Bill O’Reilly and the “Bible-thumpers”
On Tuesday, March 27, Bill
O’Reilly was having a dialogue with FOX anchor and legal analyst Megyn Kelly about the issue of gay marriage and what came out of O’Reilly’s mouth was nothing
short of astonishing. He said,
“The compelling argument is on the side
of the homosexuals… We’re Americans. We
just want to be treated like everybody else… To deny that, you’ve got to have a
very strong argument on the other side and the other side has not been able to
do anything but thump their Bibles.”
Now, I preface this entire argument
with the following: I am an evangelical Christian and I want to be upfront
about that. As a Christian, I believe
that it is our duty to always offer dignity and respect to all people, whether
you agree or disagree with their lifestyle choices because they are bearers of
God’s image. And while my arguments will
be forceful because of my intent to make my case as strongly as I can, I have
absolutely no ill will towards the gay community, and, in fact, have urged my
congregation to always express kindness and compassion along with truth and
clarity when it comes to those in the homosexual lifestyle.
So with that, back to some of the
discussion points made by Bill O’Reilly as a somewhat representative response
to the question of redefining marriage.
I gathered from the comments made on his show, The O’Reilly Factor that…
- There are
no good arguments against redefining marriage.
- People
that “thump their Bibles” are automatically dismissed as having a
subjective, theological-ideological bent and…
- The burden
of proof is on those who do not want to make such a stark and
controversial change.
Of course, O’Reilly had the chutzpah
to put in a plug for his upcoming book Killing
Jesus later that same week (I am sure he is hoping for big sales from those
“Bible-thumpers”).
As someone who might be labeled a
“Bible-thumper” (i.e. someone who believes that the Bible is indeed God’s special
revelation to humanity, that it is true in everything that it asserts, that it
has survived thousands of years of intense interrogations, dismissals, radical
re-interpretations, attempted de-bunkings and even burnings…because of its
innate truthfulness), I am surprised at O’Reilly’s scoffing hubris. Does O’Reilly think that the Bible is too
out-of-date to have anything relevant to say on the subject? Has our collective wisdom finally superceded
that of the Holy Scriptures? Were the
civil rights activists of the 1960's wrong
to turn to their Bibles and call for justice?
Was Martin Luther King Jr. just an incoherent “Bible-thumper” in the
same sense that he appealed to the wisdom of the Scriptures? I can hear someone saying right now, “Yes,
but Dr. King was using the Bible to fight for rights while you are using the
Bible to deny rights!” Actually, I would hope that Dr. King was doing as the
Bible instructed: applying the truth of the Scriptures to the unjust situation
at hand, calling for freedom. My hope is
also to seek to apply the truth of the Scriptures: calling for restraint. The Scriptures prescribe both freedom and
restraint. The question is merely what
the Bible prescribes for the situation at hand.
And that being said, the Bible’s argument
is quite cogent about homosexuality. It clearly teaches that such unions are
against the design by which God made us in the first place (see Genesis
1-2). Marriage is designed as a covenant
relationship between one man and one woman until death severs that
relationship. The relationship is
complementary in nature, able to produce children and a reflection of the image
of God (see Genesis 1:26-28; 2:18-25).
Such is not the case with a homosexual union. Indeed, the very definition of “marriage” is
“one man and one woman” and the deviations from this norm as recorded in the
Bible and in history have been consistently destructive.
The Bible also argues that
homosexuality is one of the first steps of a declining culture because the
focus is on the wants and needs of the individual creature rather than on the
Creator and the Creator’s agenda for His creation (see Romans 1:18-32). The downward spiral of societal breakdown is elaborated
in this passage in no uncertain terms.
But, of course, we can only enter this evidence in as “Exhibit A”
because Mr. O’Reilly is often quick to point out that “the Bible is
allegorical”, i.e. whenever it becomes inconvenient or it portrays the world as
something different from the vantage point of a naturalistic worldview, it can
be written off as “allegorical”. So,
beyond any Bible-thumping, do we see any other cogent arguments against
redefining marriage to include gay unions?
The decisions that lead to other decisions…that lead to other decisions
Decisions have consequences and one
of those consequences is that the decision acts as a building block to the next
decision. My decision to let one of my
children stay up late on a school night, then becomes an argument by that child
for why I should let them stay up late on Saturday before church. Soon, bedtimes are argued to be quite
arbitrary (even though they do
actually establish a healthy structure for my children’s physical and
intellectual thriving).
