An Exercise in Self-Restraint

Here's how it goes ... I used to be somewhat active in 90&9, sort-of talked to/dated a girl on staff, and was approached about writing for them regularly. I love to write, and nearly jumped at the chance, but when I sought some advice from those particular friends that are wise and intelligent and have perspective and have spiritual authority in my life, they recommended against it, for various reasons. When I stepped back, I realized that I agreed, and I moved away from 90&9 activities.

I still read it, however, and find that I am infuriated by the amount of idiocy that gets published. This week, I read an article, and I wrote a response, but I'm deciding whether to send it in. It follows ....

Dear Editor,

I’ve long been a reader of 90&9, and have participated from time to time. I often read articles and dismiss them, because they tend to miss the point or be on a topic so obscure and irrelevant that no one outside of the author could be terribly interested, anyway.

When I logged on to read this week’s issue and saw the cover story, Marriage, Traditional Marriage or Gay Marriage? by Joshua Remington, I clicked on the link eagerly. Finally, I thought, a topic that is both timely and relevant. In light of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court, as well as increasing national pressure from the GLBT Community to press towards full social acceptance and validation of homosexuality, I hoped that Bro. Remington would clearly and succinctly defend, scripturally, the sanctity of “traditional” or heterosexual marriage.

I was disappointed when I read the article, as Bro. Remington totally failed to address the issue. In his opening three paragraphs, he presents the problem, but clearly lacks an understanding of the biblical definition of marriage. While the Bible never specifically excludes marriage between members of the same gender, it does clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24, NKJV). This sentiment is echoed in Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, and Ephesians 5:22-31. Given the Bible’s clear prohibitions against homosexuality, and the clear prescription exclusively towards heterosexual marriage, Bro. Remington is giving far too much consideration to secular and agenda-driven criticisms of scripture and biblical morality.

Furthermore, when Bro. Remington argues that “in a Post-Christian society … defining marriage by fiat is probably not the best way to defend this sacred institution,” and argues that “we should instead focus on biblical principles of what marriage is—beyond whom marriage involves,” he destroys his entire argument from the beginning. If our society is “Post-Christian,” then arguing morality from the Bible is irrelevant. By definition, the Bible is of no consequence to a Post-Christian society.

I was disappointed in Bro. Remington’s analysis, as well as the lack of substance in the article.

Brad Titus
Indianapolis, Indiana