The question is: how do we understand what the Bible says? The obvious answer is: we read it. We read the Bible, and by reading it we learn about the Lord; we learn who God is and what He’s about in relation to us—those who’ve been created by Him. It’s like reading the newspaper—how’s that for an outdated reference? We want to know about God so we read about Him in the scriptures. The problem is that the Bible was written a long time ago. More precisely it’s a collection of documents that were written over a period of time beginning around 1400 BC and concluding with the apostle John’s Revelation written in the late first century AD. And the documents were originally written in languages that the average American doesn’t use. It’s also the case that the biblical writings were written in a context that is not familiar to us. It was a long time ago, in another place, in another language. Therefore simply reading it won’t necessarily provide the full impact of its meaning. In order to gain a fuller understanding of the Bible we need to become more aware of the context in which it was written and consider the intentions of the author—meaning the person the Lord inspired to write the document. This consideration is referred to as “hermeneutics.” Along with this, we need to consider what the Bible has to tell us regarding a particular subject by looking at various passages that speak to that subject, rather than simply focusing on biblical expressions in isolation. A segment of the book: “The Gospel of the Kingdom in 21^st Century America” that accompanies this website, reflects upon some of the features of biblical interpretation and is provided here.

…The Bible isn’t just a sourcebook of dos and don’ts; it’s a revelation regarding the nature of human existence at its most fundamental level. And that aspect should inform how we engage in public debate.

            When discussing issues such as homosexuality or transgender accommodations, we must do more than just promote a biblical view of sin.  We need to promote a biblical view of reality that is the basis for our positions. That means we need to understand the foundations of our views and the implications of those foundations. In the case of homosexuality, as an example, it would be helpful to understand and point out the underlying basis for the biblical mandates. Now that may sound abstract, but it’s actually quite relevant for any effort to argue for the faith. The reason we resist efforts to support homosexuality, or any other sinful behavior, is because of our understanding of the basic features of human life; or at least that should be the case.

            This was made evident to me not too long ago when I found myself looking at a website dedicated to an “evangelical” affirmation of homosexuality based on an analysis of the biblical expressions on this issue. I was surprised by this posture; I had never witnessed an effort to affirm a biblically based, evangelical view of Christianity while advocating for a homosexual “lifestyle.” I don’t surf the internet very much without intent, and when I go into unfamiliar territory, it’s usually to find something in particular; I don’t look around just to see what’s out there. In this instance, I googled the biblical term “male cult prostitute” which was used in the Old Testament passage that I had been reading at the time. I didn’t understand what this meant and my commentary material didn’t treat the subject adequately. Once I was on this website it became obvious why the search engine had made the connection that it did. Then as I investigated the material presented, I found a discussion of biblical texts in which God’s view of homosexuality was addressed.

            I found this refreshing in that too often when I’ve listened to discussions concerning homosexuality and the church, the biblical norms were completely ignored. The side that affirmed homosexuality cited scientific evidence and the changing cultural context, suggesting that the church needed to be more current in its positions on sexuality. Christian opponents suggested that the science was faulty and that a traditional position on this issue shouldn’t be swayed by a changing culture. In the course of these debates the issue of biblical authority was never addressed, and what I kept thinking was that until there was agreement on that fundamental issue, discussions such as this were really pointless. It goes back to the analogy that I suggested concerning the contest between evolutionism and creationism; because each side has a different starting point they end up in the position of two people facing each other, looking over each other’s respective shoulders at the horizon in the distance and arguing about what is out there. They both need to be facing in the same direction before they can discuss what they perceive to be true.

            In the case of this website, the pertinent biblical texts were given due consideration. (See gaychurch.org and E.T. Sundby’s Calling the Rainbow Nation Home, iUniverse Inc., 2005) However the handling of the significant passages, including the expressions of Old Testament law and the apostle Paul’s specific references to homosexuality, were rendered to be either obsolete or purposely ambiguous because of the wording in the original language. Without going into detail here, the approach to biblical interpretation in this effort was suspect and lacked adequate substance. However, what was most interesting to me at the time was what was not included in this analysis. As I pondered the attempt to redefine the meaning and application of the biblical expressions concerning homosexuality, I realized that there was one important reference that was not considered. It’s a passage that doesn’t address homosexuality at all, but its bearing on the issue became evident the more I thought about it.

            I’m referring to Ephesians 5 in which Paul makes a direct connection between the marriage of a man and a woman, and God’s relationship with His church. The husband is presented as the “head of the wife” just as Christ is the “head of the church,” and wives are prompted to be “subject” to their husbands just as the Church is subject to Christ. The apostle goes on to reference the passage in Genesis 2 in which the union of flesh between a man and a woman is described, viewing it as a reflection of the “great mystery” in which Christ is united with the church.

            To my mind this gets right to the heart of why homosexuality or any other deviant sexual behavior is wrong. Rather than viewing sexual relations as merely an expression of love between two people and a means of procreation, the Bible regards it as an emblem of something far more profound. God has made us male and female for a reason, and he rendered the specific nature of men and women, with our various features of physique and soul, for a reason as well. Think about it; He could have made us any way He wished. He could have made us without sexual distinctions, capable of reproducing in isolation. Or He could have made us the same in every respect except for our sexual organs. Instead, He chose to make the woman physically weaker than the man, with physical characteristics that prompted attraction. He chose to make the emotional makeup of men and women different with different sensibilities and concerns. In the process, He created this wonderful emblem of the nature of human existence. We’re created, that is we humans collectively are created to have fellowship with God. And that capacity for fellowship with God is exhibited in the marriage between a man and a woman. That’s why homosexuality, or any other prohibited sexual behavior is so wrong; it obscures and violates this fundamental aspect of human existence. God and created humanity are not equal; God is a loving sovereign who seeks fellowship with people who are created to be in loving fellowship with Him. And the relations between a husband and wife, including their sexual relations, are emblematic of that truth. Any deviation from that norm subverts that reality.

            From this vantage point it becomes apparent that when we resist support for homosexuality and affirm a traditional understanding of sexual relations, we’re arguing for a particular understanding of human life. What are human beings? What is the human condition? Why are we the way we are? Our answer to these questions informs our take on specific issues. Sexual conduct isn’t simply a matter of preference, or disposition; at some level it’s a reflection of the truth concerning the nature of human life, an expression of who and what we are as created beings in a created universe.

            Having said this, the question remains as to how we should approach expressing our views within the public discussion on policy issues. As I pointed out previously the days of criminalizing private behavior in our republican democracy has passed. Longing for the days when rule of law enforced biblical norms simply because they were in the Bible is not realistic. And if you look at the history of such efforts, they were not effective and were often abusive. Part of the reason for this, as I’ve said, is that such efforts don’t change the human condition; people still have a bent toward sin. And this continuing tendency to sin encroaches on the souls of everyone, including those who administer the laws. Think about how often those who advocated legal restrictions on private sexual behavior or, at least ostracized such activity, ended up falling victim to temptation and later being exposed as perpetrators of the very things they were condemning. Lacking the power to effectively deal with sin in their own lives, they, nevertheless, sought to impose what they knew to be the biblical norms through the imposition of law; but they were unable to adhere to the standard themselves, bringing the Gospel into disrepute in the process. What a terrible state of affairs! (“The Gospel of the Kingdom in 21st Century America,” pp 93-96)