Antioch Road

The Religious Case for Throwing Away Your Issue of Newsweek

In Newsweek's Dec. 15 issue, someone named Lisa Miller makes "the religious case for gay marriage." Except the magazine put a picture of the Bible on the cover. The "religious case for gay marriage" is not the same thing as "the Biblical case for gay marriage." Newsweek would have given itself more intellectual credibility had it at least gotten the cover right.

Anyway, on to the story behind the cover.

Wait a second. I don't want to go on to that. The "religious case for gay marriage" has been "made" a hundred times. What a boring cover story. The Bible is antiquated. Modern scholars have found new meaning in the passages or now doubt their veracity. God is love and all He wants is for us to just be happy, however we define happiness. King David was a polygamist. And on and on and on.

Ms. Miller even writes that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Well, she's got us there! There is no verse in the Bible that says "the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman." I don't know how we could have missed that.

Anyway, let's leave Ms. Miller's story before she starts writing things like "the Bible endorses slavery." (Oops, too late.)

Instead, let's go on to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's editorial note on the cover story. Unlike Ms. Miller's story, Mr. Meacham's note is interesting, if in a train wreck sort of way.

Mr. Meacham writes that "conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." The worst kind? Really? He can't think of a kind of fundamentalism worse than that?

And, is liberal resort to biblical authority OK, then? Apparently not, for "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." That's right—Mr. Meacham says that resort to Biblical authority is "unworthy" of the "Judeo-Christian tradition." Also, it is "intellectually bankrupt," which does not exactly explain why he just put a cover story in his magazine resorting to Biblical authority to argue for one side of an issue. Intellectually bankrupt for thee, but not for me?

But if we are to discard Biblical authority, to what authority should we resort? The closest Mr. Meacham comes to offering an alternative is when he says that "history and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion." So history--by which Mr. Meacham means historical trends--and the opinions of younger generations (i.e., "demographics") are to be our guides, eh? Those guides are less than definitive and consistent.

Perhaps, then, Mr. Meacham himself is to be our authority, given as he is in "full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context" of the important issues.

Not doubting his good intentions but his omniscience, I pray that he will excuse me from submission to his authority, though it appears that he has already declined my request.

BP Authors Disagree on Chronicle Reporters

On Thursday, a federal judge found the two San Francisco Chronicle reporters -- Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada -- who profited handsomely by revealing what should have secret grand jury testimony in the BALCO steriods investigation to be in contempt of court, and sentenced them to 18 months in prison, unless they reveal their sources. Their sentence is stayed pending their appeal of the decision.

Interestingly, two Baseball Prospectus authors have very different views of the matter. Will Carroll, under the headline "A Scary Day," puts forth our freedoms are in jeopardy rhetoric: "It’s a chilling day for journalism and for freedom, even our corner of the world."

Joe Sheehan, on the other hands, notes that there are real criminals in this matter (the government sources) and real victims (the witnesses whose testimony was supposed to have been kept confidential). The reporters themselves do not deserve our sympathy, for they now claim a right to a confidentiality that they themselves took away from the witnesses whose testimony they revealed. They allowed themselves to be used as the tools of the government sources who broke the law by handing them the testimony.

The freedom of the press has not been abridged here. Fainaru-Wada and Williams were free to report what they did. They are not free -- just as everyone else is not free -- to refuse to testify after being subpoenaed. What has been abridged here is the ability of the justice department to investigate future crimes. Witnesses will be less likely to testify before a grand jury if they fear that their testimony -- which is supposed to be confidential -- will be leaked to the press, which will publish it without question.

Cross-posted at CubsNet.com, where you may comment.

The Columnists' Crutch: The Short Sentence Paragraph

Here is how you know that a columnist--political, sports, business, whatever--does not have much to say.

They write short sentences.

Each sentence constitutes a full paragraph.

Like this.

