Press Release Regarding Newsweek Magazine, First Draft…
December 13th, 2008
Submitted for your approval, here is an early draft of a press release that TheCall will be releasing through our P.R. firm that Lou Engle and I wrote early yesterday:
This past week, the editors and publishers of Newsweek magazine made an unfortunate decision to brazenly relegate the vast majority of American citizens who believe in the traditional, biblical view of marriage to, quoting its Editor-in-Chief Jon Meacham, “intellectual bankruptcy”. Newsweek’s attempt to simultaneously tear down the veracity and relevance of the holy scriptures while appealing to those same scriptures to build its case for homosexual marriage is not in and of itself a shocking act. The intellectual dishonesty of these writers and editors is clearly on display in their work and the statements they have made surrounding their work. Thus, we are neither afraid of nor troubled by their submission to the national conversation on this issue.
No – what we are troubled by is the confidence that a failing institution had in publishing such a seemingly bold statement. Newsweek’s economic struggles and loss of subscribers have been well-documented as of late; in taking this stand, Jon Meacham in particular seemed overconfident that he and his constituency are on the winning side of history. In the long view of history, the very scriptures that Newsweek magazine looked to trivialize in their article prove who is ultimately on the “winning side” of this argument. As our friend Jim Garlow has said repeatedly, the Bible ends with a wedding. The manner in which the Bible comes to a glorious conclusion demonstrates the sanctity by which our Creator holds this most sacred of unions. The Apostle Paul spoke of this institution and the manner in which a healthy, vibrant marriage between one man and one woman has continually served as a metaphor for God’s relationship with His people in Ephesians 5:25-33, a passage that Lisa Miller, the author of the Newsweek cover essay conspicuously overlooked in her research.
Some have asked why we care so much about this issue, and why we are taking such a bold stand to oppose homosexual marriage in America. It is because we hold the institution of marriage in such high regard related to its sacredness to our God; yet we also recognize that this very sacredness has left the institution of marriage open to assault from its very beginnings, going back to a garden thousands of years ago. The culmination of this assault on marriage, according to the prophetic scriptures that describe the days ahead, is to try to eliminate this institution altogether (1 Timothy 4:3). The current zeal to redefine marriage is the latest stage of this assault. The strategy of those who are looking to redefine marriage is two-fold: to first frame homosexuality as a racial issue rather than a moral issue and then to establish rights for homosexuals as the true moral issue of our day. Thus there is more than the biblical definition of marriage at stake – but the very definition of what is sin versus what is righteous before our Creator.
Therefore what is troubling is clear: not that Newsweek magazine is taking the “lead” in defining both morality and marriage in America; again, an organization struggling for its financial survival rarely has the stomach for such risks – no, it is troubling that they feel confident that the majority of America agrees with their stance and their definitions of marriage and morality. If this is true then our nation has taken a dramatic and unfortunate turn that has devastating consequences for American culture in the days to come. For if sexual orientation and desire can be classified under the framework of “race” – if we define desires in a manner beyond what our Creator intended without any scientific evidence that such proclivities are genetic – then we open up a proverbial “Pandora’s Box” for such an argument to be applied to all manner of desires under the false mask of “genetics” or the “Creator’s design”. We pray that the vast majority of Americans that have continued to hold the line on what is marriage, what is moral, and what is so clearly part of the created order and the Creator’s design will stand fast against this blatant assault on truth.
As such, we are asking all who desire to stand for truth and righteousness to say, “No!” to Newsweek magazine’s attempt to reframe and reshape scripture for their own self-seeking purposes and to immediately cancel their subscriptions. The American people have a historic opportunity to show Newsweek magazine that its arrogant overconfidence in gauging the opinions of the people is greatly misplaced.
It’s about 33-50 words too long, and a few of the phrases need too much explanation / clarification to hold up - but it gives you a better grasp of what is on our minds related to this week’s Newsweek cover essay.
What do you think?
David
Entry Filed under: current events, life at ihop-kc, signs of the times, writing
12 Comments Add your own
1. Kelly Varner | December 13th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Very very good. Glad it was addressed.
2. JC Alzamora | December 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hey David,
I think the length depends on where you wanted posted. If it’s a secular place versus a religious one may also lead you to use a different terminology only because you are assuming that general people believe they were created rather than spawned. Otherwise, it’s a great piece, you are a good writer and I pray for a massive response to this trumpet call. Love and blessings.
JC
3. Susan | December 13th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I read this as a journalist and not only a committed Christian. Both of me liked it
I am only saying this since you specifically asked:only one thing struck me. You have a lot of uses of putting quotation marks around things. Generally, in journalism, we were told to be very hesitant using quotation marks, aside from direct quotations because it almost was like apologizing for using the word in terms of its effect on readers. In the second to last par. I can see that the last two usages almost need them but I think it makes it stronger without RACE and PANDORA’S BOX being in quotation marks (and WINNING SIDE earlier). They mean what they say.
That was my 20 cents, probably unneeded, but you DID ask
Incidentally, I will never have a _Newsweek_ in my hands again after this debacle of pseudo-journalism.
4. David | December 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Susan - that’s very helpful! I’ll remember that “rule”.
JC - great points.
5. Luis | December 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Dave,
Overall good stuff making a clear point. You address the misuse of scripture in a sentence which avoids tediously defending the bible. The trajectory of the article’s argument verses the biblical trajectory of history is a good contrast to delineate. Your audience seems to be the slumbering church rather than the already convinced crowd. So there are a couple of catches for the audience you might most want to awaken with this article. Those that aren’t following the trajectory of the article’s argument because of their culturally induced stupor - my evangelical friends.
