The Christian Counter Project Answers Allegations
That The Bible Is "Anti-Family"
Counter Measures Series Number One
Recently, in a text file prepared for computer
transmission, allegations were made that the Bible is anti-
family. The Christian Counter Project has chosen to respond
to the author, E. Pearlstein, and his/her allegations.
Unfortunately, E. Pearlstein has neglected to include an
address that would serve as a communication point. However,
E. Pearlstein is invited to respond to the address at the end
of the article.
The entire text of E. Pearlstein's file is presented
here, with appropriate responses following the respective
text. Nothing has been added or deleted from the original,
and no textual alterations have been made. The text was
reformatted to fit into a forty column format, in order to
clearly delineate the text from the response.
* * * * * *
FAMILY.TXT
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY SAY ABOUT
FAMILY VALUES?
E. Pearlstein. Lincoln, NE
July, 1989
"Family values" is a catch phrase often
used by some religious groups, usually in
a political setting. They imply that the
Bible advocates strength-of-family.
Apparently they don't actually read the
book, as it would be more accurate to say
that, on balance, the Bible is ANTI-
family.
The two statements often quoted as pro-
family: "Honor thy father and thy mother"
(Exodus 20:12), and "What God has joined
together, let no man put asunder" (Matt.
19:6, Mark 10:9) become just empty
slogans when considered alongside the
many specific anti-family statements and
actions countenanced in the Bible:
* Right from the beginning, the bearing
of children is made a punishment. "In
sorrow shalt thou bring forth children"
(Genesis 3:16); and later, "Woe unto them
that are with child and to them that give
suck in those days". (Matt. 24:19, Mark
13:17, Luke 21:23. See also Luke 23:29.)
Not encouraging words for a young
religious couple about to start a family!
I thought that "family values" meant for
children to be a blessing, rather than a
curse.
Genesis 3:16 reads: "I will greatly increase your pains in
childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."
(NIV)
E. Pearlstein has misunderstood this passage to mean that a
deliberate "punishment" was given for bearing children.
However, God spoke to Eve and the punishment was not for
bearing children, but for her sin of eating of the Tree of
Life, in disobedience to God. The simple truth presented
here is backed up by evidence. The pain of childbirth, and
the experience of labor, are indeed painful. Modern science
has not yet devised a consistent method by which that pain
can be alleviated. This has not deterred women from
childbirth.
Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, and Luke 21:23 read: "How
dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and
nursing mothers!" (NIV)
Clearly, E. Pearlstein has fallen into the trap of
contextually misrepresenting the passage. The preceding text
refers to the end times, a time of strife and turmoil. It
has not applied to those who have been mothers in generations
past; only to those who will be nursing mothers or pregnant
during the times of the last days. Luke 23:29 is also in a
similar context.
*Abraham actually started to kill his
young son, because the god told him to,
and that's presented as a virtue (Genesis
22:1-12, James 2:21). Hardly a good
example of parental devotion and
protectiveness! Even today we sometimes
have people told by the god to kill their
children, and they do it; it happened
here in Lincoln a decade or so ago. And
it's not at all uncommon to read of
parents refusing medical care for their
deathly-ill child because of some
biblical passage.
Again, it appears that E. Pearlstein has malicious
intentions. The intent to kill his son is not what is
heralded as a virtue. In fact, the Father God never intended
such to occur. What is praised, in this instance, is
Abraham's obedience to God. The Bible has never advocated
the killing of children. In fact, Christ expressly voiced
a special concern for children. (Matthew 19:13-14, Mark 9:37)
Unfortunately, it is true that some who express a belief
in the Bible misconstrue and twist the meanings of what is
said. However, this is NOT a reflection on the integrity of
the Bible. Rather, it is a reflection upon the evil in men's
own hearts! (Romans 1:24)
* Abraham's wife Hagar and their child
Ishmael got booted out into the
wilderness, for no reason except that his
other wife, Sarah, was jealous (Genesis
21:14). The Bible shows no criticism,
and Abraham and Sarah continued to
prosper.
Again, E. Pearlstein misleads. Hagar and her child,
Ishmael, are not sent out into the wilderness for no reason.
Instead, God had already made guarantee of the safety of
both mother and child. "I will make the son of the
maidservant into a nation also, because he is your
offspring." (Genesis 21:13, NIV) Although the Bible shows no
criticism of the action of Sarah, no condonement of her
attitude and subsequent actions is given. Certainly, we
cannot default to the anti-position! God's faithfulness is
in evidence, for the descendents of Ishmael did indeed become
a nation!
* Most of us would say that incest is
against the interests of the family. Yet
Lot, whom the Bible considers to be a
very good man, had sex with his two
daughters (Genesis 19:33-36); and there
was no punishment for either Lot or the
daughters. Indeed, it might well be
argued that Lot must have had divine help
in this, since he was able to perform
sexually despite being both old and very
drunk! Of course, the poor girls had no
mother to guide them, because some time
earlier the god got peeved and killed her
(Genesis 19:26), along with the two men
who were engaged to marry the daughters
(Genesis 19:14).
It is apparent that E. Pearlstein has no flattering
intent toward the Person of God. Lot's sons-in-law to be
were destroyed because they refused to acknowledge the
warning to leave the city, which was clearly given. (Genesis
19:14) Lot's wife was destroyed for disobeying God, and
intentionally disobeying God's warning not to look back.
Note also that E. Pearlstein's assessment, that the
Bible considers Lot "to be a very good man," is certainly
unqualified and unsubstantiated. One could venture to say
that Lot's status as a "very good man" is E. Pearlstein's own
personal assessment of the situation. Note that Lot was
never aware that his daughters had lain with him. "Again he
was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up."
(Genesis 19:35b, NIV)
* In order to gain favor with a king,
Abraham said that his wife was his
sister, and offered her to the king for
sex. This happened twice (Genesis 12:11
and Genesis 20:2). Isaac did a similar
thing (Genesis 26:6). And Lot (Genesis
19:8) once offered his virgin daughters
to be used by a mob at Sodom. (St. Peter
called Lot a "righteous man", 2 Peter
2:8)
Note that God did not agree to Abraham's deception to
the Pharaoh. "But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on
Pharaoh and his household because of Abraham's wife Sarai."
(Genesis 12:17, NIV)
Again, God did not agree to Lot's decision to offer his
daughters to the mob in Sodom. Instead. the angels struck
the mob with blindness. (Genesis 19:11, NIV)
And why did Peter call Lot a righteous man? It was not
because he offered his daughters to the mob, but because he
was "tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he
saw and heard." (2 Peter 2:8, NIV)
* Jacob tricked his own brother Esau of
his inheritance (Genesis 25:31-33). Then
he lied to his dying father about it
(Genesis 27:19). And the god loved Jacob
and hated Esau, the victim (Malachi 1:3,
Romans 9:13).
In Genesis 25, Esau trades his birthright away to Jacob,
willingly and of his own accord. He said to Jacob, "What
good is the birthright to me?" (Genesis 25:32b, NIV)
Another little parcel of text ignored, or perhaps
deliberately concealed by E. Pearlstein.
As for the passages in Malachi and Romans, God is not
speaking specifically of the person of Esau. Rather, he was
speaking of the nation which was descended from Esau. And
why did God hate that nation? The wickedness and
disobedience of the people!
* The last of the plagues brought upon
the Egyptians was the death of all their
first-born children, because "The Lord
hardened the heart of Pharoah" (Exodus
9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10).
Couldn't he have SOFTENED Pharoah's heart
and spared all those innocent children?
Maybe Egyptian families don't matter.
It is purely the supposition of E. Pearlstein that those
children were "innocent." The Bible clearly points out that
there is not one righteous enough to be truly innocent. "For
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans
3:23, NIV) Also note that Egyptian families DID matter to
God. In Genesis 37-48, God makes Egypt the seat of power,
and the most abundantly able to survive the drought and
famine which came about.
* Jesus ridiculed his own mother in
public: "Woman, what have I to do with
thee?" (John 2:4) This, of course, was a
direct violation of the commandment about
honoring one's parents, which Jesus said
he agreed with (Matt. 15:4 and several
other places). On another occasion he
refused to see his mother and brothers,
answering their request with a wisecrack
(Matt. 12:46-50). And when someone
praised Mary, Jesus disagreed (Luke
11:27-8).
John 2:4 reads: "'Dear woman, why do you involve me?'
Jesus replied. 'My time has not yet come.'" (NIV) Jesus did
indeed agree with the commandment to honor one's parents.
And John 2:4 makes no indication of disrespect towards his
mother. Rather, it hints at the true purpose of Christ's
life on earth.
E. Pearlstein's comment on Matthew 12 reflects a great
amount of cynicism. Christ's illustration of relationships
was a teaching to those who were with him at the time.
Notice that the emphasis is aimed at the one who "does the
will of my Faher in heaven." (Matthew 12:50, NIV)
In Luke 11:27-28, Jesus did not disagree. Rather, He
illustrated why Mary was blessed. Not because she gave birth
to him, but because she heard the word of God and obeyed it.
(Luke 11:28, NIV) "He replied, 'Blessed rather are they who
hear the word of God and obey it.'" Certainly, Jesus was not
saying that Mary was not blessed! He only disagreed with the
reason WHY she was blessed.
* Although half of a family consists of
women, the Old and New Testaments have
enough approved-of degradation of women
to make a book on that subject. (Woe to
the Women - The Bible Tells Me So, by
Annie Laurie Gaylor, 1981)
The real question might be: Why does Ms. Gaylor feel
that the Bible approves of the degradation of women? Of
course, if bringing up a family and having children is
degrading, then realize that the Bible does indeed condone
having a family and children! And in no case are women to be
treated as second-class. Although many have done so, it has
not been at the beck of the Word of God. (1 Corinthians 7:3-
4, Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:28, Ephesians 5:33, 1 Peter
3:7)
* Jesus promised his followers great
rewards if they would desert their wives
and children (Matt. 19:29). And in the
old testament too, it was good for men to
"put away their wives" (Ezra 10:19).
Jesus did NOT promise his followers great rewards for
deserting their wives and children. E. Pearlstein
maliciously has deleted the qualifier for this verse!
"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or
father or mother or children or fields FOR MY SAKE will
receive a hundred times as much and will INHERIT ETERNAL
LIFE." (Matthew 19:29, NIV, emphasis mine.) What is the
qualifier? "FOR MY SAKE" Jesus had already clearly marked out
the motive, reasons, and purpose behind this. Not everyone
who leaves their family environment will be blessed. In
fact, very few actually have the right motives.
E. Pearlstein must construe the term "put away their
wives" to mean that the Israelites killed their wives. This
is a poor misunderstanding. The Israelites gave up their
marital priviledges and sent their FOREIGN wives away. Note
that God did not ask for this. The Israelites made the
decision themselves. Remeber, the Israelites were told NOT
to take foreign wives, and by doing so, had sinned.
* Jesus says very clearly that anyone who
wants to be his disciple must hate his
father, mother, wife, children, brothers,
and sisters (Luke 14:26).
An oft misunderstood passage, I encourage E. Pearlstein
to study Greek, or barring that, to consult a commentary.
Jesus' posture very clearly shows that the comparison is
between Himself, and the "father, mother, wife, children,
brothers, and sisters" that E. Pearlstein is so avidly
concerned with.
* And then there is: "For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother, and
the daughter in law against her mother in
law. And a man's foes shall be they of
his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36).
Does it indicate a pro-family attitude of
Jesus, when such things are the reason
for his coming? Is this a sample of the
"good news" some evangelists keep
proclaiming?
Again, E. Pearlstein deceives the reader by deleting the
relevent texts. The qualifier is in verse 37: "Anyone who
love his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not
worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38, NIV)
Such things are not the reason for Jesus' coming. They are
the consequences of the sin which causes people to turn away
from Him.
* * * * * *
E. Pearlstein, and others of you who share E. Pearlstein's
view: I would urge you to consider the whole, and not the
part; to rethink the reasons why you are against the truths
presented in the Bible. I invite any of you to further
discourse, by writing to the address at the end of the
article.
Copies of E. Pearlstein's original text may be obtained by
sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to the following
address.
Presented by: The Christian Counter Project
P.O. Box 957215
Hoffman Estates, IL
60195
Copyright 1989 The Christian Counter Project
Reproduction permitted only if text is intact, not within
the body of any other text, and is not sold for gain or
profit. Copyright notice must appear on all transmissions
and copies, and must be accompanied by the wording
"Reprinted with the permission of The Christian Counter
Project."
August 1989
|
|
Disclaimer: The file contained in the
box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the
box above is NOT owned nor implied to
be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe
iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems
(BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or
from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the
Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files
were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.
However, there have been occasions when copyright protected
material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission
of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will
continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it
is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill
out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the
situation.
There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN
have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these
instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its
true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know
of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our
attention.
|
