Once a month, I typically preach twice—in the morning before the congregation, and in the afternoon for [1] Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles. Most of the time, I prepare different things for each, and that was the case today. And because today’s appointed Bible readings from the Common Lectionary were all meaty and substantial, I had a lot of homework to do.

It’s all a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? Different people look at the same Bible and they interpret it differently.

As Christians, we read the words of comfort and encouragement, and interpret them in favor of ourselves. We read the words of warning and judgment, and interpret them as pointing to someone else.

For nearly 35 years we’ve been active in the reconciling work of [2] Lutherans Concerned, and among other things we have said over and over that the “clobber passages” of the Bible are not really talking about gay and lesbian people as understood today. They are talking about inhospitality, cultic prostitution, masculine privilege and idolatry. But straight people—especially straight judgmental people on the religious right look at the same texts and they say, “Aha, it says right here that Adam and Steve are going to hell.”

The translators of the so-called Living Bible looked at Leviticus 18 and 20, and they interpreted the words there to say “homosexuality” is a terrible sin. Look at the liberties they have taken interpreting these passages:

“Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.” (Lev. 18:22)

“The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. they have brought it on themselves.” (Lev. 20:13)

Even knowing full well that the idea and the word “homosexuality” didn’t exist in ancient times, these fast-and-loose interpreters used the word “homosexuality.” They interpret the passage to fit people they don’t like, in our times, and disregard the actual issues and behavior of people in ancient times. Of course, it sells Bibles, and for years this kind of interpretation helped to raised a lot of money for political PACS and ballot measures–more than by ranting about the male cult prostitutes in the ancient Near East.

On the positive side, we interpret the message of acceptance and hope in our own favor. We claim, for example, the grace offered to Gentiles without the sticky commandments and rules of obedience which had been laid upon the Jews. When we give greater weight to the words of Jesus (”You have heard it said, … but I say to you…”), we are interpreting the word of God.

In the First Reading today (Sixth Sunday of Easter), Acts 10:44–48 (New Revised Standard Verison), the “circumcised believers” were astonished that the Gospel was getting results with the Gentiles, and that the Holy Spirit fell upon (was bestowed upon) Gentiles—the despised outsiders and foreigners. In other words, the insiders were astonished that God was showing favor to the outsiders. And the outsiders interpreted the message of the Gospel as belonging to them equally.

To build their case, the apostles looked to the only Bible they had—the Hebrew Scriptures, and they found all sorts of passages, which they interpreted as breaking down the barriers of insider/outsider, chosen/not chosen, righteous/unrighteous peoples, and admitting the Gentiles to God’s grace. But the Jews of the apostles’ generation did not interpret those passages in the same way. And they remained exclusive ever since, strictly defining what it means to be a Jew, or not a Jew.  Not accepting Jesus as Messiah. And not budging on what it means to be in God’s good graces.

In the appointed Gospel, John 15:9–17, Jesus is interpreting the Scripture, too. He is interpreting the Commandments by redefining the Ten as a single commandment — the commandment that we love one another. And he interprets the people of God not as the children of Abraham but as all those who obey this commandment.

The apostle Paul broadened this to mean neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, and not male-and-female (Acts 3:28–29). Paul could interpret things this way because he experienced the ever-widening grace of God to all people. So today we interpret this to mean God inclusive love to all—not gay nor straight, bisexual or transgender, but all human beings. When we interpret Scripture, we claim their promises with authority, knowing that God has given the people of God such authority (Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

If Christians have greatly universalized the passages which tell us that God is love (for example: John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 13:1–13; 1 Thess. 1:4–5; Hebrews 6:10; James 1:5; 1 Peter 4:8; 1 John 3:1–24; 4:7–12, 16–21) we have not universalized passages which seem to judge or condemn. Most if not all of them are highly specific—from God’s judgment of Cain (Genesis 4:10–11) to the judgment of the angel of Thyatria (Revelation 2:18–23).

Legitimate biblical interpretation means knowing when the shoe fits and when it does not. Martin Luther once remarked that the Bible is God’s Word, but in it there are passages where God is not speaking to us, but speaking to someone else. That is probably the best way to be faithful but discerning — to continue to say with the whole church that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when others try to universalize something they think can be used to condemn us, to faithfully and firmly correct their misinterpretation. It may be God’s Word, and it may be true. But not every word is applicable to every human being. When it come to LGBT Christians, this is probably the most important lesson we must learn for ourselves and faithfully explain to others.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles