Martin Luther thought anyone could read the Bible, interpret it, and understand it teachings. But there’s a YouTube video that proves him wrong.
Kristin Saylor and Jim O’Hanlon are the presenters in the subject video. Saylor is a female Episcopalian ‘priest’ and O’Hanlon is an Evangelical Lutheran Church Pastor. They’ve disproven Luther’s thesis because they clearly do not understand what the Bible teaches in regard to homosexuality.
Before going any further let me make this clear. This is not a personal attack against Saylor and O’Hanlon. They are most likely very nice, kind, caring human beings. But their interpretation of what Scripture says about homosexuality is anything but orthodox. And this is a problem because both are leaders of congregations that profess to believe in God’s truths. What’s more, they may be leading many others astray with their heterodox interpretations.
In 2015 Saylor and O’Hanlon made a “TEDx Talk” entitled “What the Bible says about homosexuality.” To date the video has over 2.4 million views and over 20,000 comments. And even though the talk is eight years old, quite a few of the comments are very recent. So it is still being viewed.
According to these two individuals, the Bible does not say sexual relations between two men or two women is sinful. The explanations and interpretations of Bible verses they offer to prove their contention are, however, incorrect and irrational. To put it politely, their interpretation of Scripture is way out there.
TED Talks
If you are not familiar with “TED Talks,” they are the brainchild of Richard Saul Wurman. (If you are familiar with TED Talks and TEDx Talks, feel free to jump to the next subhead.)
According to Business Insider,
“When designer and architect Richard Saul Wurman launched TED in 1984, he called it the dinner party he always wanted to have but couldn’t. Wurman united technology, entertainment, and design into one multiday event. He called it “TED.” (Wurman is a fan of cheeky acronyms.)
“Wurman sold the enterprise, in 2000, to Future PLC, a publishing company that [Chris] Anderson had built into a media giant in the 1990s. Through his personal nonprofit, the Sapling Foundation, Anderson bought TED from Future PLC in 2001 for $6 million. The company has stayed under Anderson’s watch since.”
According to the Ted Talks website, “Scientists, researchers, technologists, business leaders, artists, designers and other world experts take the TED stage to present “Ideas Worth Spreading”: valuable new knowledge and innovative research in their fields. These TED talks are filmed at our flagship TED conferences, independent TEDx events, partner events and salons held in our NYC World Theater.”
Ted Talks and Tedx Talks are slightly different. According to the Ted website,
“TEDx brings the spirit of TED to local communities around the globe through TEDx events. These events are organized by passionate individuals who seek to uncover new ideas and to share the latest research in their local areas that spark conversations in their communities. TEDx events include live speakers and recorded TED Talks, and are organized independently under a free license granted by TED. These events are not controlled by TED, but event organizers agree to abide by our format, and are offered guidelines for curation, speaker coaching, event organizing and more.”
Saylor and O’Hanlon’s TEDx Talk
Saylor and O’Hanlon start their talk with a somewhat silly skit before getting to the crux of their pitch.
“The Bible does not have one definition of marriage. It doesn’t have one model of marriage. There is no consistent ethic of sexuality going throughout the Bible,” says O’Hanlon.
So right here one has to seriously question O’Hanlon’s knowledge of Scripture.
They then launch in to a deconstruction of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-33 and 19:1-29). They retell it in an attempt to make it not say what it says.
Saylor starts this off saying, “. . . in reality if you take the Bible as a whole, and look at percentage-wise, how much of the content is devoted to the issue of homosexuality, it is less than one percent. Statistically speaking, it is just not a priority for the Bible.”
But since there are 783,137 words in the Bible, that one percent comes to about 7,831 words. That’s actually quite a few words – about five times the length of this article.
Then Saylor says, “One of the most famous examples of these texts is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which some of you might be familiar with. It’s a story that has become famous because of anti-sodomy laws that exist in some places still today, and this concept of sodomy that is derived from this Bible story.”
