This week’s letter comes from Rev J.A. Matteson in Redmond who takes this opportunity to go “All Old Testament” on the gay marriage debate while simultaneously defending President Obama. Now that’s something that you don’t see everyday. Thanks for the letter, Rev. You can pick up your earthly reward, a bag of Strictly Organic Coffee, at our office, 704 NW Georgia.
With regard to Mr. Bates’ letter, “Obama the Stonewaller”, I reply: I would agree with Mr. Bates in his assertion that Obama shifted positions on the marriage debate. In his defense I would simply ask: How many times in your life have you changed your thinking on an issue after concluding you were wrong? Is not Obama entitled to do the same? Mr. Bates is correct in spotlighting the change in positions. Where Mr. Bates lost credibility with me was when he positioned himself as a theological expert with regard to the Bible’s teaching toward marriage. Mr. Bates has clearly never read the Bible from Genesis toRevelation for if he had he would know that marriage in the Bible is explicitly and implicitly understood to be between males and females. I challenge Mr. Bates to cite one example where the Bible endorses same sex unions by defining them as marriage, blessed by God. Mr. Bates is either biblically ignorant or defiant toward the Bible’s clear teaching on the subject. If the latter is the case then he is merely a blowhard spouting meaningless rhetoric and his tyrannical ramblings ought to be ignored by thinking people. At the risk of reiterating the obvious and boring readers allow me to reiterate biblical basics pertaining to marriage: 1) the Author of marriage brought together Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, for the express purpose of propagating godly offspring, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24); 2) human anatomy is designed with this purpose of procreation in mind, the man carrying the seed and the woman the egg. Survival of the species depends on both sexes; and 3) male and female together represent a complete picture their Creator, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). Mr. Bates, please do not patronize your readers by purporting knowledge in a subject matter when it is clearly absent. You favor redefining marriage and you have that right. But your beef is not with people like me, but with God who has defined marriage as between men and woman. I suggest you lodge your grievance with Him.
Rev. J.A. Matteson, M. Div.
Redmond, OR
This article appears in Dec 24-30, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Oh for crying out loud. Bronze-age superstitions and desert prejudices.
Dear idiot,
Just because the Bible does not talk of same-sex unions does NOT mean that they did not exist NOR that they weren’t “blessed by God”. If you have indeed read the Bible then you will know that God intended Adam to have a “helper”. God did not make Eve so Adam could procreate. This “Adam and Eve, not Steve” argument is incredibly immature. Adam and Eve were the first humans but not the ONLY humans. If you believe that they were the only humans then that would make incest perfectly fine. Procreation is NOT the only reason people get married regardless of what anyone says. No one is going to “become gay” as soon as same-sex marriages are allowed. Canada is not made up of homosexuals nor was California (despite popular opinion). If you have a hidden hatred or fear of homosexuals then that is fine, however, please spare us your tomfoolery. God does not hate homosexuals nor does he care about them getting married. If you have an issue with that then take it up with Him. Until then, please read your Bible again and make sure you do so with an understanding of history and some logic.
Obviously everything in the old testament must be discounted or women would not be able to wear jewelry, or men couldn’t shave their beards. Your benighted arguments make you look like the most judgmental christian out there. No wonder lesbians and gays feel outed by the church. Who would want to come to your church when you write a letter like that? Shame on you… You’ll get what you deserve.
Is it legitimate simply to reassert the Biblical condemnation against homosexuality? First, the meaning of homosexuality has changed. In the new narrative of homosexuality, a gay person is just as inclined to seek stable monogamy as a straight person. The Bible’s assumption that gay sex is a form of indulgence unrelated to marriage can no longer be shared.
Christians are not committed to following the rules laid down in the Bible. They reject the need for circumcision and food laws. And all moral laws. St Paul said that we have to break the link between God’s will and religious laws. We have to make up morality as we go, putting love and freedom first. Ah, but didn’t St Paul clearly condemn gay sex? Yes, but this is because he shared the general biblical view, that it was inextricable from hedonism. Christians who use Paul to condemn homosexuality have failed to grasp Paul’s key message: that holy rules are dead.
So the answer to this question has two parts. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour, as a threat to moral order. But the New Testament condemns something else as well: holy moralism. It announces an anti-legalistic revolution. It tells us we have to keep our moral thinking mobile, open-ended. The Bible sows the seed of the deconstruction of its own sexual moralism.
