How to properly interpret the word of God

[SouthwestMike]

Heh-heh.  Well, you were defending Romell's position, zealously, so I thought I'd go directly to the source.  

:)

[Pastor Weekly]

1.  Romell, is it your position that the ancient Hebrews never stoned gay people to death nor persecuted gay people in any way?  And that none of the Old Testament writers said anything bad about gay people?

No. I do, without a doubt, believe that the proscriptions against male-male sex were universally enforced, whether idolatry was involved or not. However, the text itself shows us why it was proscribed, and that reason was because of its association with the idolatrous cultures of Egypt and Canaan.

So yes, the OT writers did have something bad to say about same-sex activity, not because the activity was itself immoral (just like pigs, shellfish, rabbit, etc., which were also forbidden, are not themselves immoral), but because of its socio-religious connection with idolatrous cultures.

2.  Romell, is it your position that Apostolic / Early / original Christianity was in no way excluding of gay people?

No, that is not my position. I believe without a doubt that the intent of Romans 1 was to condemn all same-sex sexual activity. The question becomes: Why?

Now, some people believe that why is irrelevant. God knows I used to be one of them. However, I came to understand that it's very relevant, and that the Church itself considers the why on multiple occasions, when it comes to how and if they apply even new testament commands and/or proscriptions.

For example, Paul condemned men with long hair, and indicated that women should have long hair. Churches that no longer enforce that do so because of the why. Paul said that women should not so much as ask a question in corporate gatherings. Not a peep from them. Yet, churches today allow women to preach; and even the ones that don't allow it, they allow them to ask questions in Bible class, which directly contradicts NT Scripture. They allow this because of the why.

So, while I believe the condemnation of same-sex sexual activity was universal in its contemporaneous application, we must consider why the command was given in the first place. The text actually shows us that the acts were condemned in direct relation to idolatrous worship. You need not turn to the next chapter, or the previous chapter to see it. It's right there in the self-same context.

So, now that those acts are no longer associated culturally or religiously with idolatry (the stigma is obsolete), so too is the condemnation itself. Just like women praying with their head uncovered once symbolized disrespect for patriarchal authority, yet is now an obsolete symbolism, so too is the socio-religious connection between same-sex sexual activity and idolatry. The why renders the condemnation in Romans 1 obsolete in modern day.

And that whoever wrote those verses in Corinthians and Timothy (do you believe Paul wrote both letters?) really didn't mean to disparage gay people?

Yes, I believe that Paul wrote both epistles. And no, I don't believe that the verses were written in disparagement of gay people. If I preached a sermon condemning dirty old men who sexually exploit young girls, would I be disparaging heterosexuals?

After doing some significant study into the language of those passages, I am 100% certain that the actual words are incorrectly translated in many of our modern Bibles. Goodness, just take 5 translations and put them side by side. You see for yourself that these so-called scholars and linguists didn't know what the heck the words meant. However, after a substantial amount of research, I'm 100% certain that those two passages are not referring to homosexuality, but rather, to pederastic prostitution. Older men took young male prostitutes as their sexual slaves. This happened quite a bit in the Greco-Roman world. That's what Paul was condemning in BOTH passages. And in one of the passages, all three players are condemned (the young boy prostitute, the older male customer, and the slave-trader--"pimp" who profited off of the arrangement).

This is explained in detail in the book, Homosexianity. But, suffice it to say that while the acts involved same-sex sexual activity, what was being condemned was not the same-sex element. What was being condemned was the exploitative practice of pederastic prostitution.

I guess I always assumed that premodern people of faith, with no science and with no psychology, simply persecuted gay people out of ignorance, and a few stray gay-bashing verses made their way into the Bible.

Well, if you don't hold to the belief of the divine inspiration of "ALL" Scripture, according to 2Ti. 3:16, I can see such a conclusion being formed (although there really is no proof that that is the case). Because I believe that ALL Scripture has God as its ultimate originator, I cannot hold to that view, and therefore, cannot dismiss the verses that seem to "gay-bash".

3.  Romell, what is your position on how women are regarded in the Bible as a whole, and by Christ in particular?  Do you personally believe that women should be pastors?

Interesting question. If you would have asked me this a year ago, my answer would have been substantially different. However, having come through this study, and having realigned my approach to Scripture in accordance with how I believe the Scriptures themselves witness to us regarding how we are to interpret and apply it, my beliefs have changed substantially. A year ago I would have said that in Christ, there is neither male nor female; yet in this world, there are still two sexes, and there are still proper and appropriate roles for those two sexes to play. While I don't have a problem with women teaching, ministering, preaching, etc., I did have a problem with women pastoring churches, or serving as elders, or any other position with actual authority over spiritual matters, because as Paul said in 1Ti. 2:13, Adam was formed first, then Eve (and he said this in relation to women not usurping authority over men).

