This week's Newsweek leads with an article by Lisa Miller on the Bible and gay marriage.  I will not summarise the full argument here: the article is well-written, engaging, makes some good points that provoke critical reflection, and is only three pages long; and Newsweek is so easily accessible, there's little point in me trying to condense an already concise article and risk misrepresenting or distorting what Ms. Miller says.  Read it for yourselves.

She does make some very good, if rather obvious and long-established, points, such as the fact that modern conceptions of marriage and family are, in significant ways, different from those we find in the Bible.   This emphasis on the difference between Bible times and the present day, however, is somewhat selective.  As I will note below, when it comes to values she likes, Ms Miller seems comfortable in finding that the Bible is not so strange and different after all.

What is interesting is the way in which the Bible is used.  That it is used at all should give pause for thought: this is no `the Bible is junk, let's move on' piece.  It is rather more sophisticated than that and offers a taste of what is to come in the evangelical world, I suspect.  Ms. Miller tries to offer a hermeneutic for understanding gay marriage as biblical.  She doesn't trash the Bible; rather she claims it has been misread.  Not original with her, of course.  Thus, for example, Paul in Romans 1 is referring to the excesses of Rome, specifically to the lives of Caligula and Nero. At one point, she says `We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle towards a more just society.'  Quoting Walter Brueggemann, the case for gay marriage `is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent towards inclusiveness.'

Numerous thoughts came to mind as I read the article.   The reference to `universal truths' in the passage above is intriguing, given the cultural relativism which otherwise really pervades the entire piece.  The `universal truths' to which she refers seem to be rather oriented towards very recent, and pretty specifically Western, attitudes to homosexuality.  One cannot help feel that `universal truths' here seem to mean `modern American ideals.'  Like Jefferson, she is happy to cut out any bit of the Bible that offends her modern American sensibilities; and, putting her thoughts together with Brueggemann, it would seem that, while the verses of the Bible teach one thing, the overall thrust of the Bible (somewhat nebulously connected to individual verses, or so it would seem, since she never offers an account of how they are connected) apparently teaches something different.

Second, the use of David and Jonathan's friendship as paradigm (or potential paradigm) for homosexual relations is indicative of the deeply sexualised nature of our society, where the language of `love' and `sex' have so coalesced as to be virtually inseparable.  It is also ironic that, in a piece which attacks conservative Christians for reading themselves into select biblical text, the author has done exactly the same -- she argues that, although conservatives argue the friendship of David and Jonathan is purely platonic, it is is rather (her contrast, not mine) a story about friends who stood together in tough times with the disapproval of a powerful parent (I'm not sure why that can't be covered by the notion of Platonic friendship!) and then gratuitously concludes `What David and Jonathan did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.'    If that is not an unwarranted eisegesis of contemporary concerns into a biblical narrative, then I'm not sure what else could possibly qualify as such.  Even close male friendship must now be connected to the categories of sex.  What a dirtyminded world -- where a man cannot apparently love another man without falling under suspicion of a sexual relationship, whether consummated or not. How long before using language of intense love towards my two sons will place me under suspicion of incest?  Her comments here, with the apparent need to find sex everywhere, raise the question of just who exactly it is who is really sexually insecure.  But then, Ms. Miller, by her own account and unlike her opponents, takes the Bible seriously and has access to these `universal truths' that allow her to read the Bible properly, yet which conservative religious types like myself, trapped in our insecuities and traditions, find so terribly elusive.

Third, the issue of how and why the Bible is authoritative, and how it should thus be interpreted came clearly to the fore.  This is where the battle is going to be engaged in the evangelical church and its institutions, and this is where the fault line is going to open up. It is very clear that those who lack a robust doctrine of scripture, and a clear understanding of how scripture should be interpreted and used, are going to be fighting an uphill battle to maintain basic moral standards even within the church.  So confident is she of her approach that she goes so far as to say 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).'  Her opponents are therefore unbiblical, hidebound, and psycho-sexually insecure.

Behold the future.  The piece is prophetic because, in a week where a high-ranking member of the NAE had to resign because he was `shifting' on gay unions, at a time when the full weight of the opinion forming social media is behind the normalisation of homosexuality as acceptable, challenges such as this are clearly going to be coming thick and fast. I grew up in some ways as the hidebound, unthinking traditionalist on sexual morality at which Ms Miller takes aim: everyone knew homosexuality was wrong (even if only from a basic anti-gay bigotry), and so there was no need to mount arguments against it either in the church or the wider society.  That is not the world of my children.  They need to be given reasons as to why their gay friends are following a lifestyle that is sinful.  And those reasons need to be well-thought out, calm, and articulated with a Christian grace and love.  At the level of theological education, this means that the issue of biblical authority and interpretation needs to be very carefully addressed.  For example, Ms. Miller's implicit contrast of individual passages of the Bible with its overall message raises the very legitimate interpretative question of how these things are related; church and colleges and seminaries need to make sure they can give a thoughtful answer to that one or the Ms. Millers of the world are going  to take them to the cleaners.   

The article does end on a note with which I wholeheartedly agree, however, at least on the surface.  She quotes a pro-gay priest as saying `if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us.'  Amen, So he would.  But not with the tawdry bauble of passing social acceptance; rather he would reach out with the love of the Father for those who are unlovely, offering them life in abundance, not through some intense but illicit orgasm; rather through the forgiveness and newness of life that comes from life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Even as the church must dismantle erroneous hermeneutics and defend the authority of scripture, so she must also reach out with the love of the gospel to the dirty, the immoral, the things that are not, with the light of the gospel.  With what does the Christ of Ms Miller reach out?  A piece of paper and the promise of a few years of companionship, perhaps some great sex, and then what?