I agree that the media framing of religion is skewed toward polarization. I think Lamb’s recent post pushes the discussion in the same direction (Must you believe: yes/no?).

I am reminded of Richard Rorty’s essay “Religion as a Conversation Stopper”.

I generally agree with you, and appreciate the congenial dialog between Huckabee and Stewart, however I have to agree with Lamb’s analysis of the article. No, it was not breaking news by any stretch, but Miller’s analysis of biblical grounds was incredibly weak. She said that no passage discussed lesbianism, but Romans 1:26 is pretty explicitly discussing that very subject.

There are many perspectives on the biblical grounds for or against gay marriage, and some of those are more accurate than others. If her article was written from a (her) biblical viewpoint, which seemed to be the purpose, then I would have expected more than peicemeal a-contextual analysis. I’m all for recognizing the complexity of the situation, but that can be done with some semblance of clarity. The way she assumed that her references supported gay marriage without asking the question of “how” or “why” was intellectually dishonest.

I think Miller’s piece was helpful in starting (or reigniting) the conversation, but beyond that it should not be looked to for even semi-thorough analyis.

Then again, maybe I should read it less as a theological treatise, and more as an editorial overview.

Curious: I admit I probably was a little too easy on Miller, in part because I thought that Scott Lamb was too hard on her. Her article was certainly more of a teaser than a thorough analysis, but it felt to me like something that needed to be said, if only to remind a broader audience that Christians don’t all think alike and that there is always more than one way to read the Bible.

Unless of course you think that there isn’t more than one way to read the Bible, that only your way is the right way. By which I don’t mean you personally, of course. But a little humility in matters of exegesis can go a long way.

So, perhaps it’s not so much that she made her case as that she kept the conversation rolling, as you suggest.

Thank you Pamela,

I appreciated Miller’s work, and found it very useful.

That’s helpful, thanks. There’s a fine line between “respond” and “react.” I can see now why you responded the way you did. Admittedly, Lamb’s article seemed to lack the same depth-of-analysis I was hoping for from Miller, so I don’t think anyone has gotten a “slam dunk” on either side (far from it actually).

As far as interpretation goes, I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of the root of this dilemma. There are those that read the bible with considerable cultural flexibility, and those that read it with none whatsoever. Both of these interpretations are easy to identify in HOW the respective sides talk about the subject. I think the “middle road” is where we should be: understanding exegesis AND application in cultural context. I would not say that any single person or tradition reads/interprets scripture perfectly, but that is not to say that one is more or less accurate than others.

I think liberals in this debate take entirely too much liberty with their interpretation, and make an awful lot of assumptions concerning cultural context. Many literal-prone conservatives interpret and apply entirely too literally and with a remarkable lack of grace (i.e. WHY does the bible speak against homosexuality? Rules are not made without reason.).

Here’s where I stand. The Bible quite explicitly speaks against homosexuality. But it also speaks against slander, lies, ANY sex outside of marriage, making idols out of possessions (consumerism, much?) or images or roles or whatever. I know that it is only by God’s grace that my jacked-up self is reconciled with Him and others I am in relationship with. If God loves me through my sin, He can love anybody. Why is homosexuality any worse or better than my own crap?

In short, I HATE the way both sides talk about this… If we believe in a God who loves us enough to enter into human history as an innocent, vulnerable babe, surely we can suck up our own pride and arrogance to love our neighbor regardless of their sexuality. And that goes for BOTH sides of this mess.

A person’s sexuality vis-a-vis religion, that’s between the person and God. None of us is qualified to judge another except in court as a juror. We are, however fully within our rights to levy laws on how we interact in our communities. So, we can say that marriage between homosexuals is illegal, just as we say other sexual behavior (beastiality, child abuse, etc.) cannot lead to marriage. Whether God or Darwin provided our physical design, only man with woman can successfully reproduce. Homosexuals are not in any protected group. And, please don’t anyone point out how same sex cows mount one another.
And, could we please stop with the separation of church and state argument about all issues. The U.S. Constitution only says Congress can enact no laws establishing religion, nor interfere in the practice of religion. There is nothing about local courthouses, schools, city parks, etc.

I’m not much of a religious person, so I have a hard time understanding the way religious people think. I also do not understand how having laws governing same-sex marriage can be legal, how they are not a clear violation of separation of church and state laws. I say this, because most people I have spoken to about the subject base their view on the Bible. And most arguments you hear/read in the media are based on the Bible. That leads me to belive that the majority of voters base thier vote and view on religious beliefs as well. I feel the same way about Utah. If 70% of the state is Mormon, chances are most of the leaders are, too. And some of their laws are clearly based on Mormon beliefs. I was in SLC, went to an Applebee’s, and at the bar, there was a wall built up on the bar, where you would normally sit, so you could not see the alcohol on display behind the bar. I guess if the non-Mormon population is the Minority, there’s not many people to protest the ridiculous laws.

“Ambivalent Christians” is an oxymoron. There are two ways to read the Bible. The way God intended and the wrong way. This is why the Anglicans breaking from the Episcopal Church are correct.

Christians who do not believe homosexuality to be a sin are, in a word, wrong. Each of us would love to twist God into our own image of what He is and who He is and what He wants for us. But if He is indeed God, our images of Him will not suffice nor hold up.

These are dangerous times when so many would attempt to dictate terms to God. Dangerous and sorrowful.

Curious,

I agree with you - we should love our neighbor regardless of their sexual orientation - that doesn’t mean we condone what they are doing. It is the same way with our children - we love them but we don’t condone everything they do. Sometimes loving means to point out on a loving way where people are wrong and guide them in the right direction. Loving someone does not equate to letting them do whatever they want to do.

Pamela - that is where I disagree with you - gay people do choose to be gay. Some people might have to fight this more than others but it definitely is a conscious choice on their part.

Thanks for listening. - Any responses to this would be welcomed.