Cuba and North Korea take such threats so seriously they spend massive amounts of money on signal-jamming technology. Sharlet knows better: the idea is stupid; debate over; no counter-suggestions are required: You talk, I mock.
Given how derisive, and sometimes even outright deceptive Sharlet seems regarding his chosen targets of ridicule -- people who are, apparently, kind enough to grant him time and open up to him -- I guess the worst thing one can say about Brownback is that he was foolish enough to grant Sharlet an interview, and fall for Sharlet's faux-friendly demeanor.
But hey, it's a clarifying moment, isn't it?
And would it be just a bit too obvious to point out that being "hated" and mocked -- Sharlet's apparent desired outcome for Brownback -- is exactly what Jesus said would happen when people earnestly tried to follow him?
Trite, I know. But still: I can't help but be impressed at how wise and prophetic that Jewish iterant preacher was. Why should he have thought people would be persecuted and even killed for following him? Was he some kind of egomaniac?
Or simply right?
The article in rolling stone was a theological mess. The man clearly does not understand what he is talking about. The man is clearly pulling information out of thin air. For instance Sharlet claims "It doesnt bother Brownback that most Bible scholars challenge the idea that scripture opposes homosexuality." Then one paragraph later sharlet claims "Homosexuality may not be sanctioned by the Bible, but slavery is -- by Old and New Testaments alike."
What?
This man is confused.
First he claims Most scholars challenge the idea of homosexuality.
Then he claims Homosexuality may not be sanctioned by the bible.
Where did this man get his information concerning scholarship and homosexuality. This is a joke. How is the man still writing for such a widely read magazine.
The bible does not encourage slavery.
Who told him this?
The word "sanctioned" is a neat little trick. Technically, the word can mean "give effective or authoritative approval or consent to." So if you merely consent to something, you could argue it's been "sanctioned".
But -- as with so many of Sharlet's techniques -- the beauty here is that his audience generally won't know that. He's a sharp fellow, and frequently uses his wits to mislead. Just like you, they'll generally get the impression he was saying the NT encouraged slavery.
The apostle Paul certainly did recognize the institution existed and was legal (as it was!), and encouraged those involved to behave as well as possible. Yet he also advised slaves to get their freedom if at all possible, and put slave traders in the same moral category as "murderers" and "perverts", and stated the business of slavery was "contrary to sound doctrine". (1 Tim 1:9-11)
Through all prior recorded history, slavery was universal — Christianity began in a world where as much as half the population was in bondage. But by the seventh century, Christianity had become the only major world religion to formulate specific theological opposition to slavery, and, by no later than the 11th century, the church had expelled the dreadful institution from Europe. That it later reappeared in the New World is another matter, although there, too, slavery was vigorously condemned by popes and all of the eventual abolition movements were of religious origins. [1]
Until Christianity banned slavery no religion had ever, anywhere in the world, condemned that institution. To criticize the moral stance of the earliest Christians -- a minority within a dictatorship, often slaves themselves -- for not having taken a political stance only made possible by the later ascendancy of that very same religion -- is absurd.
(Wouldn't a more rational position be to criticize the rest of the world's major cultures and religions for not having banned it at all? I don't encourage that either, but if you must grind an axe it seems a bit fairer...)
But, hey (the argument goes), since slavery wasn't politically opposed by early Christians, we can effectively dismiss everything else they were saying.
Never mind that had they not said it, slavery probably never would have been abolished.
Interesting your comments about Sharlet's Biblical illiteracy regarding Jesus's "sword."
The reason I say that is I"ve been reading Rev. Joe Morecraft III's "With Liberty and Justice for All," which calls for an explicitly Christian politics. In it, Morecraft uses Matthew 10:34 in exactly the same way Sharlet does.
