How to get through to Conservatives?

[Truthfrees]

You have still not provided any evidence against my assertion that conservatives are unwilling to remain within a church that ordains gays.

I was born and raised in a church that left it's denomination as soon as the denomination decided to ordain gays.

I was a part of the congregational meetings discussing what to do and why.

The scriptures on what kind of behavior is appropriate for leaders is what was discussed.

There was no gay bashing or even bashing of our denominational leadership.

We simply in good conscience couldn't disregard scripture.

We looked to our pastors as moral leaders, promoting what God says is right, avoiding what God says is wrong.

A pastor who was living in sin or openly promoting sin isn't the kind we'd want.

In our denomination, at least in our particular congregation, any egregious sin would disqualify a person from any kind of leadership. Drunkenness, abuse, adultery, dishonesty, etc.

IOW, all sin had to be repented of.

We weren't judging the person.

We were deciding to do whatever God says.

We weren't a legalistic congregation either. We were extremely gracious and respectful, as was our denomination.

Our congregation joined a different branch of our denomination that didn't ordain gays.

We had gay members who were living together, we had unmarried heterosexual members who were living together, we had drunks, and I'm sure many other types of people.

None of them were eligible for leadership, but were a welcome part of our church family.

In fact everyone was so gracious that these kind of people felt comfortable mentioning what kind of lifestyle they had.

The pastor counseled people who wanted help to change, but the rest of us associated with whomever came through our doors.

My whole life I've been a part of congregations and denominations that teach against sin, but I've never witnessed any abuse against sinners, at least not in the churches I attended.

None of my pastors have ever been abusive to sinners.

I'm not interested in being a part of that kind of congregation.

Whenever I've gone looking for a Bible-based congregation to belong to, if they were harsh, unloving, judgemental, condemning, I didn't feel the presence of God, and couldn't return for a 2nd visit, never mind join them.

 

[GillDouglas]

Your statement may be accurate in the case of haters, but most Christians who're opposed to sin aren't haters.

The problem we have with the gay issue is that it's being aggressively promoted as OK, not sin, the way God made you. We know from our own lives and resisting our own sin, that it's not as you say.

IOW, we can't aggressively resist OUR sin and work so hard on doing what Jesus said (go and sin no more - John 8:11) on one hand, and then tell you your sins are ok. We'd be hypocrites to do that.

To us all sin is sin, yours, ours, everyone's.

To tell the truth we don't see the glbt lifestyle as the greatest of all sins.

Killing babies, rape, and peodophilia (harming the inocent and helpless) are considered worse than sexual sins between consenting partners (adultery, glbt lifestyle, immorality, promiscuity, sex outside of marriage).

If anyone aggressively promoted any of the other sexual sins, they'd be told the same thing you're being told.

Those lifestyles are equally not allowed to be promoted on CF.

Excellent points here.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

To "get through to" anyone you just need to pray. They believe what they believe because they honestly think God taught it to them, so it's up to God to adjust how their heart sees things. However, keep in mind that no matter how much they might pray for you to change and you don't, keep this in mind. The best route may be to seek transformation within and be a good example.

 

[GillDouglas]

I was born and raised in a church that left it's denomination as soon as the denomination decided to ordain gays.

I was a part of the congregational meetings discussing what to do and why.

The scriptures on what kind of behavior is appropriate for leaders is what was discussed.

There was no gay bashing or even bashing of our denominational leadership.

We simply in good conscience couldn't disregard scripture.

We looked to our pastors as moral leaders, promoting what God says is right, avoiding what God says is wrong.

A pastor who was living in sin or openly promoting sin isn't the kind we'd want.

In our denomination, at least in our particular congregation, any egregious sin would disqualify a person from any kind of leadership. Drunkenness, abuse, adultery, dishonesty, etc.

IOW, all sin had to be repented of.

We weren't judging the person.

We were deciding to do whatever God says.

