This post is a plea for dialogue about the Bible in church. I’m writing it because my church has become a classroom, where talking is discouraged so that authority figures can instruct us in the truth.

As I am writing these words, my denomination has just defrocked one of its ministers because he called for a church-wide dialogue about LGBTQIA+ issues.

I’d like to offer a few thoughts that may help us get a grip on this controversy, particularly as it relates to the use of the Bible.

Of all the considerations that go into responsible interpretation of the Bible, the reader’s situation is the least obvious. Books on interpretation rightly discuss reading the Bible against its ancient background and interpreting passages in their literary context (paragraph, book, entire canon).

But there is generally little attention paid to the effect that the reader’s situation has on interpretation. (By situation I mean all the things that influence the act of reading, especially the culture in which the reader is immersed.) Many years ago, I heard the NT scholar Paul Achtemeier say that biblical criticism is not about criticizing the Bible. It is instead about criticizing the reader. At the time, I had no idea what he meant. However, after several decades of teaching and observing the way the Bible is read and used in Christian communities, I think I understand his point.

Here’s an example: Before the American Civil War, there was a vigorous debate about slavery. Since the participants were all Christian, the debate usually turned on biblical interpretation. Those in favor of slavery fashioned a substantial argument from the Bible justifying their practice. Today, that argument seems absurd (at least for those of us who don’t live in Florida), but in the South it was accepted as the obviously correct interpretation of the relevant biblical passages. Such a thing was possible because Southern culture (including economic, social, religious, and political factors) made this sort of interpretation seem natural and right.

Here’s another example: Some years ago, an American anthropologist, Laura Bohannan, published an article, “Shakespeare in the Bush” (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1966_08-09_pick.html). She was living with the Tiv people in West Africa and, once they got to know her, they asked her about the stories her people told. She related the plot of Hamlet and was surprised to learn that the Tivs had a very different take on this story. They regarded Hamlet’s uncle’s marriage to Hamlet’s mother as an unqualified good, because it conformed to one of their customs. They were not shocked (as Hamlet was) that she remarried so quickly after her husband’s death–a woman without a husband would have no one to hoe her fields. It was also evident to them that Hamlet’s apparent insanity was caused by a witch. They were further shocked to learn that Hamlet tried to kill his uncle–if he wanted vengeance he should have appealed to men of his father’s age. In their culture, “No man may use violence against his senior relatives.”

Finally, one of the Tiv interrupted her. “You tell the story well, and we are listening. But it is clear that the elders of your country have never told you what the story really means. No, don’t interrupt! We believe you when you say your marriage customs are different, or your clothes and weapons. But people are the same everywhere; therefore, there are always witches and it is we, the elders, who know how witches work.” In other words, the Tiv believed that they had the correct interpretation of the story–Bohannon knew the plot but did not understand it. They believed that their culture gave them an insight into the real meaning of the story.

These examples protest against the Protestant notion of the Bible’s “plain sense.” This is the belief that, for the most part, the Bible expresses its truth in a way that can be grasped by anyone who can read. Of course, Protestants acknowledged that there are places in the Bible that lack clarity, but they felt that there enough clear passages to allow anyone to understand the Bible’s essential teachings.

The debate about LGBTQIA+ issues in the church today (or the lack of debate, if you belong to my church) turns on this notion of scripture’s plain sense. For those who uphold the traditional view, there are biblical passages that are clearly relevant and their meaning is obvious.

But this claim overlooks the role that the reader’s situation plays in interpretation. Southerners interpreted the Bible in a certain way at least in part because of their culture. The Tiv interpreted Hamlet in surprising ways because of their culture.

Our cultural situation is usually transparent to us–we easily notice the peculiarities of other cultures when we travel, but we take our own culture for granted. It seems normal, natural, and right.

Many years ago, my family and I were living in Manchester, U.K. I took the bus to the university one day to use the library and sat behind some German tourists. They began speaking in English and my first thought was, Why are they pronouncing English with an English accent? Were they affecting that accent in order to blend in with the locals? Sometime later, it finally occurred to me that they had learned English from someone who was born in England. For them, that pronunciation was the natural one. For me, it sounded foreign and affected–they should be speaking English with my accent.

In the same way, our understanding of the Bible is usually transparent to us–it is the normal, natural, and right way to read and interpret. This transparency is reinforced when everyone we know interprets the Bible just as we do.

Take, for instance decisions about which scriptural passages are relevant to a given topic and what those passages teach and imply. Here are two verses from the Bible:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. Acts 10:28

Why, for many people, is the passage from Leviticus of supreme relevance to LGBTQIA+ issues and the text from Acts irrelevant? It is the reader’s situation that one relevant and the other not.

Discussing the Bible with those in a different religious culture is like traveling to a foreign land: Our own view will seem natural and right, and the other view foreign and wrong, but at some point we may come to see that our interpretation is not so natural and right.

Those who affirm the traditional view of LGBTQIA+ issues live in one culture. Its anchors include:

• The idea of scripture’s plain sense.
• The fact that this view is traditional–Christians of the past may have disagreed on many things, but at least they agreed that God hates same-sex sex.
• The view that Genesis 1 and 2 give us information about original creation: God created exactly two, well-defined genders and implanted in each a desire for the other. Any departure from this original state is the result of sin.
• A willingness to accept the results of the sciences only if they do not contradict scripture’s plain sense.

Those who are LGBTQIA-affirming live in a different culture. It includes

• A greater openness to the results of the sciences (at least as pertains to LGBTQIA+ issues).
• A greater willingness to allow experience to guide the interpretation of the Bible (knowing someone who is an exemplary Christian and also in a same-sex marriage can have an effect on one’s interpretation of the Bible).
• Less attention to Genesis 1-2 and more attention to certain features of Jesus’ ministry.

This means that the plain sense of scripture is anything but plain. Indeed, the meaning of a passage and its relevance to a certain topic is at least partly a function of the reader’s situation.

What would a dialogue on LGBTQIA+ issues look like? It would be like people from two cultures getting to know one another, not casually, but deeply.

I think that people with the traditional view have a particular challenge when it comes to such a dialogue. Those with the affirming view generally have a good understanding of the traditional view. Either it was formerly their view or they have friends and family who espouse it. Those with the traditional view, however, for reasons I’ve mentioned, already believe that their view is the natural and correct one. In fact, so deeply is this sense ingrained that they may feel reexamination of the Bible is unnecessary–they already know what the Bible says. Why bother to read? They have nothing to learn except perhaps small details. (By the way, I’m not creating this portrait of this traditional view from thin air. It’s based on years of observing how the Bible is actually read or not read in church contexts.)

But there is a good reason for continual re-reading and re-examination of the Bible. Let me offer an example. One of my hobbies is classical guitar. I participate in the Encinitas Guitar Orchestra (https://samuelmpowell.com/guitar). Twice in the last two years the following has occurred:

• While practicing at home, I’ve misread the score.
• Continued practice at home, alone, reinforced the mistake.
• In group practice, I perceived that someone wasn’t playing the passage correctly and figured it was someone else.
• Finally, I realized that I’m the one who’s been playing it wrong.

In other words, just as the score isn’t always what I thought it was, so the Bible doesn’t always mean what we think it means. My problem was that I learned the music wrong and then stopped studying the score. I thought I knew it, but I was wrong. It was only by practicing with others that my error was revealed.

That is why the church should be a community of dialogue, with diverse views held by people of differing cultures.

*Image attribution:

• SuSanA Secretariat, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
• [[File:INTERIEUR, LINKER VLEUGEL, BADKAMER (BIDET) – Otterlo – 20270301 – RCE.jpg