John Elliott Lein

Writer, Artist, Designer and Theology Nerd

LBGT

On Inerrancy and Interpretation in Scripture on Sexuality

The BibleJ. Elliott LeinComment

I've been having some conversations on Facebook in which the topic of inerrancy* has come up. Some conservative Christians have expressed an opinion that you must reject the inerrancy of Scripture to be able to affirm gay Christians. Here is what I have given in reply, which I hope is helpful to others.

* Before we start, you may want to look up the definition(s) and historical background of the term inerrancy as applied to Scripture. Personally I no longer find this word useful for my study of the Bible, but it's important for many.

When we read and study the Bible, we must go beyond a simple claim of inerrancy to understand the text. I look at the layers of study like this:

1) The Original Text ("the received word/original text"): we no longer have access to this layer which is what the Chicago statement on inerrancy claims as the inerrant Scripture.

2) Transcription: the Scriptures were then passed down through the generations by scribes. Some say that at least certain of the texts were likely exchanged orally for a long time before being written down at all.

3) Canonization: Somewhere during the periods of passing down the texts through transcription, religious communities decided which texts qualify as Scripture. The Hebrew Bible (Ta-na-kh) went through 3 rounds over the centuries, in descending levels of sacredness (the Law "Ta-", the Prophets "-na-", and the Writings "-kh"). It's possible that books such as Ruth, Esther, Psalms and Proverbs (some of the "Writings") weren't yet officially considered fully Scripture at the time of Christ, though they were highly valued writings. The Christian Bible was formally agreed on a few centuries after Christ (though debate continued still for centuries), and then re-formed by first Martin Luther (who wanted to get rid of James and Revelation and moved the deuterocanonical books to a separate section) and the Scottish Bible Society in the 1800s (removing those inter-testamental period books for most Protestants for publishing cost reasons).

4) Manuscripts: the most original writings we have, which we base our modern Bibles on, are collections of ancient manuscripts from various sites and periods of time. These show a variety of variations from the transcription process, from minor word changes to missing sections like the ending of Mark's Gospel and John's story of the woman caught in adultery. The inerrantist view in the past has often dismissed these claims, I believe, while the infallible view says God has guided the process to ensure we have the truth. I don't think any of these variations diminish the Scriptures, myself. (Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel Wallace writes that he counts around 400,000 variations in manuscripts, and that there are more variations amongst the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Most are minor and easily understood though).

Now we move beyond the original words of the text itself:

5) Translation: every translation is an interpretive act, especially when moving from a millennia-old "dead" language of 6,000 words with no vowels or punctuation (Hebrew) to a modern language of 1.2 million words (English). Even the Bibles in use by the early church were translations, from Jesus's Targum (Aramaic) to Paul's Septuagint (Koine Greek).

6) Interpretation: Once a text is translated there is an additional layer of interpretation as we try to figure out what the text is intending to say for us today. For both layers of interpretation, we must account for the ancient contexts that the Bible was originally spoken into, and then the modern context that it is being received into. Scientific discoveries also inform this layer, as we see clearly in the geocentrism vs heliocentrism debate of the 1500's (both Luther and Calvin saw heliocentricism as a direct threat to the authority of Scripture).

7) Application: It is only after all these steps are taken (by ourselves directly, or through the acceptance of our community's work) that we take the final step of direct application in our society or individual lives.

So when it comes to discussions of Bible teachings like on human sexuality we have a lot of layers to consider.

Inerrancy or infallibility only cover the first four steps. Those conservative Christians who have not read the affirming scholarship are often unaware that none of these layers are critiqued in many affirming interpretations of Scripture. Inerrancy is fully compatible with much of what is called "revisionist" scholarship.

Briefly, here is what we argue (no evidence, just the premises):

1. Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is a clear mis-application (#7), since the story has nothing to do with condemning sexuality (violence and inhospitality to the stranger, not caring for the poor in Ezekiel 16:48-50, etc).

2. Leviticus 18 is a mis-interpretation (#6) and mis-application (#7), since it's likely specific to sexual pagan worship practices. "Abomination" does not designate all lasting prohibitions anyway, in its 118 uses throughout the Bible.