An all-too-disturbing example in our
society has seen the abortion debate move from state’s rights when a woman’s
life was in danger to legalizing abortion nationally (but only for the first
trimester), to abortion on demand for any reason and at any stage of
development, and now discussions of infanticide have emerged (after all, if the
life of the child is determined to be viable based on IQ or some other basis,
why stop with the first trimester or third trimester or even the first
breath?). Decisions lead to decisions
which lead to more decisions. We might
scoff at the “slippery slope” argument, but just the other day, a Planned
Parenthood lobbyist named Alisa LaPolt-Snow was being questioned before the
Florida legislature about what Planned Parenthood does when an abortion is
botched and the child emerges alive. Is
the abortionist required to tend to the now-birthed child’s health needs? What happens to these “now-viable” human
beings and their right to health care as the child struggles on the table? LaPolt-Snow, frighteningly, could not (or
would not) answer the question.
Decisions lead to decisions that lead to more decisions. And sometimes, those continuing decisions are
startlingly scary because they serve as building blocks of precedent.
So, what consequences might occur as
a result of redefining marriage to include gay couples? Despite all the studies that argue
convincingly - all things being equal - that the best environment for a child to
thrive is within a committed marriage between a man and a woman (and the lack
of any legitimate, time-tested evidence that shows what will happen in terms of
a child physical and emotional health within a gay union), what will happen in
our courts of law (that are already overburdened with cases) when two couples -
one heterosexual and one homosexual - vie for an adoption of the same
child? Will not this redefinition demand
that whatever the studies about children’s well-being may indicate is
irrelevant and that, constitutionally, the two relationships are equal in the
eyes of the law; even perhaps arguing that gay unions, having been ignored by
our laws for so long, should be given preference now? And suddenly, the welfare of the child is
quite secondary! If one cannot see that
happening, it is because one has chosen to ignore the clear, consistent patterns
of how decisions lead to other decisions that lead to other decisions…and often
in the wrong direction because it is all done in the names of precedent and
freedom.
Or consider the argument that one
man-one woman marriages are “arbitrary” and intended to exclude homosexuals. What will happen when three people come to
the courts and argue that the number two is arbitrary? Why stop at two? Why not five?
Or six? Or seven? What if a group of seven (a mix of men, women,
even transgender) decide that they want a loving, government-endorsed
marriage? Sounds completely insane and
impossible, doesn’t it? And yet, who
thought 20 years ago that our country would be seriously asking the Supreme
Court to redefine marriage? Who thought
40 years ago after Roe v. Wade that an
abortion-rights lobbyist would not know how to answer (or simply would not
answer) the question about infanticide?
And what kind of legal conundrums and complexities will these new
definitions create when there is a divorce of sorts and children involved? This redefinition is just begging for
societal upheaval!
Who is arguing that a gay marriage will hurt my heterosexual marriage?
Back to the O’Reilly dialogue...one of
the statements that was made in the exchange between Megyn Kelly and Bill
O’Reilly was, “How is gay marriage going to hurt heterosexual marriage?” This is such a bizarre statement that it is
almost easily ignored except that people grab it and say, “Yeah, how is gay marriage going to hurt your
straight marriage?”. This is a Straw-Man
argument of the first order. No one has
said that gay marriage will hurt someone’s straight marriage. The question is, “Will the redefining of
marriage have a long-term negative effect on society?” and that goes back to Bill O’Reilly immensely inane suggestion that the
burden of proof is on those who want to maintain the traditional definition of
marriage. No, the burden of proof is on
those who wish to make such a significant change because no one knows what
impact this will have on society in the long-term! Indeed, this underlines another significant
problem in our country: our inability to think logically any more. We are satisfied with clichés and “sound-bite
logic” as though these forms of argument are capable of deep, careful
reasoning. O’Reilly spouts off this particular
cliché without it ever occurring to him that such an issue is much more
impactful than he could ever imagine. To
change a definition is to change society.
To change society is to tell businesses that are owned and operated by
people who may have strong ethical or religious opposition to redefining marriage
that they now must provide healthcare to gay couples just as they would
straight couples. To change society will
involve redefining adoption procedures.
To change society here will call into question all kinds of other
established societal boundaries. To change society will have a crushing impact
on our legal system. To change societal
foundations is to potentially rupture society in ways that can hardly be
foreseen until it is already too late.
To change the definition of marriage is akin to burrowing under one’s
home and haphazardly changing out the foundations without bothering to ask
whether the house can be supported by these new changes.
By the way, for the sake of Bill O’Reilly’s
statement about the missing reasoning for opposing this redefinition, are these
or are these not cogent arguments for why redefining marriage is a very serious undertaking and very likely
a bad idea of our society as a whole…quite apart from my penchant to “thump my
Bible”?
Not everything new and “progressive” is a good idea
Some things have stood the test of
time because they were deemed wise by humanity from the noted successes and
noted failures over the course of history.