In fact, this interpretation of Matthew 10:34 - that Jesus is bringing a sword to smite His enemies - is quite common on the American religious right and it is that interpretation, not the clear meaning from context, that Sharlet was referring to. For example, by this guy:
"That's why Jesus talked a great deal about punishment, and the moral obligation to oppose evil with a strong and swift hand. Human evil must be confronted, he said, not merely contained. Depending on the threat, a kind of "pre-emptive strike" or judgment against evil might even be required: "Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Allow the darkness to roam unchecked, Jesus said, and it will devour individuals and entire regimes. That helps explain why in the New Testament we see the Son of God rebuking hateful mobs, casting demons into the abyss, chasing religious charlatans out of a temple with a whip. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth," he said. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
..."Like Mr. Tittle, many of today's war critics hail Jesus as "the Prince of Peace," while forgetting that the Bible also calls him "the Lion of the tribe of Judah," the one "who judges and wages war."
Tristero,
Regarding your claim this interpretation "is quite common on the American religious right", I must respectfully disagree...
I find it amusing when people (apparently from another end of the political spectrum) lecture me on what "the Christian right" believes -- as I fit that description myself, and frequently travel in those circles. (It's a bit like lecturing a Frenchman on what the French are like.) And I can tell you, having done so for decades, I've *never* heard anyone interpret the verse in that fashion.
Now it could be that I am somehow having a very atypical experience! So let's look at what you allege is counter-evidence...
Morecraft: Who???? I've never even heard of this guy -- are you alleging he's some hugely influential person? Amazon currently carries only three copies of the book you mention. All used. And ZERO customer reviews. So this guy doesn't look to me like he's especially influential, or a authorative representative of some big "religious right" movement. He's a guy with a book. With three used copies available on Amazon, from anywhere in the whole world.
So even if you were correct in your characterization of how he used the verse (and a quote would really help your case), that's a bit like claiming you once spoke to preacher who read it that way. Perhaps that would then establish that at least one Christian agreed with Sharlett's claims -- but that's hardly strong evidence for a widespread, dominant trend.
Much less evidence the verse DOES say that. ;-)
Next, you quote from some (again, apparently largely unknown) guy (Joeseph Loconte) from hertiage.org.
Yet it looks to me like he's not at all using the verse the same way Sharlett did. He's simply saying the liberal view of Jesus is too simplistic, and thus cites examples where Jesus brought judgement or brought about a state of affairs that wouldn't match what pacifists call "peace":
Religious liberals are making the same mistake that often bedevils religious conservatives: They're grossly oversimplifying the Bible. It's true that Jesus put the love of neighbor at the center of Christian ethics. Forgiveness, not vengeance, animates the heart of God....
But the Christian Gospel is not only about "the law of love" .... That's why Jesus talked a great deal about punishment, and the moral obligation to oppose evil... "Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell" ....
That helps explain why in the New Testament we see the Son of God rebuking hateful mobs, casting demons into the abyss, chasing religious charlatans out of a temple with a whip. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth," he said. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
Note that the author is focusing on the character of Jesus. He is not using this verse to say that Jesus commands his followers to put the soul into hell, cast demon into the Abyss, whip moneychangers, or themselves initiate strife ("a sword") between people. The author is simplying pointing out that God is complex, and exhibits a range of responses depending on the circumstances. The verse you cite is simply one illustration of that.
Yet compare that to what Sharlet wrote, my emphases added:
Such are the new American crusaders... They are God's promise keepers, His defenders of marriage, His knights of the fetal citizen. They are the select few who embody the paradoxical love promised by Christ when he declares -- in Matthew 10:34 -- "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
What does Sharlett tell his readers here? He's leading his readers to think this verses teaches Christians to "bring a sword" -- like knights or crusaders; that the verse is a command, not a warning, and that Christians who attack others in an aggressive manner "embody" that command.
Yet the author you cited, Loconte, said nothing of the sort: He didn't say anything about whether this verse was calling for Christian aggression or simply warning about aggression against Christians. He is only using it as a counterexample against the stereotypical "liberal" view of Jesus as one who only brought peace, not strife. In this verse, his incarnation and teaching causes strife, not peace.
So, hey, perhaps I am indeed wrong. But I'm not seeing the evidence here: I don't think you've shown there is any significant Christian consensus that Matt 10:30 is saying that Christians will attack others -- which is what Sharlett is says it says.
