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