3. Leviticus 20 is also a mis-interpretation (#6) and mis-application (#7). The command to execute all those condemned is a tip-off that we're most likely talking about sacred cult prostitutes involved in idol worship practices. Also, do we really want to stone all gay people to death?

4. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is a mis-translation (#5) as well, since no one knows exactly what Paul's word invention arsenokoites means. A good case can be made for it to be describing men who purchase services of male prostitutes.

5. 1 Corinthians 6:9 is another mis-translation (#5) of both arsenokoites and malakos which mistakenly assumes that ancient pederasty or male prostitution can be equated with modern same-sex relationships.

6. Romans 1 mis-interprets (#6) Paul's rhetorical speech as if it's his own argument, and mis-applies (#7) it as a prohibition all gay people rather than against those (as he explicitly describes) who start by worshiping physical idols, then abandon themselves to lusts which are too great to be satisfied by heterosexual relations, and end by becoming people who are "full of all wickedness" (this description does not depict the gay Christians I know).

7. Using Jesus's explicit and clear condemnation of divorce (which actually appears in 3 distinctly different versions in the gospels and yet one more in Paul's writings) to be authoritative over same-sex marriage is a mis-application (#7).

Therefore, the affirming argument cannot be dismissed simply by claiming inerrancy is on your side, since inerrancy only talks about layers 1-4 and cannot address the admittedly human layers of translation, interpretation, and application.

Photo credit Adriel Ifland, 2007

Refuting Five "Myths" Against LGBT Relationships

Inclusion, LoveJ. Elliott LeinComment

Today I saw an article titled "5 Myths People Spread About Jesus, Sex and Gay Marriage" by pastor Kenny Burchard at ChurchLeaders.com.

He specifically asked for interaction and dialogue, so I thought I'd write a response to his "myths". (One note on the word "myth"—while it's commonly used to describe "made-up false stories", I prefer to think of a myth as a story that teaches a truth deeper than the surface details. Minor quibble.)

I've broken out each of his five "myths" and grabbed a bit of his argument for each, though you'll need to visit the full article for all of his statements.

1. Jesus never defined marriage as one man, one woman.

When Jesus talked about married people, he spoke of “a man … [and] … his wife” inMatthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7.

Jesus went on to use the language “ … the two shall become one.”

Jesus quoted the text of Genesis 2:24 as the foundation of His teaching on marriage. This is the biblical doctrine of “origins.” Jesus even used the clause “from the beginning it was not so” when talking about divorce.

Read full argument here.

It seems to me that this argument attempts to use Jesus's teaching on one very specific issue and apply his words to a different one. In context, Jesus is directly speaking against the dissolution of marriage. He quotes Genesis to emphasize the sacred nature of the marriage bond. I would counter that, rhetorically, it is a speculative stretch to apply his words to defining the gender make-up of a marriage. He may well have applied the same verse to do so if asked, but that is not recorded in Scripture.

So my conclusion is that the conservative position on this passage is a reasonable extrapolation of a possible teaching, but it is not in fact a strict reading of the text.

2. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in His teaching on marriage, so we should not make a big deal about it either.

So the idea that because Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality somehow means that it isn’t a point of human brokenness is a fallacy.

Another key observation is that any time Jesus mentions a husband, He mentions a wife. And any time He mentions a wife, He mentions a husband. 

This should provide the eager seeker of ”what Jesus taught” valuable insight. He seemed to believe that a husband belongs with a wife, and a wife belongs with a husband. A husband is a “he”—and a wife is a “she.”

Read full argument here.

True, it is a logical fallacy to make the lack of a statement into a positive argument in favor of acceptance of LGBT people in the church. Of course, I would want to point out that this same pushback could be made on your previous point.

As you say, just because Jesus only encountered and was familiar with traditional marriage in his Jewish cultural context does not have anything to say pro OR con about gay marriage.