Marriage has been a foundational societal structure since humanity began
recording human history. And I say
“marriage”, not “gay marriage” or “straight marriage” because society has
always (with very few aberrations) defined marriage as a covenantal union
between one man and one woman. I think
that this suggests a few things:
- That
attempts to create other forms of marriage in history (Roman emperors who
married boys, polygamy, incestuous unions, etc…) have been deemed mistakes
by history and culture.
- That
marriage is not even an institution that belongs to the state, but is a
transcultural, even supra-cultural institution that is self-defined (or
perhaps God-defined…oh there I go thumping my Bible again. Sorry.)
- That
history shows a long line of terrible decisions in the name of progress
because demagoguery and clever utilization of rhetoric won out over
reasonable thought and ethics (i.e. research the history of modern fascism
and how progressive elitists extolled its virtues with bold, pithy and
vacuous declarations until it led up to an alliance between Italy and Nazi
Germany). So enough “sound-bite
logic”!
- That even
our culture is rejecting this
idea! The reason the Supreme Court
is even hearing this case is because the state of California
overwhelmingly voted to support marriage as traditionally defined and a
Circuit Court judge (who is himself gay) ruled California’s due-process
decision as unconstitutional. In
fact, 32 states in which the issue has been put to the people in
referendum have voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage
and another 12 states have passes statutes doing the same thing. Despite the support from the
entertainment industry, intellectuals and journalists, the people of this
country are unconvinced of the merits of redefining marriage.
Is this an argument to persecute or
in any way harm the gay community?
Absolutely not! Is this an
attempt to restrict the gay community’s freedoms as protected by the U.S.
Constitution? Absolutely not! The gay community and progressive elites have
asked our society to completely overhaul the definition of the oldest
institution known to humanity. They have
asked us to cast aside 5000+ years of recorded civilization’s understanding, to
cast aside any biblical input into this argument and to embrace a very radical
innovation with no foresight into the future, with no well-reasoned arguments
of their own and without society’s greater good in mind. Mr. O’Reilly is greatly mistaken in his
assessment of this issue. The side of
the argument upon whom the burden lies will be those asking society to
radically change its societal foundations and it is those who make this
argument who have little in terms of substantive reasoning for why we should do
this beyond, “We’re Americans. We just
want to be treated like everyone else.”
I must, however, end as I started: as
a “Bible-thumper”. The arguments against
applying the Bible to this issue - such as demanding that we apply the whole Law
(even the strange ones) if we are going to look at laws which condemn
homosexual conduct as seen in Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13 or asking why
Jesus never commented on homosexuality - are about as simplistic an
understanding of the Bible as I have ever heard! This is hardly a persuasive criteria for
disqualifying what the Bible has to say on the subject.
{For the record, one will note that not
all of the laws from the Old Testament are equally applied in the New Testament
(i.e. circumcision as no longer necessary for Christians, the Sabbath as being
transformed into a rest from works in the process of salvation [Hebrews 4:9-12],
Jesus speaking of the “weightier matters of the Law” [Matthew 23:23])…so we are
not obligated to dismiss the ethics of the Torah just because we do not
understand all of the other more “eccentric” laws. One will also note that the Apostle Paul does
transfer the issue of homosexual conduct over to the New Testament as sinful
behavior (see Romans 1:22-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). And the likely reason that Jesus never spoke
on homosexuality, unlike Paul, was that his main audience was Jewish and for
them, the sinfulness of homosexual conduct was a given, while Paul preached to
the Gentiles where that was more in question.}
I would contend that ultimately, we
still must contend with the 3500 years of collected wisdom encased in the text
of the Bible. Our ethics, especially for
those from a Judeo-Christian worldview, start in Genesis chapters one and two
where God sets the paradigm, the design.
And why anyone with reverence for these Scriptures could suggest that
homosexual conduct, which is consistently condemned as sinful, would
nevertheless enshrine such behavior within the marriage covenant that God
created for the sake of the flourishing of humanity and the reflection of His
glory is beyond baffling!!
Perhaps the American mindset has been
so far removed from the biblical ethic that this argument seems like nothing
more than narrow-minded bigotry to some.
Perhaps the cliché-driven reasoning of media mega-stars like Bill O’Reilly
who announce, with little-to-no expertise in theology, that we can dismiss
anything in the Bible that doesn’t seem modern or rubs us the wrong way because, after all, it’s just “allegorical”, has covertly captured our thinking. But, I would contend that we still answer to
God, that we cannot make up a patchwork of ethics that we borrow from whatever
aspects of life that make us feel good and culturally accepted. Redefining marriage away from God’s design
offers no coherent argument for societal good or, for that matter, any
persuasive reason why God’s design is not applicable anymore. Just some thoughts from an incoherent
Bible-thumper.