We weren't a legalistic congregation either. We were extremely gracious and respectful, as was our denomination.

Our congregation joined a different branch of our denomination that didn't ordain gays.

We had gay members who were living together, we had unmarried heterosexual members who were living together, we had drunks, and I'm sure many other types of people.

None of them were eligible for leadership, but were a welcome part of our church family.

In fact everyone was so gracious that these kind of people felt comfortable sharing what kind of lifestyle they had.

The pastor counseled people who wanted help to change, but the rest of us associated with whomever came through our doors.

My whole life I've been a part of congregations and denominations that teach against sin, but I've never witnessed any abuse against sinners, at least not in the churches I attended.

None of my pastors have ever been abusive to sinners.

I'm not interested in being a part of that kind of congregation.

Whenever I've gone looking for a Bible-based congregation to belong to, if they were harsh, unloving, judgemental, condemning, I didn't feel the presence of God, and couldn't return for a 2nd visit, never mind join them.

What a trying time for your congregation. The Bible tells us that before we understand the truth, before God intervenes, we love sin in our natural state. Once He has changed our view, permanently changing our state by lifting the veil, we no longer love sin like our old self. So coming upon one who still loves sin and lives in it, we try to help them see how we do, praying that God will use us as the instrument to reveal the truth. We don't hate gays, we oppose the lifestyle of the natural man because we know where that leads someone. We certainly couldn't have a church promoting such unbiblical teachings.

 

[GillDouglas]

They'd be similarly unwilling to be in a church that changed ANY of the historic doctrines and practices of Presbyterian Christianity, isn't that so?

The PCA and OPC weren't formed by former members of your church because of what it chose to do at this summer's convention! Or because of SSM. The departures from the PCUSA over its decision, several generations back, to distance itself from the Westminster Confession led to other members' departures. The church has been losing Conservative members for decades...and not because of gays.

This kind of incessant focus upon Conservatives as though gay issues are the be-all and end-all of traditional theology is IMHO unfair and inaccurate.

It would be much easier to identify the large gap between OPC/PCA and PCUSA if the PCUSA went by another name other than Presbyterian.

 

[Truthfrees]

To "get through to" anyone you just need to pray. They believe what they believe because they honestly think God taught it to them, so it's up to God to adjust how their heart sees things. However, keep in mind that no matter how much they might pray for you to change and you don't, keep this in mind. The best route may be to seek transformation within and be a good example.

Absolutely. Well said.

Love never fails.

Truth sets people free.

Walking that out in a balanced way always starts with prayer, and must be led by the Holy Spirit to produce fruitful results.

And our first point of action must always be our own log, not someone else's speck. Matthew 7:3-5, Luke 6:42

 

[Truthfrees]

What a trying time for your congregation. The Bible tells us that before we understand the truth, before God intervenes, we love sin in our natural state. Once He has changed our view, permanently changing our state by lifting the veil, we no longer love sin like our old self. So coming upon one who still loves sin and lives in it, we try to help them see how we do, praying that God will use us as the instrument to reveal the truth. We don't hate gays, we oppose the lifestyle of the natural man because we know where that leads someone. We certainly couldn't have a church promoting such unbiblical teachings.

Yes, it was a grave time for our congregation.

All of us were prayerful and saddened by what our denomination leadership decided, and we had to find out what God wanted us to do.

We felt our denomination had gone into error, because they gave us no scripture to back their decision, they only gave us politically correct reasons for their decision.

The one good thing our denomination gave us though was grace toward sinners, as a method to see them receive God's help with their sin, knowing it was God's business to change them (directly or through a counsellor Pastor), and our business to love them.

One thing I learned from this forum is the horrendous pain and isolation glbt feel in their struggle with sin, and their struggle to be accepted as Christians.

My family and churches have always been loving toward sinners, but I see now haters can be very toxic to those who struggle with sin.