However, the fact is that people of his time would have been very aware of Greek and Roman homosexual relationships. They would have been aware of the teachings in the schools that were established in Israel, and would have seen the common relationships between philosophy mentors and Roman legionaries with their male servants (possibly, though speculatively, behind the Roman centurion's relationship with his servant in Luke 7—the man Jesus called out as having more faith than all of Israel). The argument that this didn't seem to concern Jesus at all seems to have some weight against the current conservative insistance that homosexuality is a particularly bad sin (shown in the fervency of activity around this issue, even if claimed its a sin like any other).

3. Jesus's, and Paul's, attitude toward marriage

According to Paul’s teaching, marriage for Jesus (and even himself) would have been a distraction because …

… a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife. —I Cor. 7:33

It is true that during His human, earthy ministry, Jesus did not get married. But interestingly, there is New Testament imagery of Jesus being a “bridegroom” (male person in a marriage relationship) who is preparing to come for His bride (female person in a marriage relationship).

Read full argument here.

This argument is far more complex, and I don't have time to do it justice here. However, it seems difficult to use the teachings of Jesus and Paul to affirm the centrality of the nuclear family and exaltation of one-man/one-woman marriage today.

For example, nowhere in Scripture is there a prohibition against polygamy. Both Jesus and Paul allow the assumption to continue that this is a healthy form of marriage. Only in one verse much later on in the epistles is there a recommendation that the overseers of pastors ("bishops") have only one wife.

For most of Paul's writings, he "allows" marriage if you have to have it, but would really prefer the followers of Christ to remain unmarried. Jesus also does not appear to value marriage as an ambition for his followers, even though he does confront the cultural assumption that the man is in control of the relationship and supports the rights of the woman by speaking against no-fault divorce on the man's part.

As for the image of Jesus as bridegroom, that's an interesting analogy to use in support of traditional marriage. After all, the imagery seems to transcend our notions of gender, and affirm that both men and woman are united to Jesus in this "marriage", the same Son of God who is revealed as a male on earth.

In Galatians Paul insists that in Christ there is "no longer male or female". Our cultural divisions are no longer valid in the kingdom of God. His teaching in Ephesians does not focus on the differences between genders, but in fact on the need for equal treatment and that self-giving love is the true picture of Christ's love. There is no contextual indication that this depiction of love is only valid based on gender, simply because the example comes from the common form of marriage Paul would have been familiar with.

4. Jesus reached out to and accepted people into His circle who did not fit the “traditional marriage” model.

Two case-studies of this position are often brought up when talking about Jesus and marriage. The first is the Samaritan woman at the well (see John 4). The second is the woman caught in adultery (see Jn. 8:1-11).

What can we make of these two stories? Is it something like …

Jesus speaking: “Hey, there’s a serial-divorcee, and an adulteress. I’m going to invite them to become members of my circle of people just so I can show people that I accept people like this.”

Yes! The truth is that Jesus was reaching out to them, but not without a call to leave their sexual/relational dysfunction behind them.

Read full argument here.

You use two stories here to illustration your point. May I break them apart and tackle them one at a time?

a) Samaritan woman at the well

As I've studied this passage, I've found that the common understanding of John chapter 4 isn't actually in the text. While Jesus uses his knowledge of the Samaritan woman's marital situation to declare his authority, he doesn't actually call it out as sin or ask for repentance. The woman's reaction, both at that moment and when she returns to her village, shows no evidence of shame or contrition.

Of course, that could be because it's likely she is barren, and the victim of the contemporary patriarchal system which would justify her being divorced from each man in turn (which Jesus confronted the Pharisees about) and ultimately forced to live with a man who would not marry her just to survive since it was rare for a woman to be able to make a living on her own in that culture without turning to prostitution. So maybe he didn't confront her sin because she wasn't sinning? (I first heard this interpretation from a conservative Reformed professor at a conservative evangelical university last year, for what it's worth).

b) The woman caught in adultery

I would like to point out two things with this story. 

First, adultery is the opposite of a committed relationship, whether inside or outside of marriage. I have not heard a pro-LGBT argument trying to claim that God is fine with LGBT relationships because Jesus is "okay" with the breaking of heterosexual relationships. We're talking about opposites here. We all agree the breaking of relationship is wrong.