And lastly, let's just grant the benefit of the doubt and say you could find some leading Christian voice who wrote, plainly: "Yes, Matthew 10:30 is a verse where Christians are instructed to militantly crusade against their culture, like a knight." Would that prove the verse said that?
Or would it just prove that even a well-known Christian could be clueless?
To answer, I'd tell you to read the verse for yourself, in context. Ask yourself: DOES this verse tell Christians to attack others, or is Jesus warning Christians about attacks from non-Christians; telling them they may have to flee for their lives?
Decide for yourself, friends.
If you decide the former, then you must conclude I'm wrong. Otherwise, you are also agreeing that Sharlett misled people as to what the verse means when read in context. If others do the same -- even Christians -- I don't see how that would make his mispresentation any more correct.
I doubt you'll see this, Tim, but a weird bit of googling of Sam Brownback brought me to this comment on that old article. In case you check your comments: A whole of scholars -- the mainstream, I'd argue, for hundreds of years -- inteprted the sword of Matthew 10:34 as a metaphor. Scripture is the sword. Your interepretation is reasonable, too, though I'm not sure how it contradicts with mine. There are a number of Christian conservatives, Brownback among them, who take that verse rather literally, and believe they are called to be confrontational, and, if possessed of the power to do so, even warlike. That's their call, not mine. You don't like it, argue with them, not me.
As for this business about my usage of "sanctioned" -- what you call a "neat little trick" I call "precise language." You know, tomatos, tomahtos. Only, yours is kind of rotten.
Jeff,
First, I want to start with an apology. Upon re-reading it over a year later, I realize I was too harsh. I'm sorry about that. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but I was, in retrospect, quite a bit too disagreeable.
(Oh, and also I think it's kind of cool that you'd bother to respond -- civilly, even -- to an obscure critic like this one. So kudos to in that.)
But I also still stand by the core content of my complaint.
A whole of scholars -- the mainstream, I'd argue, for hundreds of years -- inteprted the sword of Matthew 10:34 as a metaphor.
I agree the verse is usually applied metaphorically. I was not suggesting Jesus was only referring to family members slaughtering each other -- just disagreement in most cases. Rather, I assert that your chosen phrasing would imply quite otherwise to the average Rolling Stone reader.
Again, my beef is that you implied Matthew 10:34 instructs Christians to bring a sword (metaphorically or otherwise) against outsiders, rather than speaking about persecution against Christians.
Quoting:
The verse Sharlet cites is not, in fact, about using violence or force to spread Christian beliefs... as his audience will surely hear it. Quite the opposite: this chapter and verse is about persecution against those who would follow Jesus; persecution sometimes coming from within one's own family.
Scripture is the sword.
Jeff, your chosen quote was from Jesus, not Paul the Apostle. It says nothing of the sort. And even when Paul likens scripture to a "sword" (Heb 4:12), he clarifies that he means it in the sense that it "separates" or "judges" "the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
Your interepretation is reasonable, too, though I'm not sure how it contradicts with mine.
Offense versus defense? A sword brought by followers of Jesus versus against them? A prediction of persecution versus an implied call to "dominion"?
I don't begrudge you your own interpretation. But you didn't write an article about how you understood it. You were busy insisting that verse, in specific, motivated Brownback. To what -- create strife in his own family?
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother... a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
You don't like it, argue with them, not me.
Jeff, I wasn't born yesterday. I don't accept your insistence that this is how "conservative Christians" read this passage because I know a bit about that. The interpretation you imputed typically shows up on skeptical and anti-Christian websites far more than on Christian web sites or even merely conservative ones.
If Brownback is half as religious as you imply, he knows that passage and its context as well as you know a clever turn of phrase. It's a novice mistake, one typically made by critics who've absorbed secondhand information.
Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword"). [EvilBible.com]
I get visitors here, with some frequency, frothing with hate, fear, and rage because they think conservative Christians who vote are some kind of fascistic, jihadist-like threat. Can't imagine where they get that impression. Is it from all those warlike New Testament verses? Or the actual, typical "conservative Christian" understanding of them?
Or just the way a Rolling Stone article (and so many others) spun it for them, while taking shots at its chosen target?