I can see why Marius says haters are really struggling with sin themselves and won't admit it. That makes sense.

 

[Truthfrees]

They'd be similarly unwilling to be in a church that changed ANY of the historic doctrines and practices of Presbyterian Christianity, isn't that so?

The PCA and OPC weren't formed by former members of your church because of what it chose to do at this summer's convention! Or because of SSM. The departures from the PCUSA over its decision, several generations back, to distance itself from the Westminster Confession led to other members' departures. The church has been losing Conservative members for decades...and not because of gays.

This kind of incessant focus upon Conservatives as though gay issues are the be-all and end-all of traditional theology is IMHO unfair and inaccurate.

You're now trying to justify why conservatives are unwilling to remain in a church where gays are ordained or married. You have not raised any objections to what I said.

Furthermore, I think it's a bit suspicious that all of the departures happened after changes involving gays. The denominations that have done this have generally been theologically broad. As you point out, the PCUSA hasn't adhered completely to Westminster for decades. It's a bit hard to believe that the current departures aren't primarily because of the gay issue. Indeed many of the recent departures are to a denomination (the ECO) which has exactly the same standards as the PCUSA, including the Confession of 1967.

I can see how Albion could be correct in what he's saying.

Hedrick could have simply noticed a greater exodus at the final straw that made people leave because things had gone too far to be tolerated any longer.

I know in our denomination there were many liberal changes that we tolerated for years.

Every time our denomination made a change, we as a congregation voted on what to do.

The gay issue pushed us too far. That liberality crossed the line of clear scripture teachings.

We had several discussions for a month or 2 and prayed in between meetings. At the final vote we clearly decided to leave our branch and join a different branch.

 

[Truthfrees]

The Bible tells us that before we understand the truth, before God intervenes, we love sin in our natural state. Once He has changed our view, permanently changing our state by lifting the veil, we no longer love sin like our old self. So coming upon one who still loves sin and lives in it, we try to help them see how we do, praying that God will use us as the instrument to reveal the truth. We don't hate gays, we oppose the lifestyle of the natural man because we know where that leads someone. We certainly couldn't have a church promoting such unbiblical teachings.

Yes, this perfectly describes the dynamics we experience in our encounter with God, His words, and His grace.

We love God, we love people, we hate sin, all because of God's work in our hearts and minds. Hebrews 10:16, Hebrews 8:10, Jeremiah 31:31

Those who encounter religion will miss the power of God to behave properly, and can become toxically religious and hateful toward people.

 

[hedrick]

Every time our denomination made a change, we as a congregation voted on what to do.

The gay issue pushed us too far. That liberality crossed the line of clear scripture teachings.

This has been a very long discussion about one brief statement I made. Your congregation was not alone. By and large congregations were willing to live within a denomination that took other liberal positions. Of course since the beginning of the 20th Cent there were a number of controversies that caused some departures. But by the latter part of the 20th Cent it was already clear that the PCUSA didn't require belief in inerrancy and other ideas that resulted in the fundamentalist / modernist controversy. So people who held conservative views might have disagreed with the more liberal views might not have been happy that many in the church took those views, but they were part of a church that permitted them.

So your experience was not unusual. Mostly liberal positions didn't cause churches to leave. Ordination of gays did. Many conservatives were willing to tolerate variation on other issues, but couldn't live with a denomination that ordains gays. That's what I said, and it is consistent with your report.

You can say that there was a long chain of changes, and this one was just one too far. But I don't think it's coincidence that a large number of conservatives found that this specific issue was the one that they couldn't accept. Why did people feel so strongly about homosexuality, and not about inerrancy, the virgin birth, ordination of women, de facto acceptance of divorce, and other controversial issues? I don’t know, and I’m not sure it’s helpful to speculate. But that issue is clearly one people feel more intensely about that others for which one could make at least as good a Biblical argument from traditional exegesis.