So according to Saylor the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is famous because of anti-sodomy laws. In other words, God’s truths take a back seat to man-made laws.
Sodomy
She then says, “And sodomy is a word that we throw around a lot, without necessarily understanding what it means. We might have an idea that it refers to gay sex, that it’s somehow bad, when in reality it has a very specific definition, and it is any sexual act that is not procreative.”
But even the often liberal Wikipedia does not agree with Saylor here. Wikipedia says, “Originally, the term sodomy, which is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis, was commonly restricted to anal sex.”
So Saylor is trying to redefine sodomy to make it mean what she wants it to mean.
At the 6:38 mark Saylor says “So what does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually say?”
Saylor says the story is about two travelers who couldn’t find a place to stay in Sodom. Lot takes pity on them and invites them to stay in his house. Then the town mob banged on Lot’s door. They demanded that he bring his guests out that they might “know” them.
She then explains that “know” in this context means “Let us know them intimately, sexually, and in this case violently. We’re talking in this case about gang rape.”
She says “the story ends when God gets angry at the whole situation and destroys the whole city for their sins.”
O’Hanlon’s Interpretation
At this point O’Hanlon jumps back in and says, “So what does the story say? And what does the story not say? The story describes an entire city that converges upon one house for the purpose of raping these two people. Does that mean this is a story about two adults who want to have a consenting relationship, who want to publicly affirm a monogamous relationship and their commitment to each other?”
Ezekiel 16:49-50 is shown on a screen and O’Hanlon ignores the “committed abominations” in verse 50. He concentrates on verse 49 instead. Essentially, the folks in Sodom were bad because they did not give help to the poor and needy.
He says “So when the Bible talks about what was the sin of Sodom, you can look throughout the Bible, over hundreds of centuries, it keeps referring back to Sodom, and how bad Sodom was and how wicked Sodom was. But what is it specifically that the Bible is talking about? Is it talking about same-sex partners, or is it talking about violence and violating people sexually?
“So it seems that this thing has become something that’s used to target a minority group, to say that this minority should be shunned and they should be punished, when it’s talking about how the people who are weakest among us, the people who need us the most, the most vulnerable people among us, are people that we need to be thinking about.”
As such, it appears that O’Hanlon thinks the sin of Sodom was that the people there were inhospitable and prone to violence. The residents didn’t help the needy and they intended to gang rape two vulnerable visitors. So sodomy is okay but gang rape is not.
Wrapping Up
It would take a 5,000 word article to go properly parse Saylor and O’Hanlon’s statements. Suffice it to say that logic is not a key component of the video.
First they say we should not read the Bible literally. Then later they say it should be read literally. They also say it should be read in context, but then they say it should be read in the context they propose.
Of course they do not bother mentioning any verses that contradict their interpretations of Scripture. They assiduously avoid Leviticus 18: 22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, just to name a few.
Near the end of the talk Saylor even tries to say transgenderism is okay. She says this is because “in Christ there’s neither male nor female.”
O’Hanlon wraps up the talk asking why we are still reading the Bible when civilization has progressed so much. “The reason is,” he says, “because people still continue to base their values and morality on these old scriptures” [ital. added for emphasis].
So apparently “these old scriptures” are just that – a collection of “old stories.” They are really not all that relevant today. Hard to believe two Christians would infer that the Bible – the Word of God – is out of date.
Throughout the 18-minute video only a few accurate statements are made. One of these comes at the very end. O’Hanlon says: “And that’s why we stand here today saying we believe that being gay is not a sin.”
At least they got that right. Being homosexual is not a sin. Acting on homosexual impulses is the sin.
16 thoughts on “Re-Interpreting the Bible to Make Homosexuality Okay”
Very well written.
Shame most of the comments don’t seem to understand the article. Your points are very sound with excellent sources, and arguments well formulated. Don’t ever let it be said that logic can’t be found in the bible or those that “actually follow Christ’s teachings.”
