Gay Marriage & Newsweek's Hail Mary

Most companies with print news are having financial problems. The Internet and cable TV are the main source of information for many.

Mike Huckabee was on Jon Stewart's show a couple days again. They had an interesting conversation about homosexual marriage.

It is Huckabee video #2 online at thedailyshow dot com

Here's the email I sent to Jon Meacham yesterday:

11 December 2008

Mr. Jon Meacham
Editor
Newsweek Magazine
New York, NY

Dear Mr. Meacham:

Several years ago you spoke at Baylor University, where I am on the faculty. You gave an outstanding lecture on the relationship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. It was a wonderful talk that my wife and I enjoyed tremendously. After the lecture, you graciously signed a copy of your book, inscribing it to my father-in-law, a veteran of the Second World War. You struck us as a man of intellectual and journalistic integrity, even though we suspected that our politics was not yours.

For this reason, I was so disappointed to read your editorial as well as Lisa Miller’s article on same-sex marriage and the Bible in the recent issue of Newsweek. Her article is one of the most superficial and poorly-reasoned pieces on the Bible and moral theology that I have ever read. Like many Christian academics committed to traditional marriage as well as conservative positions on other social issues, I have grown both accustomed to and weary of this sort of agenda-driven drivel that tries to pass itself off as “religious news” in the mainstream media. For someone who has published scads of academic books and articles on many of these issues, I just roll my eyes in disgust. I used to roll my eyes in amazement, but I am well past that. I have come to the conclusion that the reason why I, and my like-minded and well-credentialed academic friends, never receive phone calls or inquiries about our opinions is that our presence as quoted experts in Newsweek or other similar publications would be inconsistent with the narrative you and others want to sustain, namely, that only stupid, uneducated, fundamentalists can embrace these views; no one who is educated, intelligent, articulate, or attractive could possibly do so. Your prefatory editorial to Ms. Miller’s article was unusually candid in admitting your commitment to that narrative.

Sincerely,
Frank Beckwith
--
Francis J. Beckwith, MJS, PhD
Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Department of Philosophy
Fellow and Faculty Associate, Institute for the Studies of Religion
Baylor University
2008-2009 Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow, Center for Ethics & Culture
University of Notre Dame
http://francisbeckwith.com I http://returntorome.com
---

"To toss around bits and pieces of scripture to validate one's own viewpoint shows either a profound ignorance bathed in arrogance or deliberate misrepresentation."

And yet this is precisely what fundagelicals do all the time.

The two major American newsmagazines that I read, Time and Newsweek, have changed from providing news reportage coupled with a few op-ed pieces to topical magazines filled with little substance. This weekend's Time magazine is primarily a collection of year-end lists, while last week's Newsweek demonstrates that magazine's three obsessions--Obama, sex, and health care. It's become obvious that Big Pharma provides more and more of their revenue stream--both magazines run frequent "Your Health" sections, full of glossy ads for new drugs, followed by a page or two of caveats in fine print about why this drug might not be good for you after all.

Your statement about Newsweek's comment about "What--have 100,000 readers" is probably not true--there probably are fewer than 100,000 people who actually read it, along with one million "glancers"--people who flick through the magazine, reading short squibs. I confess that I'm one of them. I do READ the Economist, too--their book reviews are more often more cogent than the NYT or NYRB, and their news reportage is pithy and informative. Time and Newsweek have become the equivalent of USA Today amongst magazines--oriented towards those with short attention spans and small abilities to concentrate. Unfortunately, my local paper, the LA Times, is suffering from the decline of revenues for print--they used to have a great religion editor, but now the religion pieces are few and far between.

Speaking as one of the evangelicals maligned above, we don't build our position on sexuality primarily from the references in Leviticus, but rather from the specific teachings of the New Testament as well as its message of love, peace, and justice. And, I do love a good shrimp cocktail but still supported Prop 8.

Keep up the great work--I met you this year when you spoke at Fuller.

I am not a reader but the front cover is a bold statement that i believe has fueled the movement of gays' rebellious beliefs that God will accept anyone as they are. Whether a person who does not understand what God's grace is or addicted to a lifestyle of selfishness and believes he is justified is the view of every person at one point. It is not the job of the church to convict but that of the Holy Spirit that justifies God's perfect will.

"the front cover is a bold statement that i believe has fueled the movement of gays' rebellious beliefs that God will accept anyone as they are. Whether a person who does not understand what God's grace is or addicted to a lifestyle of selfishness"

balde, it is not a "rebelious belief"; it is God's promise. "Just As I Am" remains a pertinent hymn.

Your reducing gay couples' committed, loving, consenting adult relationships to nothinng more than an addiction to a "lifestyle" (whatever that is) of "selfishness" is a typical of the 'right'. People who actually know such gay couples know that you are simply wrong, nevermnind mean-spirited, uncharitable and the bearer of false witness (which is, you seem to need reminding, a sin).