Second, this particular story was hugely controversial in the early church and was contested as a legitimate passage for a long time BECAUSE it was seen as too forgiving of the woman! The church did not want to accept that Jesus would withhold punishment of this woman. The story was eventually accepted as an authentic story of Jesus, though both liberal and conservative scholars agree it was likely added to the manuscript of John sometime after the original writing (maybe migrating from one of the synoptic gospels).

(In general, this is only one of two stories in the entire collection of Gospels wherein Jesus says "go and sin no more". The other is a crippled man in the same Gospel, with no description of his sin. Calls to individual repentance of individual sins simply weren't a focus of his teaching. Now, calls to community repentance and repentance of judging and condemning others were certainly something that came up more.)

5. These are the kind of people Jesus would reach out to if He were here today.

Yes, Jesus would reach out to every kind of person. He would tell them of God’s love, and He would call them to repent of their sins. He would call murderers, thieves, liars, adulterers, homosexuals, gossips and racists.

And He would lead them out of their sin and into a new life with Him.

Read full argument here.

I'll try to keep this one brief. Your assumption is that being created gay while having the same need we all have for human relationship is sinful, and your list of sins seems to reflect a conservative and incorrect translation of certain terms. For more on that, you might be interested in the full in-depth study I did on these verses, which you can find freely online.

Also, this argument fails to take into account the Spirit-filled lives and testimonies of LGBT Christians and the widely acknowledged failure of the "ex-gay" movement.

Conclusion

I hope this helps you understand a little more about the other side's position. I appreciate your post helping me think through these things more for myself.

I'd love to hear your thoughts in return Kenny. Thanks for the invitation to dialogue. Grace and peace!

Merisms and the Non-Duality of Creation

InclusionJ. Elliott LeinComment

This is another rough-draft excerpt from the book I'm currently working on, about God calling us to include the full spectrum of creation in the church. It's at the beginning of the chapter on "Biblical Marriage"

The first creation narrative in the Bible (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) moves from the beginning with God alone to the grand finale with humankind. There is no reflection on a specific pair of humans, nor on marriage, but we can see that humans are the focus and end goal of the creative act.

“In the beginning when God began to create the heavens and the earth...”
— Genesis 1:1 (NRSV variation from translation notes)

Some understand the phrase “the heavens and the earth” as a metaphorical description of “everything”, as Shakespeare writes in Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth...”. We may think of it as a spectrum, with everything on every plane of our world, every string-theory dimension of reality, and both physical and spiritual understandings originating with God, the “alpha and omega” (again an inclusive spectrum concept). Some call this a “merism”, a figure of speech used in law, rhetoric, biology, and Biblical poetry:

“In rhetoric a merism is the combination of two contrasting words, to refer to an entirety. For example, when we mean to say that someone searched thoroughly, everywhere, we often say that someone searched high and low... 
“Merisms are conspicuous features of Biblical poetry. For example, in Genesis 1:1, when God creates “the heavens and the earth” (KJV), the two parts combine to indicate that God created the whole universe. Similarly, in Psalm 139, the psalmist declares that God knows ‘my downsitting and mine uprising’, indicating that God knows all the psalmist’s actions.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merism

This grand, majestic and poetic account cummulates in the making of humankind in the image of God (“our image, our likeness”):

“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness...
“So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
— Genesis 1:26a, 27

What do we know from this creation account? We know that humans are made in the image of God, not God made in the image of humans. That all humanity is created in the likeness of God the one and the formed-in-relationship (“our”). That all humanity, the spectrum included in “male and female”, are declared good:

“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”
— Genesis 1:31a

Why could it be helpful to recognize a “spectrum” instead of a binary designation in the phrase “male and female”? Consider those who are born as Intersex (the “I” in the longer acronym “LGBTQIA”) with inconclusive genitalia. Or some transgender folks who have the physical genitalia of one gender, and the chromosomes and brain-structure of another. If we are all created in the image of God, and declared good, then maybe “male and female” is a non-dualistic container, a merism, of the variety of the good creation even while we recognize that the majority of people are comfortable closer to the traditional two ends of the spectrum.

To conclude our first passage, note that the entirety of the first self-contained creation account is about “humankind” in general, with no mention of a particular pair nor a description of marriage. There is also no hinting at any change in God calling his creation “good”. That comes in the second creation account starting immediately afterward.