After all, prohibition of divorce comes from Jesus himself, and is much more clearly taught than prohibition of homosexuality. Yet accepting it as a lesser evil hasn't caused anywhere near the problems in most churches that accepting gay relationships has.

 

[GillDouglas]

After all, prohibition of divorce comes from Jesus himself, and is much more clearly taught than prohibition of homosexuality. Yet accepting it as a lesser evil hasn't caused anywhere near the problems in most churches that accepting gay relationships has.

There are zero exceptions made in the Bible concerning homosexuality, as there are two exceptions concerning divorce.

 

[hedrick]

There are zero exceptions made in the Bible concerning homosexuality as there are concerning divorce.

Of course not. Matthew and Paul are dealing with problems that come up in actual pastoral practice for Christians. This leads to qualifying Jesus' absolute ideal with exceptions made for the good of individuals.

But the NT passages on homosexuality (to the extent that they actually are about homosexuality) aren't about sexual ethics at all. Rom 1 is about the implications of idolatry. 1 Cor 6:9 is characterizing the behavior of Paul's converts before they became Christian. Since they aren't actually about sexual ethics, they don't have to deal with specific pastoral concerns involving sexuality.

And that's the problem with those passages. I believe when presented with the actual situation of gays today, the same kinds of pastoral concerns that led to qualifying Jesus' teaching on the ideal of marriage can also lead to exceptions for gays who are trying to live a Christian life (as opposed to those who are after additional forms of sexual excitement, as described in Rom 1).

To me this is the real issue, not debates on the exact meaning of arsenokoitai.

 

[Truthfrees]

Of course not. Matthew and Paul are dealing with problems that come up in actual pastoral practice for Christians. This leads to qualifying Jesus' absolute ideal with exceptions made for the good of individuals.

But the NT passages on homosexuality (to the extent that they actually are about homosexuality) aren't about sexual ethics at all. Rom 1 is about the implications of idolatry. 1 Cor 6:9 is characterizing the behavior of Paul's converts before they became Christian. Since they aren't actually about sexual ethics, they don't have to deal with specific pastoral concerns involving sexuality.

And that's the problem with those passages. I believe when presented with the actual situation of gays today, the same kinds of pastoral concerns that led to qualifying Jesus' teaching on the ideal of marriage can also lead to exceptions for gays who are trying to live a Christian life (as opposed to those who are after additional forms of sexual excitement, as described in Rom 1).

To me this is the real issue, not debates on the exact meaning of arsenokoitai.

In our denomination no sexual sins were tolerated before or after the gay ordination ruling.

If ordination of adulterers, polygamists, promiscuous, drunkards, liars, cheats, etc would have been the new rule, we would have felt that was intolerable too.

There were differing interpretations on the ordination of women, but there's no scripture saying women Pastors will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

We had a problem with the gay issue because homosexuality is listed in the same scripture with other clearly identifiable sins, many of them sexual.

One problem I have with the way you reinterpret the gay scriptures is what about peodophiles who say they're irresistably drawn to the underaged?

Almost any sin listed in scripture comes with an irresistible desire. Adulterers, kleptomaniacs, drunkards, cheats, gossipers, etc, all struggle with irresistible desires that don't necessarily go away even after years of prayer, so do we reinterpret scripture on every sin?

 

[hedrick]

One problem I have with the way you reinterpret the gay scriptures is what about peodophiles who say they're irresistably drawn to the underaged?

And there may be a genetic component to criminal behavior. That's why Christ gave the power of the keys to the Church. To make decisions like this. Behavior that abuses others has to be dealt with. We all have our crosses to bear. But we shouldn't create problems where we don't have to. One of Jesus' main criticisms of the Pharisees was that their legal interpretations created burdens for people that they couldn't bear.