Interesting how gays have managed to convolute a fairly simple concept so well. Homosexuality is WRONG, no matter how you slice it or dice it. The plumbing just don’t fit as God and nature intended, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out. Obviously, we cannot stop them from participating in these vile acts against nature. But for them to DEMAND that the rest of us sanction their perversion by uniting them in “holy matrimony” is just plain absurd. They are out to destroy the very fiber of morality, and they’re doing a good job of it, too! Legalities aside, many many of us will never ever EVER acknowledge these aberrant unions as being “marriage”, or anything of the kind.
i just wonder how the good reverend would feel if some iman began using the new testament to support his bigoted and regressive ideas. that is essentially what he does, when as a christian teacher he looks to the old testament for his ideas and evidence.
it was written by jews and for jews thousands of years before mr. matteson came into the world and developed his critical analysis skills in a christian world with most probably christian parents. that is their book and for him to use it to help guide his world view is dishonest unless he is also ready to stone adulterers and strictly enforce circumsision laws.(hows that going to sit with all people who already think obama is a commie when the government sends a paid agent for your foreskin? but wait,it would be in the name of christianity,right? LMAO) to advocate for the laws of the old testement as a christian ignores the fact the jesus came to this world to disrupt and subvert the status quo not add another layer to its already calcified, restrictive and punative nature.
but as always its nice to see that people removed from the situation by thousands miles and years of human development see fit to monopolize another religions’ sacred texts to bolster their their arguments for the proscription of behaviors they find objectionable. you wouldn’t be trying to limit someones freedom would you?
Boy, nothing brings ’em to the table faster than an piece that either condones or condems gay marriage. So for the record: christian? Absolutely. Against gay marriage? Absolutely not. If a couple of dudes wanna play groom and groom, so what? My marriage with my wife has no less meaning as a result. I don’t think homosexuality is a good thing, but then neither is cheating on your taxes or talking trash about your coworker behind their back. So for all the self righteous that leave non christians with a bad taste in their mouth; God loves homosexuals just as much as He loves you, which means you should as well. Indeed are so commanded.
Thank you Rev. Matteson for providing a learned and definitive explanation of the Bible’s stance on sexual relations between two men.
Firstly, can you enlighten us on where the Bible stands on Usury?… or adultery? Or Divorce? Or bestiality? How about slavery, underage sex, premarital sex, sex with family members and human sacrifice? … or… masturbation, oral and anal sex? The Old Testament doesn’t like much of what passes for life in the US it seems… why all the attention on homosexuals?
Aw, you probably know the chapters I’m alluding to. Of course you see my point. We like to quote the Bible when it prohibits activities we don’t happen to like.
My second point is this: who cares what the Bible says about sexual relations between two men? Let he (or she) who has not sinned cast the first stone (or frame the first prohibitive law) lest he or she be a hypocrite. Did Jesus despise anyone more than hypocrites? No. The US is a secular nation not a theocracy – the Bible is therefore irrelevant.
Rev. Matteson justified Obama’s change of position on marriage as being in line with his right to change thinking. Basically, it is not only fair to say we all have a right to change our opinion but also there are many instances when we should. However, there are also times when we shouldn’t switch, and that is particularly true when an important principle is involved.
Barack Obama had a friendship with the Reverend Benjamin Wright for about 20 years during which Obama learned to have some sympathy for the Palestinians. When the Reverend Wright and the Palestinians became political liabilities for presidential candidate Obama, then it appears he and his campaign operatives found themselves in agreement with the Reverend Matteson; that is, Obama had a right to change his mind. More seasoned and, perhaps, less naïve observers of politics saw this differently. They considered this a case of tossing the Reverend Wright and the Palestinians under the bus for political expediency, presumably, the same motivation for Obama’s switch on marriage and several other issues.
I wonder if Reverend Matteson, after officiating through a marriage ritual with its promises to love and honor, shares with the bride and groom that if one or the other comes to have second thoughts it will be okay for her or him to indulge in a change of mind and file for divorce?
Reverend Matteson seems to attach a lot of importance to having read the Bible from Genesis through the Book of Revelations and understanding its contents. Some of us can’t claim to have read the entire Bible, but we have read several books on history and have noted with considerable concern that others who have read the Bible to the point of being able to quote chapter and verse have had the disturbing ability to justify whatever inhumane thoughts and practices prevailed in their communities – slavery, segregation, barbaric crusades and wars, including wars between various sects within the Christian faith that afflicted Europe and other parts of the world for hundreds of years. Presumably, chaplains who have read the entire Bible and supporting tracts have given and are continuing to give some encouraging counseling and motivation to troops fighting in the illegal and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just as they did during that crime against humanity in Vietnam. Could it be that in their reading of the New Testament they skipped Christ’s second commandment about loving one another?