To be continued...

Thanks to Alan Hooker for the original insight.

Inclusion of a Sexual Minority in the Family of God

InclusionJ. Elliott LeinComment

In Acts 8 we see the early church beginning to face persecution from a man named Saul, and the apostles are forced to move outward from Jerusalem. The Apostle Phillip is directed by a message from an angel to set out on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. There he encounters a man who is outside of the parameters of acceptance into God’s people, according to Phillip’s Judaic upbringing.

This man is a sexual minority, a eunuch, who is also an Ethiopian. Males were commonly made into eunuchs for particular government roles to keep their loyalty undivided with a family, and this one was the royal treasurer. He had come on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, even though according to the Law he was prevented from being a part of worship due to his physical body.

“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.”
 — Deuteronomy 23:1

The blessings promised to a faithful Israel were described as the possession of land and the promise of descendants, consistent with ancient Near East cultural values. Yet being a eunuch meant that you had no descendants, and therefore no one to pass on your land to. You were quite literally cut off from the blessing of God (which also shows how painful infertility would be).

This very powerful individual, treasurer to the queen, made a pilgrimage in an upper class chariot all the way to Jerusalem (1,582 miles by air, 2,733 miles by foot according to Google Maps, maybe a two month-long journey), only to be excluded from worship.

Note that we don’t know exactly how this person is a eunuch, since Jesus referred to those who are born, made, and choose to be eunuchs as all under that label. But it’s likely given the man’s position that he has been made a eunuch surgically.

Phillip is compelled by the Spirit to approach the eunuch’s chariot, and as he does so he hears him reading from the book of Isaiah:

“like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
    and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
    so he did not open his mouth.
By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
    Who could have imagined his future?
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
    stricken for the transgression of my people.”
 — Isaiah 53:7-8 (NRSV)
“like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
    and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
    so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
    and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
    stricken for the transgression of my people?”
 — Isaiah 53:7-8 (ESV)

Phillip asks him if he understands the passage, and the reply is “How could I, unless I have someone to guide me?”. The eunuch urges Phillip to join him and explain what he is reading. He asks: “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” (Acts 8:34).

Why might this eunuch be so interested in this particular passage from the Prophets? 

Maybe the language of shearing and being cut off would resonate with him. The passage speaks of one who has his future taken away (no progeny?), in a perversion of justice. Maybe he would identify and relate to this imagery in a deep way, and wonder who the prophet could possibly be referring to in such validating language: “Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;” (Isaiah 53:12)

Phillip takes this cue to relay the gospel of Jesus. Here we see a man who was rejected by his people, stripped and humiliated, cut and wounded with scars that do not fade, one without physical descendants.

As they go along, the eunuch spots some water and asks:

“Look, here is water! 
What is to prevent me from being baptized?”

Can you imagine that question being asked in a trembling, insecure voice? As from one who is desperate to be included, yet knows that tradition and Scripture are against him as both a foreigner and a eunuch. He had just returned from Jerusalem where he would have been denied entrance into worship. As an Ethiopian he would have been limited to the Courts of the Gentiles, yet as a eunuch even that would have been denied to him. After a two-month journey of devotion, he would have been forced to stare into the temple in longing, but feeling rejected by the God he was pursuing.

Author Brian McLaren, from whom I first heard this application, paraphrases the man’s question:

“I have just been rejected and humiliated in Jerusalem, but you have told me of a man who, like me, has no physical descendants, a scarred and wounded man who like me has been humiliated and rejected. Is there a place for me in his kingdom, even though I have an unchangeable condition that was condemned forever by the sacred Jewish Scriptures?”
 — Brian McLaren, “A New Kind of Christianity” p 183

Phillip’s reaction in the text is breathtaking in its simplicity and audacity. As the horses are pulled to a stop in swirling dust and creaking of wood and leather, he answers not a word, but immediately leads the eunuch into the water to be baptized in equality before God.

They emerge dripping into a Spirit-filled new reality. Phillip is whisked away to the seashore by the Spirit of the Lord while the eunuch boards his chariot for home, rejoicing in this amazing and unexpected inclusion into the family of God.