 

[Truthfrees]

And there may be a genetic component to criminal behavior. That's why Christ gave the power of the keys to the Church. To make decisions like this. Behavior that abuses others has to be dealt with. We all have our crosses to bear. But we shouldn't create problems where we don't have to. One of Jesus' main criticisms of the Pharisees was that their legal interpretations created burdens for people that they couldn't bear.

Very valid points about not making life difficult for others.

We are blessed by God to be a blessing to others.

I'm not so sure it was the legalistic interpretation of scripture that made life difficult for others.

Jesus kept calling those certain men hypocrites, snakes, pretenders who nullified the laws of God with their own man-made laws.

But your point still remains that we shouldn't use God's word to burden people and not lift a finger to help them.

So here's a few scriptures that have to be blended to get the right balance.

We can't nullify God's words, yet we need to help each other with our burdens:

MAN'S LAWS KILL
1. "Jesus answered, “·How terrible for [ Woe to] you, you experts on the law! You ·make strict rules that are very hard for people to obey [burden people with burdens hard to carry], but you yourselves don’t even ·try to follow those rules [or lift a finger to ease the burden]." - Luke 11:46

2. "By your own ·rules [tradition], which you ·teach people [have handed down], you are ·rejecting [nullifying; canceling] what God said. And you do many things like that." - Mark 7:13

GOD'S LAWS GIVE LIFE
3. "Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures, ‘A person lives not on bread alone, but by ·everything God says [every word that comes out of God’s mouth; Deut. 8:3].’ " - Matthew 4:4

4. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will ·make [set] you free." - John 8:32

MAN'S FLESH LEADS TO DESTRUCTION
5. "For he who sows to his own flesh (lower nature, sensuality) will from the flesh reap decay and ruin and destruction, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not lose heart and grow weary and faint in acting nobly and doing right, for in due time and at the appointed season we shall reap, if we do not loosen and relax our courage and faint. 10 So then, as occasion and opportunity open up to us, let us do good [morally] to all people [not only being useful or profitable to them, but also doing what is for their spiritual good and advantage]. Be mindful to be a blessing, especially to those of the household of faith [those who belong to God’s family with you, the believers]." - Galatians 6:8-10

6. "Surely [ Don’t…?] you know that the ·people who do wrong [unrighteous; wicked; unjust] will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be ·fooled [deceived]. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are ·male prostitutes [or passive homosexual partners], or ·men who have sexual relations with other men [or active homosexual partners], those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, ·lie about others [slander others; use abusive language], or ·rob[swindle]—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom." - 1 Corinthians 6:9

JESUS LOVES YET SAYS STOP SINNING
7. "Then Jesus said, “I also don’t ·judge you guilty [condemn you]. ·You may go now, but don’t sin anymore [Go, and sin no more].” " - John 8:11

8. "Stop sinning [Sin no more] so that something worse does not happen to you." - John 5:14

 

[hedrick]

I think Jesus’ use of the term “hypocrites” has mislead people. What we know about Pharisees doesn’t suggest any lack of seriousness about living up to their own teaching. I’m sure they didn’t always succeed any more than any of us do. What the Pharisees were known for was a commitment to holiness, as defined by their own traditional interpretation of Scripture — the oral Law. As far as I can tell, Jesus’ primary problem was with their interpretation, not their sincerity. He thought that it focused on rules rather than intent. Looking at his use of the term hypocrite, he also felt that they tended to be show-offs, but his disagreement with them wasn’t just due to personal faults like that.

Look at Mat 23. Yes, he criticizes them for taking places of honor, but much of his criticism is for legalism that focuses on the rules of their oral Law rather than the intent.

And even the criticism of being in seats of honor has that disagreement behind it. The problem is that people honored them for their holiness, when according to Jesus it reflected their rules, not God’s idea of holiness.

Mat 23:2-3 may have added to the impression of hypocrisy in the modern sense. But the seat of Moses was a seat in ancient synagogues where the Torah was read. So when Jesus says to do what they teach, he means to follow the Torah, not that all of what the Pharisees taught was right. It’s obvious from the rest of the chapter that he didn’t think everything they teach is right.