You could clear this up pretty easily. Tell me honestly that Brownback told you, directly, that he interprets Matthew 10:34 as an instruction to go to war (metaphorically is fine) with non-Christians, the culture, whatever -- and you'll have a sincere apology coming. (And you'll also have created a fellow Brownback critic.)
As for this business about my usage of "sanctioned" -- what you call a "neat little trick" I call "precise language."
Precise language clarifies ambiguities rather than exacerbating them. How can you claim "sanction" is the clearest choice? It can mean approved of, merely tolerated, or even condemned -- it's a contranym, fer cryin' out loud.
Contranym = "precise language"? Perhaps in some cases: like when we need to imply the bible favored the race-based lifetime slavery of the South, not the system of temporary indentured servitude the Old Testament laid out:
Homosexuality may not be sanctioned by the Bible, but slavery is -- by Old and New Testaments alike. Brownback thinks slavery is wrong, of course, but the Bible never is. How does he square the two?
A case like that depends upon overlapping definitions, not precise, clear descriptions. Rhetorically, that's extremely effective -- it generates more heat than light. But it's hardly educational.
Did you never have the chance to ask him -- or another active Christian -- that question?
Or was it just that you didn't want to ruin a great shot like that one with an inconvenient clarification?
Eager to hear your response...
Well, I appreciate your willingness to debate Tim, but I still have to disagree with you.
You write that the sword is defensive, based on "A prediction of persecution." So: I think you're going to hit me, so I hit you first?
The most dangerous abuse of scripture in the wowrld today is the persecution complex some draw from it. Of cours that is justified in some parts of the world; but not in America. I grew up the only Jew in a small town, and I had to fight throughout my childhood. Unless you've ever been beaten up for being a Christian, quit your whining. It's as simple as that. When American Christians complain of being persecuted, they're being whiners. What, The Simpsons makes fun of you? Cry me a river. And pour some of your own blood into it while you're at it, or else give up the persecution complex. Becuase you are LOW down that totem pole. I'M low down that totem pole, too -- for the most part, Jews don't get killed in America, but queers do. "Christian persecution." That's a plain ol' self-pitying notion.
Ok, 2: Yes, I did ask Brownback about slavery. No, he did not have a good answer. Yes, he is very devout. But, like many devout people, especially those who express their faith through politics, he doesn't know jackshit about scripture. Of course I knew the fruit comment was a scriptural reference. And yes, I decided to make fun of him. That's because, out of an attempt at respect for his position, I had spent a lot of time studying up on the various scriptural arguments about homosexuality. Went in for my interview. And hit a brick wall. He didn't know ANY of them. Didn't know the verses in Romans and Leviticus most often used to condemn homosexuality. How did he know it was wrong? His "heart."
Well, that's cool. That's his decision. But when he starts legislating based on the Bible -- but he doesn't even bother to read the Bible -- all bets are off.
I stand by "sanctioned," too, but of course I would -- I'm a fan of literary modernism. Which is to say, ambiguity. The precise meaning here is that scripture stakes out a fairly ambiguous position on the matter.
Well, thanks for the thoughtful response. Don't take my flippancy in this response as a sign of disrespect -- just tired and a little tipsy.
Jeff - You may be reading something into what Tim is saying that isn't there. I don't think he's saying that "the sword is defensive." He's not discussing Christian revenge or defense of any kind. He is saying "Christians will be attacked for their beliefs and create strife within their families."
You're familiar with the Jewish interpretation of the messiah as a time where Jewish persecution is ended (I'm Jewish too, incidentally, but fortunately was never attacked or harassed for it.) The line in question, as nearly as I can tell, is Jesus saying "I'm claiming to be the messiah, but I'm not bringing a end to earthly religious persecution like so many people think that the messiah will. Just the opposite."
Jeff,
Sorry for the delay.
You write that the sword is defensive, based on "A prediction of persecution." So: I think you're going to hit me, so I hit you first?
Ryan's response is dead on. To quote myself again, adding bold:
... this chapter and verse is about persecution against those who would follow Jesus; persecution sometimes coming from within one's own family. That sword... is being brought against Jesus's followers, not carried by them.
