CNN Religion Blog Publishes Religion Prof's Take on Bible's 'Mixed Messages' on Sexuality
It's apparently all the rage this week among mainstream media religion features to hype the unorthodox views of Boston University's Jennifer Wright Knust.
On Monday, Newsweek's Lisa Miller uncritically presented her readers with a summary of arguments from the professor's new book. The next day "On Faith," -- a joint Newsweek/Washington Post online religion news/comment feature -- published the first of a multi-part series of guest columns by Knust.
Yesterday, CNN's Belief Blog joined in, granting Knust a "My Take" blog post focused on attacking Scripture's teachings on homosexuality.
To be fair, CNN offers a disclaimer that "[t]he opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jennifer Wright Knust," but the writer's claims are so suspect that one wonders why editors didn't hold off on publication until they had a counterpoint ready to go.
For example, Knust reads present-day cultural assumptions backwards into scriptural text when she sees homoeroticism in biblical accounts of the close friendship between King David and King Saul's son Jonathan:
Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.
Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend.
Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.
Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).
It reminds me an awful lot of how a small minority of historians have tried to argue that Abraham Lincoln may have been gay, citing his close friendship with his former roommate, Joshua Speed.
Hopefully CNN will seek out and publish a counterpoint, but Belief Blog's quickness to jump on the bandwagon in hyping Knust's loopy views points to the mainstream media's liberal bias in religion reporting.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Liberals and their desire to
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:26pm.
Liberals and their desire to constantly analyze, moralize everyone else, will get very thin..
they will push this discussion so they might even have to experience an inalienable right, which is meeting God first hand.
All I can say they had better watch out.. Their arrogance shows no boundaries and their pettiness abounds.
life is not always a mirror
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:34pm.
It's an error to try to superimpose our cultural ideas on another culture let alone a culture from thousands of years ago. Romantic love relationships have not been common through much of history. Marriages were arranged between families and often couples first met on their wedding day. So for two men to 'love' each other more than woman is not to say sex was involved. Women were of a completely different social status in those cultures and in fact, there are societies to this day who hold these ideas.
Knust Knows Squat
Submitted by DaMama on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:43pm.
I love it when non-Christians and non-Jews try to describe the Old Testament and what it "really" means.
First of all, if you study the meaings of the Hebrew word for "love", it means brotherly love, not a sensual love. David and Jonathan were best friends. David trusted Jonathan more than "any woman" because that was the cultural norm of the day. Women were not equals at that time. They were not trusted confidants like today.
So to have Knust drag out that old argument that King David was homosexual is laughable. The homosexuals use that story to try and justify their sinful lifestyle choice. Every time the word "homosexual" is used in Scripture, it is described as an abomination. When the term "men having affection towards men as like women" is used, these men are described as having a deranged and a reprobate (indecent, forordained to damnation) mind.
The Bible is clear on homosexual relations, whether involving men or women. It is wrong, it is abominable, and it is NOT normal. Even a simple human anatomy class will show that the human body was not made for same sex sexual contact and intercourse. Those entrapped by their lusts will try to justify their choices by any means possible.
I wonder
Submitted by GW on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:52pm.
if Knust makesthe same interpretation of the modern day saying "Bros before hoes".
omg...
Submitted by michiganruth on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 7:47pm.
this had me laughing so hard I was snorting! thanks, I needed that.
LOL I was thinking the same
Submitted by dmntd1 on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 9:30pm.
LOL I was thinking the same exact thing. I guess this is the first documented instance of Bro's before Hoes.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
You're welcome!
Submitted by GW on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 11:39am.
I'm happy to be of service!
Morality in the Liberal Mind
Submitted by Doktor Riktor V... on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:54pm.
I have come to believe that the neomarxists desires are not to lift everyone up to a better, more moral way of living but to drag everyone else down to their own depravity.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:1-2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;"
its nice to have so much
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:56pm.
its nice to have so much attention this week so that we can correct this idiot thinking in front of so many potential believers - thank you satan!
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
What they left out was, later
Submitted by ant on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 7:10pm.
What they left out was, later David gave away state secrets to the Phillistines because of a jilted love affair and God's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Pretty convenient that the merely 230 year old Constitution no longer fits in this modern age, but the Bible stories of thousands of years ago can be nicely translated as though all customs and meanings are an exact match today. Oh, to be a liberal and reside in fantasy land.
please...
Submitted by michiganruth on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 7:49pm.
are they serious? yup, David was gay, because there's NO EVIDENCE in the Bible of David liking women. uh huh.
these people are so deluded I really despair of their ever understanding the truth.
Gay David
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 7:56pm.
The adultry and wives not withstanding. I won't pretend any expertise but this seems to be evidence of the fact that if you go looking for something you can find it anywhere.
