I have read something by a clergyman who has interpreted the Biblical texts relating to homosexuality in a way that makes them appear not to be condemning that behavior at all. How can this be?
The implication is usually was that once texts are were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists have prevailed, and the door is open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of such people don’t need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful. This is how it works. The clergyman reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but nave attempt to rebut him, nave because these theologians presume that the clergyman believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. The clergyman ignores the arguments of his critics, dismi