I agree that the morality you depict is wrong. But I can't help but notice that your articles, and other similar ones, come across as encourging just that sort of thinking. For example, Chris Hedges is insisting that since Christians will bring facism, we must curtail their rights and control their religious and/or political speech (which is in itself fascisitic).
And, looking at bloggers like this one, it seems I'm not wrong about the effect your specific writings have. This writer approvingly quotes Hedges, and frequently writes how "scary" your depictions are. I agree: they come across to me as inciting the same fear.
And I don't mind scary depictions, when accurate. (We should all be thankful for such warnings.) But when you quote verses predicting persecution, and tell people who don't know any better (said blogger, for example, or a million readers of Rolling Stone) that they are actually verses which justify some kind of Christian jihad, and motivate Christians to do that, you're simply speading an untruth, intentionally or otherwise.
And things like that have consequences, Jeff.
The most dangerous abuse of scripture in the wowrld today is the persecution complex some draw from it.
Jeff, if "persecution complexes" are indeed dangerous, then you need to be more serious about your own writings, as I'd argue you're installing them in the hard left, whether you mean to or not. Your narrative consistently comes across as likely to induce a response like: "Gee, these Christians are extreme and scary! They're going to shut down all our rights! We need to do something extreme!"
Again, an example:
Jeff Sharlet has been coming at us over the past several years with a series of studies which should scare the pants off any small-d democrat.... in his latest article in Harper's, Sharlet reveals the taste for violence in his subjects...
We all have our theories as to where fundamentalism came from and where it’s going. We are wising up, we think, about the character or personality defects which lead people to follow fundamentalist leaders. Sharlet thinks we’re wrong... We’re not only wrong, we’re at risk of becoming dangerously unwary. The new fundamentalist movement is using everything from new curricula to promises of mind-blowing orgasms to persuade parents and their children to follow a new path.
Yet when I get into these "scary" reports, I find you appear to be -- as I put in in the title -- playing fast and loose. A bible study group in Norway becomes a plot to usurp democracy. A verse predicting that those who follow Jesus will be hated and even killed (and subsequent instructions to flee with this happens) becomes, under your pen, a "scary" call to unprovoked Jihad against non-Christians.
Unless you've ever been beaten up for being a Christian, quit your whining. It's as simple as that. When American Christians complain of being persecuted, they're being whiners
I'm sorry for what happened to you -- that was wrong indeed -- but I also know what it's like to be beaten up and pounded as a child. My youth was a mass of humiliating beatings. Were you ever held down, beaten, and kicked by a group of four people while their leader searched for fresh dog crap to smear on your face and shove down your throat? I'd like to know.
Was that because I was a Christian? Perhaps, in the sense that I'd learned in Sunday school that I was supposed to be a nice kid who turned the other cheek. Kids are cruel, Jeff, and they'll use any excuse they can to justify humiliating others. But it wasn't overtly for that reason, unlike some of the things which happened later, in college. Which I can explain in more detail if you'd like to know.
But regardless, you're basicly right: things are still pretty darned good for Christians in the US, and these little troubles are nothing compared to what other people face in the world. I'm very, very thankful, and don't whine about my own personal situation -- I've never mentioned these things before on my blog, and it's not generally my focus.
But I might gently remind you that it was you who (ironically) chose a verse about persecution, and it is now you who are asking what price I've paid for my own belief. I wouldn't have mentioned them here otherwise.
Yes, I did ask Brownback about slavery. No, he did not have a good answer.
Then I rescind my criticism on this point, and owe you a sincere apology. Jeff, I shouldn't have thought that was merely a polemic turn of phrase, and I'm sorry I implied that. My apologies.
Went in for my interview. And hit a brick wall. He didn't know ANY of them. Didn't know the verses in Romans and Leviticus most often used to condemn homosexuality.
Jeff, most conservative Christians aren't obsessed with homosexuality. It's true most of us don't want to see gay marriage equated with traditional marriage -- particularly, we think, in our kid's textbooks ten years down the line, nor in adoption priorities. But neither do we sit around and obsess about which verses are most often used to condemn homosexuality.