However, I've come to understand that the culture matters to God. It mattered when He told men not to have long hair. It mattered when He told women to keep long hair, and to pray with their head covered. It mattered when He condemned tattoos, and it mattered when He condemned same-sex sexual activity. So, I came to understand that God has always viewed male and female as equal. The Bible says that He created us BOTH in His image and after His likeness (Gen. 1:27). So then, from the divine perspective, we are equal. The question becomes: Well, where did the inequality come in at? The answer is culture. So long as the culture required the subservience of women, God went along with that, because ultimately, this was not to become a stumbling block that prevented people within that culture from hearing and receiving the gospel. That's why He told them to be silent in the churches, even though privately they prophesied, taught, etc. There are examples of all of these occurrences in NT Scripture.

So then, culture matters. Within 2009 America, PRAISE GOD, women are no longer culturally considered inferior to men. So, they can finally enjoy the equality that God created them for, and has always intended for them!

So no, I haven't the slightest problem with women pastoring churches or serving in any capacity whatsoever in the body of Christ.

I do want to underscore that although I do use the term "personally" from time to time, these are not just personal opinions. They are derived from the contemplative study of Scripture. Indeed, my own views have changed because of what the Scriptures reveal in this regard. So, I don't want to express them as though they're my personal opinion. They are, but only because it's what God's holy word espouses.

God bless.

[SouthwestMike]

Intelligent, even brilliant, answers.  I find your answers extremely compelling -- and quite convincing.  And I do think you have some original insight as well, based on your reading of the scripture.  Thank you very much, Romell, for taking time to answer in such detail and depth.

[Marcion]

This discussion really makes me sigh - even more so because of the hostility I saw in between. There's no way I'm going to go through everything everyone has stated so far! Why GLBT-Christians - who are too often hit with the Bible - should argue this even among ourselves, I don't get it! There is no one proper way to interpret the Bible (I don't use "the word of God" in this context, and that's obviously a statement already), literal reading is interpretation too. For me it is not a problem; I have studied historical-critical interpretation and find it useful especially as to the Old Testament. It represents the old covenant to me, and has mostly historical and mythical value. Historical-critical method has in fact made me appreciate the Old Testament and Judaism in the first place!
Only the four gospels represent truly divinely inspired books to me (and so does the Book of Revelation, but it becomes a problem when interpreted literally). Paul was just a man. His Christological ideas are timeless, but his other opinions are just that of a man of his time and culture. In many ways Paul opposed to the radical example and teachings of Jesus.
And that "word of God" thing? Well, it is Jesus Christ! The Bible is only a witness to Him and it must be read in the light of Christ - Love - and hence judged and corrected if necessary. Any book becomes just another idol if it is worshiped: Quran is like that, not the Bible!
I read Bible metaphorically - what it says to me right now, and through identification with the characters. For example, I often feel like Paul in my relations with other people, but in my relationship with God I feel like a beloved disciple leaning on Master's chest...  

[Pastor Weekly]

This discussion really makes me sigh - even more so because of the hostility I saw in between. There's no way I'm going to go through everything everyone has stated so far!

While there were certainly elements of this thread/discussion that seemed rather antagonistic, I don't think we're really arguing. It's very easy for it to seem that way because we have written words going back and forth, words that can't adequately convey our disposition at the time of writing. For my part, I'm just engaging in discussion/dialog; and I think/hope most of us are doing that. To me, it's a fascinating topic to discuss, and I think we can convey our thoughts clearly, and even rebut thoughts that we don't necessarily agree with, all the while still being respectful of the other people engaged in the discussion. Sometimes, the human condition gets in the way, and we get upset or offended; but I think overall, it's a discussion worth having, and that most people can handle having it, even when it's back and forth while we discuss/debate the finer points.

You'll find through the site that things are discussed and debated. While some sites may not allow that, I think it's a good thing, because it allows us to reason together... to bounce ideas off of one another, and to get other perspectives that we might have otherwise not known about.

So, I hope the discussion/debate going on doesn't frustrate you or turn you off. Personally, I find it stimulating.

Why GLBT-Christians - who are too often hit with the Bible - should argue this even among ourselves, I don't get it!

I look at it like this... Even though Scripture has been abused and misused by people attempting to condemn homosexuals, it doesn't subtract from the fact as I accept it--that Scripture is still God's holy revelation to mankind, an expression of His heart and will toward us. So, just because I've been badgered by people who supposedly believe Scripture to be of divine origin doesn't give me just cause to reject such a contention. Just because Hitler may have believed something that I believe doesn't mean that I'm going to reject what I hold to be true just because an evil man once believed the same thing about that particular subject.

So yes, cruel Christians have misused the Bible against GLBT Christians. That's very true. But, I still believe that the Bible itself, in its intended expression of truth, is of divine origin.