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
    “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
and do not let the eunuch say,
    “I am just a dry tree.”
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
    who choose the things that please me
    and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
    a monument and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
    that shall not be cut off.
— Isaiah 56:3-5

Photo credit: "Priest at Ientelos Iesus on Lake Tana, Ethiopia" — SarahTz on Flickr

Loving is listening

LoveJ. Elliott LeinComment

During my recent conversations around LGBT and faith on Facebook, while discussing a linked articled called "Distorted Love: The Toll of Our Christian Theology on the LGBT Community" a concern around who defines "love" was brought up:

"If I take your last response and article at face value, then I must conclude that it is gay advocates (Christian & otherwise) who ultimately define love, with no room for dialogue or dissent. What a sad place for the Church."

Here is my response, an off-the-cuff set of ramblings on how I might attempt to answer that question.


Love. My thoughts.

Love cannot be defined solely by the giver, but must be affirmed by the receiver (and generally recognized by outsiders who see a net benefit in the long term).

A simple example is the "5 love languages". If the giver insists on using the language of "service" because it's what they resonate with, but the recipient values "touch", then is it self-less or self-ish love?

A more complex example would be the idealist's conviction that an action is loving based on their values, but which is experienced by the recipient, communities with other values, and/or by history as having a damaging result. For example, I think of Saint Augustine and John Calvin supporting the torture and/or death of what they saw as heretics because they thought it was more loving to ensure that the remainder would gain eternal salvation as they understood it. I can understand and empathize with their motivation. I can see how they thought it was love. I can understand that the civil law, cultural understandings of the time, and social pressure from their own religious group would influence their perception and that I might have done the same in their place. But I personally cannot define that as love from where I stand, based on the recipient's experience.

White American slave owners in the 1800's were convinced that they were loving their slaves by providing food, lodging, moral direction and steady work. It's clear that they had a high moral conviction around their policies if you read the declarations of secession or other documents by the southern states. Over half of published Christian sermons before the War supported this position by appealing to both general morality and to Scripture.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."
           — from A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

Many national leaders we now see as morally troubled made decisions motivated at least initially by a conviction that they were in the best interests of others, yet because they did not listen to opposing voices or accept challenges to their worldview, we now see them as "evil" (Mao, Lenin, Hitler, etc could all fit into that category on some level I think as extreme examples).

If an expression of love from the giver ends in obvious, provable harm for the receiver (setting aside exceptions such as restraining the receiver from hurting others), then we need to ask some serious questions about whether that is actually love.

"Love your neighbor as yourself". You have to get to know your neighbor pretty well before you know how to love them to the level that you love yourself (whom you know pretty intimately). 

I'm not saying any of this is empirically true of any particular non-affirming Christian or the traditional absolutist position on marriage. However, if we do not allow the gay recipient of a person's love to voice their sense of how it feels to receive that love, then how do we judge if it truly is love? Whose interpretation of the Bible "wins"? Just the one that's been around longest? Then we have to wrestle with the Scripture-supported "curse of the Jews" anti-semitism which began in the 1st century, was supported in the Inquisition and by Martin Luther and cumulated in the Holocaust before we finally returned to re-read the Bible in a different way (see Southern Baptist ethics and holocaust scholar Dr. David Gushee's work on this).

That's what the article we have been discussing is saying, I think: 

"The recipients of your love aren't agreeing that they feel loved or respected, even when you share the same faith and love for the same God, and neither do independent observers around them. Why?"

Us "gay advocates" are just asking our fellow Christians to take the time to listen more carefully to the recipients of the traditional language around marriage, and to think and pray carefully about how God would want to us to respond. I personally failed to find a way to do so without changing my mind (and after I did, I came to a new understanding of Scripture that seemed clearer and more literally accurate than before).

To be honest, some of this may challenge some particular understandings of theology on a larger level, which is part of what I've gone through in the last couple of years. Yet there too are many different approaches available from that very same Bible we share and love.

Well, that's my opinion. Maybe it helps you understand better where I'm coming from even if you disagree.