Homosexual "Christianity?"

Whilst reading this article, I was intrigued by some of the statements of Ms. Chenoweth and decided to do some research into the justification of homosexuality as not being sinful. Ms. Chenoweth said:

"I read my Bible and I pray and all of that--I really do." "But at the same time I don't think being gay is a sin..."

To the above...covenant  of works, anyone? I thought you read your Bible...

And "...he [Jesus] wouldn't be going  around [today] saying "You're going to hell," "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong." "I think he'd be accepting and loving."

These comments prompted the aforementioned research and revealed a strikingly twisted world of homosexual "Christians" and others who attempt to conform the words of sacred Scripture to their own theology. A particularly clarifying look into this type of heresy (that's right, I'm calling it what it is; false teaching is heresy) can be found here. For the sake of brevity, instead of addressing each text individually I'm would like to make a few points.

1. The Bible is not subject to your interpretation. For more on correct interpretation see this post.
2. If only one Scripture verse, in context, forbids or demands anything it is binding upon the Christian conscience. For, "all Scripture is God-breathed (or breathed out by God, Gr. θεόπνευστος)..."
3. An understanding of sin is imperative in understanding the true, Biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regardless of philosophizing, reinterpretation, redefinition, or deconstruction, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin and is the result of the sinful and idolatrous nature of mankind in a post-Genesis 3 world (Romans 1:18ff). It is important to stop here and make something clear: Hatred in any form is clearly anathema to the Biblical teaching of love. There are those in the Church who have failed in this regard and do fail every day (mainly because we are all of us sinners), but loving someone does not mean that the Church or any of its members may endorse, condone, or tolerate sin. To wit, love is not letting a person fall head long off of a cliff when you have the means of calling out to them to stop them (i.e. the gospel). Ad nauseam, letting someone remain in open, unrepentant sin is not loving; it is at best complacency and at worst hatred.

In closing, I return to Ms. Chenoweth's comments, and as I have already addressed sufficiently the issue of homosexuality and the teachings of Scripture, I would like to address her Christology briefly; if Jesus taught about hell one time, it is enough to bind the Christian conscience (see point 2 above). Therefore I will cite one of many texts that clearly relate Jesus' teachings on hell:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:22, ESV, emphasis added)"

On Interpretation

     The word interpretation derives from the Latin root interpretari (naturally), meaning to decide, translate, regard, or construe. The second definition “to translate,” implies an objective meaning to the word. For instance, the translation that was just used with respect to the Latin interpretari is by no means subjective. That is, the meaning of the word is not subject to ones feelings or personal biases on the matter. There is, however, a sense in which this word can certainly convey subjectivity (e.g. decide and construe; see above), but even in the meaning of the word there is something that is overlooked.

Context is something given very little thought in modernity. That is, even the word interpretation itself must be used in context with respect to its subject. One cannot simply take the meaning of a word (or any word for that matter) and apply one meaning to all contexts. For example, when the word interpretation is used with respect to, say, the interpretation of a musical piece there is certainly subjective meaning. One artist may hear a piece in his mind much differently than another, or he may experience a certain feeling in the piece that others do not. Nevertheless, there is still a context, even for something as subjective as music. The author of that piece of music had an intent in writing the piece whether it was something as noble as love or as conceited as merely to show his musical prowess, there was a context in which the piece was written and a meaning to be conveyed. Therefore, if the musician interpreting the piece misses the context in which the composer wrote it, the musician has wandered off on a merry adventure in missing the point.

Here then is crux of the matter: hermeneutics. This word is one that is prevalent in some theological circles but is virtually unknown to most. This word derives from the Greek hermeneutikos meaning to make clear. The English word hermeneutics is defined as a principle or method of interpretation. Contextually this word is used in theology with regards to the interpretation of the Bible, but this word, and principle for that matter, can be applied to many things. For instance, if one were in a mathematics class and said to the professor “rules for these sums are all very well, but I feel differently, and therefore I will do these problems how I think they should be done,” that person would fail without question. Indeed, in something such as mathematics, there is objective interpretation that is required of the student; otherwise the student has no understanding of the subject. Furthermore, the same truth applies to academics such as philosophy or history. One cannot read an historical narrative and inject there own meaning into it, attempting to make it relevant to themselves. No, whether or not anyone cares to admit it, interpretation is objective and is not subject to personal relevance.

The text of sacred Scripture (i.e. the Bible) is in no way different. Yet, it has become the practice of many in evangelical American churches to ask “what does this text mean to you,” or “how do you feel about this passage?” The simple truth is this: the Bible isn't about any one person and however one may feel about a text or interpret it outside of its historical-grammatical context does not change its objective truths one wit. Therefore, the only way a person can truly interpret the text of the Bible is by using the historical-grammatical method and allowing the text and its author to speak in its historical context. One's feelings or subjective interpretation don't enter into it and do not change the objective purpose of the Scriptures. Questions when reading a text (any text) must be asked such as:

Who is the author?

Who is the author writing to or for?

What was the original intent of the author?

What is the author trying to say?

As can be seen there is no room here for one's interpretation, and these aforementioned are not all the criteria for properly viewing any text (the Bible first and foremost). The author must be allowed to speak and the text must be taken “at its word,” so to speak. To wit, one's theology or philosophy does not dictate Scripture, Scripture dictates one's philosophy and theology.