[SouthwestMike]

I agree with Romell again.  He and I don't agree on everything, by any means, but I like his inspired and intelligent approach to scripture very much.  I think that Jehovah revealed a great deal through the ancient Hebrews, especially to the prophets.  The ancient Hebrews were the world's least-fallen people.  Which is why Jehovah incarnated there.  Were the ancient Hebrews perfect?   No.  Did the early Christians have perfect intelligence?  No.  Was Paul a perfect theologian?  By no means.  And yet the Bible is extraordinary.  Especially the four Gospels and the words and example and glorification of Jesus Christ.  Wow.  That's the biggest event in all eternity since the beginning.  Are the four Gospels free of all error?  Probably not.  But so magnificent.  Human beings, Divinely inspired, got down the story of the Incarnation the best they could.  And it is staggering, and life-changing.  The rest of the Bible, to me, provides context for the Incarnation, but there is also deep meaning and actual genuine understanding of the Divine and human nature in nearly every book of the Bible.  So, as a whole, I find it of Divine origin and authoritative.

[Pastor Weekly]

Are the four Gospels free of all error?  Probably not.

You knew I wasn't going to let that slide by.    

But, all joking aside... Here's a question...

So, as a whole, I find it of Divine origin and authoritative.

Here's my question/concern when it comes to Christians who don't think that Scripture is completely free of error (in its original/untranslated autographs). Doesn't it get frustrating, wondering whether the specific passage you're reading is accurate or not? And even if it's not frustrating, how do you come to determine whether or not it is? What raises the red flags?

My concern would be that the rubric by which we judge Scripture is likely our own personal worldview, and that's cause for concern because we're so limited in our perspectives... Why would we want to bring the revelation of Scripture down to our level, and dismiss or not necessarily trust those things that exceed our way of looking at things?

I don't know... For me, I would find Christianity a very frustrating religion if I couldn't have confidence that the sole source of concrete revelation from God is trustworthy. Maybe I'm spoiled, but I have an all or nothing mentality. Either I can trust it, or I can't, because I can't sit around all day trying to figure out which parts are accurate and which aren't, and I'm too smart to trust myself to be able to make such determinations. Taking it all as infallible is a much easier route for me.

[SouthwestMike]

Oh, I think the Gospels are incredibly accurate.  But even in the resurrection story there are differing accounts in the four Gospels in which all the details in all four Gospels cannot be completely true.  To meld the four stories into a single story of the resurrection, one has to make a couple choices there.  

I know what you mean.  I object to the Jesus Seminar, which is sitting there deciding which words of Christ that He actually said, and they use a naturalistic view of Christ as a human being, not as a Divine Being, and I find their whole approach quite offensive.

-- July 21st, 2009, 5:18 pm --

That's regarding the Gospels.  I already stated my view up above here in this thread on how I think Scriputre should be interpreted.  Be happy to have a discussion of that, sure.

-- July 21st, 2009, 5:20 pm --

Here's what I wrote early on in this discussion . . .

I start with the words of Jesus Christ, and if some other verse contradicts it, I stick with the words of Christ.  He is the clear Divine voice there, unfiltered.

i almost always read before and after prayer time.  That helps immeasurably.  

Clearly, one then forms one's doctrines and beliefs and truth out of it and out of the larger 2,000-year Christian tradition.  And then we read the Bible through the lens of our doctrines, which I think is appropriate.  

I read it knowing that we are modern people and the people who wrote it were not.  We have science, they did not.  We have psychology, they did not.  So they had some limits, and we have access to a lot more knowledge.

There is also the huge factor that the arrival of Jesus Christ overturned so much that is in the Old Testament.  The purity regime, the hygiene regime, the animal sacrifices, and the entire book of Leviticus, for example.

Christ taught us that Jehovah is an entirely loving God.  The ancient Hebrews thought of Jehovah as angry, damning, punishing, destroying, avenging, murdering, and even tempting.  I think Christ swept that away.  So all the previous verses that see the Divine Being as less than what Christ taught have to be put in their pre-Christian context.  

There is the complex question of comparing Paul of Tarsus to all the Christian theologians since his time.  And whether to favor Paul over the others because his writing made it into the New Testament.  

But there are a whole lot of things in the Bible that are literally true.

I have the highest proposed Christology offered in the history of Christianity.  Almost all Christians believe in the Divinity of Christ.  So I certainly think we should all reject most of the work of the Jesus Seminar and other theologically liberal approaches that reduce Christ to a wise teacher and healer, one among many.  

There are several other factors to consider too, such as the original meaning of the words in their original language, and all that scholarly work.  The cultural context of the Mediterranean.  The history of the Jews.  Who wrote each text, when, where, and why.  Prophecy -- is it about events on Earth, in Christ's Church, in the afterlife, some combination of the three?  And on and on it goes.

Inspired and authoritative, yes, especially the New Testament and most especially the Gospels, but prayer and truth and Christ's Spirit and analysis all add something to our Christian wisdom as we work from the Bible and the best Christian theology and spiritual thinking we can find.

[New_Morning]

I just want to say...This is one of my favorite threads and I think everyone should take the time to read it all the way through.

[Sozo]

I just want to say...This is one of my favorite threads and I think everyone should take the time to read it all the way through.

awe! It is a good thread though, I agree. Knowledge is power.