Wednesday, December 15, 2004
REWRITING SCRIPTURE
Christmas is coming, so out come the writers who want to retell the Christmas story along the lines of Christopher Bamford's essay blogged a couple of days ago. This time the reinvention appears in TIME and Newsweek. The Christian Post offers a rebuttal, claiming the truth of Scripture.
One wonders why it is so important to deny the virgin birth. Near the end of the essay we get a hint:
As might be expected, Meacham's approach to the Bible goes far beyond Christmas, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. In a May 6, 2002 cover story in Newsweek, Meacham argued that Christianity should change its convictions about human sexuality, allowing for the normalization of homosexual acts and the possible goodness of homosexual relationships. "For many of us, faith, like history, is an unfinished story, a running argument," he argued. Unsurprisingly, Meacham argued that the biblical passages declaring homosexuality to be sinful "are actually not quite so clear and unequivocal" as the church has believed for twenty centuries. He used the same interpretive methodology he applies to the birth narratives in suggesting that the Bible can be read in such a way as to justify homosexuality. Acknowledging that the Bible does appear to condemn homosexual acts as sinful, Meacham explains that "enlightened people have moved on from the world view such passages express."
Ah yes, it's about sex. Of course. What else? If one part of Scripture can be shown to be untrue, all of Scripture is up for grabs, including those passages that inhibit the behavior of choice.
And TIME and Newsweek bought it, printed it, and paid for it, presumably. Can we expect stories that undermine Islam to appear in the pages of these prestigious magazines? No, probably not. Which makes the word Christophobia come to mind yet again.