This goes along with Mat 5, where Jesus again opposes intent to legalism, in one case even criticizing a law from the Torah (divorce).

 

[SkyWriting]

Liberalism IN GENERAL and BY ITS NATURE is less tolerant than Conservatism.

Less tolerant of Conservatism. By it's nature, it moves away from any structure.

 

[Albion]

Less tolerant of Conservatism. By it's nature, it moves away from any structure.

I suppose that's so (less tolerant of Conservatism), but it's not just that the opposite side of the political coin or the "other" political theory is bound to be countered. Liberalism today (not Classical Liberalism) is intolerant of any POV that disagrees with its thinking and--more to the point--anyone who holds them or is not part of one of Liberalism's preferred social groups.

 

[Truthfrees]

I think Jesus’ use of the term “hypocrites” has mislead people. What we know about Pharisees doesn’t suggest any lack of seriousness about living up to their own teaching. I’m sure they didn’t always succeed any more than any of us do. What the Pharisees were known for was a commitment to holiness, as defined by their own traditional interpretation of Scripture — the oral Law. As far as I can tell, Jesus’ primary problem was with their interpretation, not their sincerity. He thought that it focused on rules rather than intent. Looking at his use of the term hypocrite, he also felt that they tended to be show-offs, but his disagreement with them wasn’t just due to personal faults like that.

Look at Mat 23. Yes, he criticizes them for taking places of honor, but much of his criticism is for legalism that focuses on the rules of their oral Law rather than the intent.

And even the criticism of being in seats of honor has that disagreement behind it. The problem is that people honored them for their holiness, when according to Jesus it reflected their made-up rules, not God’s idea of holiness.

Mat 23:2-3 may have added to the impression of hypocrisy in the modern sense. But the seat of Moses was a seat in ancient synagogues where the Torah was read. So when Jesus says to do what they teach, he means to follow the Torah, not that all of what the Pharisees taught was right. It’s obvious from the rest of the chapter that he didn’t think everything they teach is right.

You're absolutely right, not every Pharisee was a hypocrite. Just as today there's hypocrites and true believers in every crowd.

But Jesus was clearly addressing the hypocrites among Pharisees when He said this:
MAN'S LAWS KILL
1. "Jesus answered, “·How terrible for [ Woe to] you, you experts on the law! You ·make strict rules that are very hard for people to obey [burden people with burdens hard to carry], but you yourselves don’t even ·try to follow those rules [or lift a finger to ease the burden]." - Luke 11:46

2. "By your own ·rules [tradition], which you ·teach people [have handed down], you are ·rejecting [nullifying; canceling] what God said. And you do many things like that." - Mark 7:13

GOD'S LAWS GIVE LIFE
3. "Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures, ‘A person lives not on bread alone, but by ·everything God says [every word that comes out of God’s mouth; Deut. 8:3].’ " - Matthew 4:4

4. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will ·make [set] you free." - John 8:32

I don't see the need to reject the literal interpretation.

1. Scripture interpreting scripture, and 2. Taking scripture in context, 3. with lots of prayer and reflection can usually open me up to 4. God helping me to see how the literal interpretation is valid.

Otherwise, where's our plumb line?

How can we measure the accuracy of anything if it's all subjective, or relative, or shifting sand?

 

[hedrick]

Literal interpretation can't work, and no one does it. It can't work because the Bible comes from an ancient culture that is very different than ours. Some examples, some of which have actually been interpreted literally and some of which haven't been:

* Slavery. Mandated in the OT in some places, Paul gives instructions for both masters and slaves; Paul returned an escaped slave. Was understood as Biblically supported in the US South. The argument I currently here is roughly this: Paul wasn’t thinking about whether slavery was wise or not, but simply telling people how to live within their current culture.

