But Pastor, the Bible clearly says…

Navigating the sticky wicket of biblical interpretation.

Photo by Rod Long on Unsplash

Ahead of the United Methodist 2024 General Conference, questions are abundant about human sexuality, the Bible, and what the United Methodist Church has to say on the matter.

After of the 2019 General Conference, a parishioner asked me what is Paul addressing in Romans 1, does the Church have the authority to reinterpret Paul, is Paul being straight-forward in Romans 1, and which side is God on after the 2019 General Conference?

These questions still linger as the United Methodist Church navigates what is next for our denomination in the aftermath of church disaffections and those who long for the denomination to removed harmful language amid at the LGBTQIA community. Just two weeks ago I was told “You know Pastor, the Bible clearly says…”

Below is my attempt to answer my former parishioner and current parishioner’s question and help you if you are navigating similar questions.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. The Special General Conference has certainly renewed questions within the UMC regarding human sexuality, and the vote to adopt what was referred to as the “Traditional Plan” has raised even more questions.

If I am tracking your email correctly, you are asking the following:

1. What is Paul addressing in Romans 1?

2. Does the Church have the authority to reinterpret Paul?

3. Is Paul being straight-forward in Romans 1?

4. Which side is God on after GC2019?

First, Romans 1:26-28 is arguably the most referenced portion of the New Testament when advocating for a heteronormative theological approach to human sexuality. I’ll offer you a section from Barry Penn Hollar’s book, Ethics:

“No matter what you conclude about this passage and its understanding of homosexuality, the theological context is crucial. Here in the first chapter of Romans, Paul is attempting to demonstrate how the Gospel, rather than a set of philosophical precepts or moral teachings, is the power of God active in the world and in fact acting to overturn the world. “

Paul was comparing the righteousness of God revealed in Christ and the unrighteousness of humanity caused by the curse of sin (1:18).  Hollar adds, “The word ‘wicked’ in most English translations can be more clearly (but more awkwardly) translated as ‘unrighteousness.’”

Paul’s inclusion of homosexuality in Romans 1:19-32 should not distract from the distinction being made between the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of humanity caused by the curse of sin. In verse 21 Paul indicates the list of sins is a more general indictment that the curse of sin has caused us to fail in honoring God. Here the activities listed are used to focus idolatry.

Paul was addressing a specific context at a specific period of the church’s history. More from Barry Penn Hollar:

“A majority of biblical scholars and cultural historians concur that Paul has in mind not monogamous homosexual relationships as we might know today but heterosexuals in the wider Greco-Roman culture who engaged in homosexual acts purely for the sake of sex. This means that Paul is critiquing those who have made sex and end in itself, unattached to any sacred or intimate relationship of trust. In Paul’s mind, sex has become (or is one example of) an idol.”

Theologian Richard Hays, in his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament, argues the New Testament provides no definitive viewpoint, or “rule” on homosexuality. Haus notes the negative prohibitions against same-sex relationships should be examined against the backdrop of the normative male-female union of the context.

Hollar pushes back on Hays a bit pointing out “the scriptural canon clearly and repeatedly affirms that God made man and woman for one another,” and “Any contemporary discernment over homosexuality must struggle with this positive norm that is the overwhelming witness of the scriptural narrative.”

So yes, Paul is being straight-forward in Romans but he is addressing the idolatry of sex for the sake of sex and not homosexuality as a prohibited sin.

To the question of reinterpreting scripture, specifically Paul’s writings, I would begin by pointing out the Church has already reinterpreted much of what Paul wrote. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul wrote, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

Most protestant churches ordain women. The United Methodist Church ordains women to the orders of elder and deacon. The pastor who discipled me most in college is woman an ordained in the United Methodist Church. Paul himself notes he may not be entirely correct in his writings and invites the congregation in Corinth to “consider for themselves.” (1 Corinthians 11:13)

Another instance on the Church moving on an issue “settled in scripture” is divorce.

Now, the bonus question you offered: “how does God decide whose prayers to side with” in the midst of serious theological debate?

To say there were a winner and a loser, with God siding with the winner, in St. Louis is not the approach I would take to examine the General Conference or any other theological conversation. Which side is God on? The side of mercy and grace revealed to us most fully in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This unmerited grace is extended to all of us because we are all sinners, and sin (all and any) is incompatible with Christian teaching. That is not to imply I believe those in same-sex relationships are sinning. So while we may declare winners and losers, I do not believe God sees it like that. 

I hope this helps with the questions you posed. If I can explain anything further or clarify anything I have written above, please do not hesitate to ask.