Tuesday, May 12, 2009

A Slight Problem With Carrie Prejean

Well, it's official. Carrie Prejean will keep her crown as Miss California despite the controversy over her support for traditional marriage. I'm glad for that. I support Miss Prejean in her struggle against the intolerance of gay activists; however, I do have a slight problem with Miss California.

I didn't watch the Miss USA pageant but I did see a couple of excerpts following Prejean's controversial statement. One of them was of Miss Prejean strutting across the stage in a bikini, revealing almost as much skin as a Playboy centerfold. That rubbed me the wrong way. Carrie Prejean's opposition to gay marriage was, according to her, rooted in her Christian faith. She has spoken of her reliance on God's strength during this difficult time. What I don't understand is why Miss Prejean understands God's teaching on homosexuality but doesn't seem to understand His teaching on feminine modesty.

I've written about feminine modesty on this blog once before. I complained that too many Christian women who take modesty seriously think it means they have to dress like 19th century frontier women. Carrie Prejean seems to be the opposite exreme, a Christian woman who has no concept of modesty at all. And what's more, nobody seems to have noticed that. It makes me wonder what's going on in the Christian culture.

It's great to have young people stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in public but Christians, young and old, need to stand up for ALL of those principles. The Bible commands modest dress for Godly women. It doesn't give a specific description of modest dress but I'm sure it does NOT mean a barely there swimsuit. I don't think Carrie Prejean's wardrobe faux pas means she's insincere in her faith. I think it means that she hasn't been taught all the specifics of that faith.

For years femininsts have militantly opposed beauty pageants on the grounds that they objectify women. Surprisingly enough, I think Christians can and should oppose most beauty pageants on similar grounds. Public events that require women to strip, even briefly, to near nudity violate Biblical standards. I don't think Godly women shouldn't participate in such things. But Carrie Prejean did participate in such an event and it gave her an opportunity to stand for Biblical truth. So God made a way for something quite wordly to be used for His glory. Still, that bikini prance was a disconnect from Christian values. That's the slight problem I have with Carrie Prejean.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Jesus Defined Marriage

The issue of gay marriage is quite contentious in our country. This contentiousness was highlighted by the recent controversy involving Miss California Carrie Prejean's support for traditional marriage during the Miss USA pageant. Miss Prejean's commitment to traditional marriage is believed by some to have cost her the Miss USA title. It has also made her the object of rabid scorn. Miss Prejean's courage and grace in the face of vitriolic condemnation is an inspiration but it might leave some people wondering if she's right to base her stand on the Bible. She is.

There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.

Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.

There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.

Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?