“The culmination of this assault on marriage, according to the prophetic scriptures that describe the days ahead…” is one of the phrases that require too much explanation. Perhaps better to follow a trajectory argument apart from prophetic references. We’re picking that fight in other spheres were we can explain it more thoroughly.
“…the very scriptures that Newsweek magazine looked to trivialize in their article prove who is ultimately on the “winning side” of this argument.” The culture of tolerance, while particularly insidious, still frames the slumbering churches’ perspectives. They want to stand for truth but not with dogmatic “winners” crowing over vanquished “losers.” They really have evangelical passions and this isn’t Jesus’ style of evangelism to them. Again the trajectory angle lends itself to this conclusion without being pedantic.
Lastly, the call to cancel subscriptions sounds like a tweet on a kazoo after a crescendoing drum roll. Newsweek wants there to be controversy because bad breath is better than no breath. There was a period of time were it seemed the church was being called to boycott a product a week. Somebody just stopped the boycott against McDonald’s for something and McD’s had an increase in sales during this quarter. I think you want your readers to be left thinking about the article and your response rather than the value of a call to cancel their subscription. Call them to think and pray and read the scriptures. They aren’t doing that. Since they aren’t subscribing to Newsweek anyway, they will feel like they are already doing their part.
Thanks for coalescing some of the scattered thoughts floating around.
6. Josiah Lute | December 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I “must” agree with the last paragraph of “Luis.” I think that the “trumpet sound” of your message is that the sleeping church would be Alarmed that this “popular magazine” thinks that biblical morality is not only a “lost cause”, but an ideology that is financially safe to oppose. A call to stop “buying it” is kind of like prescribing ibuprofen “for” a heart attack. Proving that it was not a financially safe stance may make us feel fuzzy, but the blood is still not flowing through our veins and ultimately the “ibuprofen” may be a waste of precious time. “I don’t know.” However, a call to “fasting and prayer” to restore the Counsel of God to “the Church,” “America” and our “appointed leadership” is “The Call.”
I think.
I like quotes.
7. Kyle Gebhart | December 13th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
i think you had a lot of fun writing that.
8. Matthew | December 13th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I would change the words “race” and “racial” to the term “civil rights.” While I certainly see all the references that are made to racial injustice when people talk about the homosexual movement, I’m pretty sure that’s to frame the issue as a civil rights issue, not a racial issue.
9. Kendall Beachey | December 13th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
i would agree with Luis on the last paragraph, i felt the whole call to cancel subscriptions sort of undercut the article as a whole. while i understand the logic and the reasoning, it seemed a rather weak last word which distracted from what seemed to be the main point of the article. I would rather see you re-write it to better serve the intended end (canceling of subscriptions) or, if that is not your intended end, leave the statement off to better serve the article as a whole, which is a clear call to have clarity and understanding about the issue, what Newsweek is attempting to do and why we must contend for righteousness concerning it.
that’s just my two-cents
10. Cate | December 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
[[You may have already submitted, but in case not, I’ll add my two cents.]] I’ll second Matthew’s comment as it’s important to get this language right. Race speaks of physical, outward characteristics like color, and homosexuality isn’t a color, it’s a sexual orientation. Yes, a lot of the debate has related back to the racial inequalities throughout history, but that doesn’t make homosexuality/gay marriage a race issue. I think “civil rights,” as Matthew suggested, is the term you are looking for.
Also, the sentence copied below is long and confusing, mostly because you start with “therefore it is clear” but don’t get to your “clear point” for another two lines (and it starts with a no); your punctuation is also a little funky. I’m sorry for not taking time to give you a suggestion for how to rework it, but I gotta get off the internet!
Therefore what is troubling is clear: not that Newsweek magazine is taking the “lead” in defining both morality and marriage in America; again, an organization struggling for its financial survival rarely has the stomach for such risks – no, it is troubling that they feel confident that the majority of America agrees with their stance and their definitions of marriage and morality.
Glad you wrote/posted this. Sweet Jesus, have mercy on our nation. Let righteousness and truth go forth.
11. Joe Feuille | December 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Now that I’ve read the article, I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t tear down every single Biblical reference, one by one.
Way to stick to the point, Slicker.
12. "Pots" | December 16th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I agree that the advocates of homosexual marriage are trying to frame the issue as a civil rights issue. On the other hand, I think it masterful that you have re-framed the debate by reference to race, rather than civil rights. In my view, most people — Christians and non — accept without criticism the “homosexual civil rights” argument advanced by proponents of homosexual marriage because (a) they want their own civil rights protected, (b) they are told repeatedly that homosexual behavior is determined by genes not by choices, (c) they don’t closely scrutinize the history and justification for civil rights protection as it pertains to race, creed, and national origin, (d) they don’t want their nice homosexual friends and relatives to go suffer mistreatment (or to go to hell), and/or (d) they don’t consider the Pandora’s box problem a serious problem (notwithstanding how Pandora felt about it). I don’t know that re-framing the issue will win the day in the secular debate, but I like it anyway.
I also think it particularly incisive and concise for you to note that, “Newsweek [is] attempt[ing] to simultaneously tear down the veracity and relevance of the holy scriptures while appealing to those same scriptures to build its case for homosexual marriage . . ..”
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed