Billy Graham’s daughter Anne Graham Lotz released this YouTube video explaining her rationale for supporting Amendment One in North Carolina.
Unlike her father, she cites a biblical reference (Matthew 19) for why she believes the bible defines marriage as between a man and woman.
I’ve been accused of taking the bible out of contest a thousand times, and I’ll take it out of contest a thousand more. But Anne Lotz appears to run for a touchdown with this biblical reference, but she’s running for the other team’s end zone.
Here’s the text (link to whole):
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them(C) there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Seriously, Anne, how does using Matthew 19 define marriage without any other possibility? He created two people who become one flesh, but he never EVER lays it down as the “definition of marriage.” He says this is the rationale for why divorce should be avoided.
The question asked and the answer given has NOTHING to do with the definition of marriage.
Jesus, in all his glorious knowledge, had a great opportunity to lay it down. Make it clear.
And yet, he doesn’t. Just like he failed at so many other ways he could make his message clear.
Clarity was never Jesus’ forte, and he admitted it outright (Matthew 13: 10-13:
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven(H) has been given to you,(I) but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.(J)13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
Jesus purposefully gave out muddied information. He was being clever. And cleverness makes his followers look like a bunch of idiots. I think he liked it that way.
The question in Matthew 19 was about divorce and specifically about hetero divorce. For all intents and purposes, gay divorce — nor marriage — was brought up. For all we know, that conversation happened when the literate guy who remembered these stories was taking a crap.
For all we know, Jesus sat around praising gay love and marriage. It just didn’t make the biblical cut.
Or Jesus was using hetero divorce as a euphemism for something completely different. We don’t know, because it could have been a parable that we think wasn’t one. When are Jesus Followers going to figure this out?
Gosh, wouldn’t it be neat-oh-bomb-bleat-oh if Jesus had the foresight, the vision, the knowhow to (1) address this controversy directly and (2) write it down himself?
Maybe he could have invented a video recorder early, got himself on tape making it clear (rather than confusing) and settle this issue once and for all.
Anne Graham, Billy Graham, and all supporters of this amendment are resting their laurels on a pathetic excuse for Yeshua’s constant inferiorities.
Hey Anne, the secrets weren’t given to you. When are you going to admit that?