* Heliocentric model. Passages in the Bible referring to the sun rising and setting, etc, was understood as describing a geocentric model. This was an issue in the 16th Cent, in which Galileo became involved. Calvin advocated a concept of “accommodation,” that God spoke through Scripture using terms that people would understand, and that he did not intend to teach astronomy.

* Taking interest on loans. Prohibited by passages such as Ex 22:24, Lev 25:36. Was understood as prohibiting interest through most of Christian history. It doesn’t appear that there has been a formal change in Catholic practice, although enforcement has died out. Of course this was OT law, and thus not necessarily applicable to Christians. But still, for most of Christian history, it was applied to Christians. What changed? In the OT it was intended to prohibit taking advantage of the poor. But today, if properly managed, interest allows poor people to do things like buy houses that otherwise would be reserved to the more well off. Abuse is still possible, but at least in principle, it is no longer seen as necessarily bad.

* Use of anesthetics in childbirth. There was apparently some concern about the religious implications, but as far as I can tell few actually objected. (There have been non-Christian claims of serious opposition, but the evidence seems not to support it.) So why do we undo what God did in Gen 3:16? I would argue that this passage was descriptive. That is, sin deranged the universe; this was one of its effects. There’s no reason Christians shouldn’t try to minimize the impact of sin.

* IRS employees. The standard Gospel reference to evildoers was “sinners and tax collectors.” See e.g. Mat 18:17. I’m not aware of anyone applying this condemnations to employees of the IRS. Why not? Since hasn’t been claimed, I’m not aware of anyone having justified accepting IRS employees in church. But I would argue that the reason is that although both 1st and 21st Cent tax collectors had the same formal job, in the 1st Cent the taxes were going to a State that Jesus’ hearers would have considered a conqueror, and tax collectors were set up in such a way that they typically cheated people. Hopefully in a democracy, we see tax collectors as helping us support the common good.

* Killing witches. This occurred throughout history, up through early American history, often citing Ex 22:18. What changed? Again, this is an OT law. But is was certainly seen as relevant through most of Christian history. My sense is that what changed is that we stopped believing in witchcraft. I think if someone was actually murdering people supernaturally, we would want to consider this a capital crime. Though probably it would be best simply to prosecute it as murder.

* Women’s hats. When I was growing up, women were always required to wear hats in Church, based on 1 Cor 11:5. What changed? Again, I don’t think there was much formal argument. But hats came to be seen as obstructive and ostentatious. I think in effect we accepted that the symbolic role Paul gave to them no longer applied in our culture. However if you continue reading through 11:15, it is also possible that Paul wasn’t thinking of a hat in the first place, but may possibly have been referring to the woman’s hair as the covering of her head. (Commentators are divided, but the most common view is that he meant something like a hat.)

There are other examples, but some of them remain controversial. The point, however, is that there are places where everyone agrees that a “literal” reading is not appropriate. What are the grounds:
* differences in cultural context: tax collectors, hats, loans
* changes in belief about the world: witches, heliocentricity
* places where Scripture wasn’t answering the question we’re asking: slavery, heliocentricity, anesthesia

So simply using literal interpretation can't be your only guideline. One of the first things I look at is what was actually being taught. In the case of homosexuality, none of the passages in Paul were teaching anything about homosexuality. Rom 1 was about the impact of idolatry, and referred to licentious pagans, who had gotten tired of sex with the opposite gender and turned to their own gender. Nothing to do with Christian gays who want to live in a marriage that reflects Christian ideals. 1 Cor 6:9 uses words that may refer to homosexuality in a list whose purpose is to point to the need for moral change. In neither passage does Paul give any of his usual signs that he got a teaching from Christ or from God about homosexuality, because the passages were about other things.

My first rule is that when a passage isn't about a topic but simply reflects the common view of the culture, there's no reason to take that as a teaching about the topic. Hence passages that reflect a flat earth or anything else don't bother me, because those are just incidental to the purpose of the passage.