I've been going to various conservative churches for about two decades, and not once have a heard a sermon about the "evils of homosexuality". It's generally understood to be less than optimal, on a par with my own misdeeds, but that's about it.
(Though a few of us, frankly, are starting to be a bit worried about the long-term political consequences of gay activism -- especially where the first amendment is concerned. But that's for another day.)
How did he know it was wrong? His "heart." Well, that's cool. That's his decision. But when he starts legislating based on the Bible -- but he doesn't even bother to read the Bible -- all bets are off.
Well, what's the problem? Most people I know who argue in favor of gay marriage cite their "heart" as well. In fact, emotional responses are, in my experience, the major driving force behind most left-leaning political stances. It's the natural consequence of moral relativism, Jeff.
So would you be happier if he had "bother[ed] to read the Bible" before "legislating based on the Bible"? Would that have been fine then? (Somehow, I don't think you'd say that.)
Or is the issue that you think no morality allegedly found in the bible should ever inform a vote?
Or is the issue actually that if homosexuality seems to be condemned -- from the bible or from the heart -- that's wrong, but if it's approved, even if people argue from the bible, that's fine? Seriously: is that the issue underlying so much of the animus I detect in your work?
I stand by "sanctioned," too, but of course I would -- I'm a fan of literary modernism. Which is to say, ambiguity.
Well, then, I guess we can dispense with all the impassioned protestations about the need for "precise language", eh?
Interesting admission, in light of that.
The precise meaning here is that scripture stakes out a fairly ambiguous position on the matter.
Jeff, anything can be called "ambiguous" if we're determined enough. I wouldn't previously have thought the Constitution was "ambiguous" about how wrong it was to take property from private citizen A to give it to private developer B, but I discovered recently, in the Court's Kelo decision, that I guess it wasn't really clear on that matter after all. Who knew?
Certainly, there are areas where the bible seem ambiguous to even to the most dispassioned reader. How long are the "days" in Genesis? Is everything predestined, or is it all free will? Did Adam and Eve have navels? ;-)
But this doesn't seem to be one of those areas for Christians: When Jesus spoke against "sexual immorality", his first-century Jewish audience, or even a modern who had taken the time to read the Jesus's background material (Torah) would have understood what kinds of relations were included in that phrase.
That observer would also notice that Jesus spelled out the ideal concerning sexual relations this way: "Haven't you read... that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?" (Matt 19:4-5)
My point isn't whether this view is ultimately right: just that, unless you employ some very clever, sophisticated arguments (as some do, and as some did similarly in Kelo), there's not much ambiguity in the plain reading of the text here, regarding lifelong male-female marriages as the preferred sexual situation.
(A situation I'm not in, mind you.)
As I said, if we're determined and clever enough, ambiguities can always be created. But unless we're devoted relativists, we should believe that sometimes texts actually say things.
Well, thanks for the thoughtful response. Don't take my flippancy in this response as a sign of disrespect -- just tired and a little tipsy.
Likewise to you. I understand.
And don't take my criticism of your writing as a criticism of you personally. Even in my most unpleasant rant above, I admit I haven't the faintest idea about your intentions and motivations. I assume you're a pretty nice guy to grab a beer with.
God bless you, Jeff.
- Tim
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« The Sheehan and Chavez Show |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Fisking: For Pro-Life Bloggers, a New Hubris »
|
The article in rolling stone was a theological mess. The man clearly does not understand what he is talking about. The man is clearly pulling information out of thin air. For instance Sharlet claims "It doesnt bother Brownback that most Bible scholars challenge the idea that scripture opposes homosexuality." Then one paragraph later sharlet claims "Homosexuality may not be sanctioned by the Bible, but slavery is -- by Old and New Testaments alike."
What?
This man is confused.
First he claims Most scholars challenge the idea of homosexuality.
Then he claims Homosexuality may not be sanctioned by the bible.
Where did this man get his information concerning scholarship and homosexuality. This is a joke. How is the man still writing for such a widely read magazine.
The bible does not encourage slavery.
Who told him this?
Posted by: Nyal Deems on February 10, 2006 07:52 PM