The He/She Script

Are there any film reviewers in the mainstream media that you can trust? If so, they're not working for the Wall Street Journal. In today's paper, the Journal's film reviewer, Joe Morgenstern, raves about some new movie titled TransAmerica, which apparently paints in a sympathetic light "a transsexual woman who came into this life as a boy, and who is soon to undergo surgery that will put an end, or so she hopes, to the anguish of her 'gender dysphoria.'" Except he/she first realizes he/she has a son from when he/she still acted like a he. It's a script made for the Oscars, which says something about the Oscars.

FOX News Again Fails to Live Up to Basic Decency Standards

A point made on this site before: FOX News Channel may be more "balanced" than other mass media organizations, but it is also more sensationalistic. As such, it is not always safe for Christians or children or anyone else concerned about being degraded by what they view.

The American Decency Association notes another recent example: a news report on marketing that focuses on women and their behinds. As American Decency notes, "this piece on Fox continues to portray woman as the sum of their body parts." The report also follows a recent O'Reilly Factor segment that addressed the Paris Hilton Hardee's ad. During the segment, FOX News repeatedly played the ad over and over, offering free advertising for Hardee's and degrading our culture.

South Korean President on Newspapers

The 58th annual World Newspaper Congress is taking place in Seoul, South Korea. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun spoke at the conference Monday. According to the AP, Roh said that "the history of newspapers is a history of democracy and human rights." He then went on to say, however, "Newspapers are entitled to inspect and criticize society only if they are equipped with a reasonable in-house structure which guarantees the freedom of expressing different opinions and diversity."

This is a dangerous statement. It would be a liberty-restraining policy if put into effect. It is a reminder of the benefits of living in the United States, where a free press exists, and where no serious person--or, at least, no person taken seriously--would make such a statement.

Humor Without Class

On Laura Bush's recent performance at the 91st annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner, which has received good marks from the mainstream media, I'm with The American Spectator's Wlady Pleszczynski: "It simply is amazing how complacently accepting the princely Bush first couple is of all the cheapness and rot in our culture." And with Michelle Malkin: "'Lighten up?' How about cleaning up? . . . . Unlike many Beltway and Manhattan commentators, I do not think the Wonkette-ization of the White House is a good thing."

Antioch Road on "Ethical Perspectives in the News"

I was part of a panel discussion tonight, taping a program called "Ethical Perspectives in the News." The discussion focused on ethics in the blogosphere and how bloggers differ from journalists. The program airs each Sunday morning at 9 a.m. on KCRG, channel 9, in eastern Iowa. The edition we taped tonight will air this upcoming Sunday, April 17.

Also on the panel were Linda Scarth, reference librarian at Mount Mercy College, and Mark Andrejevic, professor in media studies at the University of Iowa. Both were very pleasant and had good insights. I enjoyed meeting them.

Amy Johnson Boyle, who has a background as a broadcast journalist, moderated.

We didn't break any new ground in our discussion or anything, but if you are new to these issues and live in eastern Iowa (or just want to see what I look and sound like), tune in Sunday morning at 9 a.m. (or if you're in church, set your VCR or Tivo).

The Dailiness Disease

The Evangelical Outpost re-posts something, that I'm seeing for the first time, on "how 'dailiness' can become a disease." According to Mr. Carter, "[T]he 'news' makes us dumb. Before you disagree, ask yourself this two-part question about any news article: what makes this story important and what distinguishes it from mere gossip and/or trivia?"

Worth pondering. Also this: "We are addicted to the process of change."

I spend a lot of time reading or watching or listening to the daily news, most of which has no lasting consequence. This post is a good reminder to cut back on some of that time, and do things that will improve me as a Christian, a husband, and a father.

Newsweek Examines Jesus's Birth

Newsweek's new issue has a cover story on Jesus's birth. (It seems like Newsweek has one of these rediscovering the "historical Jesus" or examination of Christians pieces at least twice a year.) The perspective of this particular story is summed up in this sentence early on in the piece: "If we dissect the stories with care, we can see that the Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology, one whose meaning was captured in the words of the fourth-century Nicene Creed: that 'for us men and for our salvation,' Jesus 'came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man.'"

The problem with this is simple: The story of the virgin birth of our Lord does not need to be dissected, it needs to be accepted.