If you follow liberals'
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 10:30am.
If you follow liberals' distorted thinking, it's clear that David only pursued Bathsheba to hide the fact that he was gay.
You know, like conservatives welcome and show respect for blacks to hide the fact that they are racists.
That is called "argument from
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 10:48am.
That is called "argument from silence" and is a logical fallacy.
Doktor Riktor V
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 7:57pm.
You sir have it right. Liberals want to drag us all down to their level. In fact it kills them that we are here and will stand for right, decency, morals, and the truth in the face of their lies and hyprocrisy. They twist every to fit their agenda when the truth is they know they are wrong.
Knust's viewpoint is not an unorthodox one.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 8:14pm.
It is, rather, an anti-Christian one.
It is bereft of scholarship and brimming with inaccuracy. "Biblical writers could imagine same-sex (sic) intimacy as a source of blessing"?? Ms. Knust, God is the Author of every book of the Bible, and He's remarkably clear on the subject in both Testaments--there's no blessing in what He defines as sexual sin.
For those not familiar with the Biblical account--Ms. Knust, evidently, being one member of that group--King David was anointed as king by the prophet Samuel, while David was just a boy. And, gee, if my failing memory serves, that was before David ever met his friend Jonathan.
But, hey, Ms. Knust, don't let the facts get in the way of a salacious misrepresentation, right?
Indeed, "woe to them that call evil good, and good evil." I don't mind saying that it will be a real effort to pray for you, Ms. Knust, but that's what we're supposed to do. Why will it be so hard to do, you might ask? Simple. It's because while Barack Obama uses Christianity as a prop, you use it as a toilet.
--Mike
What is she smoking? Nowhere
Submitted by goldbough on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 8:56pm.
What is she smoking? Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jonathan loved David more than women. It says in I Samuel he loved David as himself. Notice how she doesn't quote the Bible on that sentence because it's not there.
I can't figure out liberals' obsession with making people gay. If we're all gay, then no one will have kids, then the world will be peaceful because no one lives here. That must be their objective.
People believe what they believe
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 10:08pm.
Christians have believed for centuries that homosexuality is wrong. Why are liberals so determined to tell them they are wrong and just mind their own business?Decay and corruption
Submitted by LaVallette on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 4:58am.
Oh how decayed and corrupt our society has become that the word Love can only mean LURVE with all its modern connotation; that love cannot exists unless it is tainted by sexual overtones and to say that you love someone it must mean you have to bonk him or her otherwise it has no meaning.
Another "inconvenient Truth".
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 9:59am.
It's much more convenient for a lot of people to start "re-interpreting" the Bible when they realize that their current lifestyle conflicts with God's word, than it is for them to just live by what the Bible says.Good morning everyone
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 10:20am.
Don't y'all know the bible is a living breathing book where the sins of man can be interpreted as the will of God? The United States constitution is a living breathing document and the dreams of liberal madmen can be interpreted as constitutional law.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
"Knust reads present-day
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 10:47am.
"Knust reads present-day cultural assumptions backwards into scriptural text"
That's called eisegesis and is a mark of bad hermeneutics. The more I read from Knust, the more I see a very untrustworthy source as an instructor of sound doctrine.
Follow the Money
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 10:53am.
It's no coincidence that Jennifer Wright Knust is being promoted right now in liberal media. She's promoting her liberalistic theological book (once again with sex being the focus) and agents are notorious for getting them clients publicity by whatever means available.
Arrogant ignorance on parade
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 11:02am.
As I've seen over the years, just another insular group of cloistered echo-chamber inhabitants sitting in their warm, cozy little Kumbaya circles sharing their individual ignorance with one another, periodically nodding and making profound, approving noises affirming the gravitas of their bon mots....
...all the while continually subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge in the process.
As a 1960s vintage Tom Lehrer song once noted,
"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd. I can tell you things about Peter Pan. And the Wizard of Oz? There's a dirty old man!"
The blind leading the blind, eternally stumbling from one ditch to the next. Just when they think they've ascended to the mountainous summit of profound wisdom they fall head-first into the next sludge-filled culvert.
"The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them." (Psalm 2:4)
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
C.S. Lewis
Submitted by panzerakc on Sat, 02/12/2011 - 1:04am.
had an interesting take on this type of thinking.
He described the notion (and I am paraphrasing here) that any deep affection between two same-sex people was really, truly sexual in terms of "invisible cats and hidden fires". He described the thinking of folks who see things that way as akin to people who believe in invisible cats. Yes, the chair may appear to be empty, but that's just because the cat is invisible. There is REALLY a cat in the chair.
He also described their thought processes as "the absence of smoke is evidence of a fire very carefully hidden".