Many people now a-days treat and talk about homosexuality like it’s something you are born with, or that it can’t be helped, and many arguments are made poorly attempting or citing this, or that, and the other (doesn’t even matter)- all of which stems from first world countries (and few countries at that). Yet, when you look at the literal thousands of tribes throughout the world from African, South American, to Australian, you don’t see any homosexual tribal leaders, people, or children, and if do, usually it’s tribes that have sampled, integrated or have become codependent on the advanced nature of a near by city… Cell phones, modern made clothing here and there, various sciences.
Most of the world’s population (70%ish) still understands the value in understanding ones nature (You know, like the human Genome) versus nurture (that influencing factor). Articles like this, that point out thousands of years worth of wisdom (and very correctly I might add) are often a horrible and painful reminder of the truth. Man and Woman = Life, to pervert this is to pervert ourselves, and that is NOT evolution.
What’s always annoying to say the least is how homosexuals demand support for their “anything goes” mentality YET others must use self-control and restraint to curb their impulses whatever those may be.
If a man is married but has an inclination to seek out other women and commit adultery, that man MUST use self-control, avoid near occasions of sin and so forth….just like a gambler, alcoholic, drug user, porn addicted person, etc, etc……we all have our ‘demons’ and impulse control issues which we must face so WHY do these false pastors and hypocrites think they (or their followers) don’t have to bear their own crosses too?
Just saying….I think we need to start framing the conversation in this direction to ensure people understand this issue of self-control and holiness and so on is NOT about being directed at ONLY GAY & LESBIAN lifestyles (i.e. practicing homosexuals). It’s about sinful human beings dealing with our own sinful ways accordingly and homosexuality in practice is IMMORAL and SINFUL just like the other things I mentioned above plus many more…this focus on gay sex dilutes the overall message in my opinion and allows this alphabet soup lobby to focus only on their issues instead of dealing with the difficult issue of SIN.
Great article!
No, gay-acceptance is not Biblical, but there are some things that are Biblical that neither Gene nor any readers here would touch.
Gay exclusion is not acceptable to core humanist values upon which all religion is based and written words were written by humans which are often corrupted by political influence, if it does passed the do unto others test the doctrine is false and not God given. Simple test solves all questions of Biblical legitimacy as well as that of the Qoran and Torah.
Intellectualist: Not sure how you came to that conclusion but Catholicism is NOT based on humanist values. Humanism puts the emphasis on all things human as opposed to placing the emphasis where it belongs – on God and His teachings. Catholicism is based on God’s truths and His teachings.
“Doesn’t “ pass…,
Care to elaborate?
I think you know what I mean. You treat the Old Testament as authoritative as to various “abominations” but you and I and everyone else run away from a lot of the other rules. It’s a cafeteria to us.
No, I do not know what you mean. I try to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church (God’s teachings). You may view these teachings as a cafeteria but I do not.
In that case, Gene, it’s not you but it’s the Catholic Church itself, picking through Old Testament precepts, deciding which to put on their plate and which to leave alone.
The Catholic Church, which compiled the Bible, was given the authority to interpret the Word of God by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 18:18, John 20:22-23, and Luke 10:16).
These two “pastors” are not alone. There are many other “interpreters” of the Bible out there, seemingly justified in their thinking, yet in majorly serious error. And worse yet, so many thousands of their followers are being led astray. Final judgement will not be pretty.
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION – Big Pulpit
Suppression of homosexuality causes violence. Acts not for the purpose of reproduction are the sins because one they have health issues like the transmission of std’s and two because you may unintentionally create a child that is unwanted. Transgender issues are both biological and psychological and how a brain develops in physical proportions cannot be changed in an adult. You cannot discriminate against someone for being different in their brain development nor in psychology when there is no cure. Attempts to psychologically “cure” gays are suppressing it. We must accept that this is wrong. We must allow people to be happy psychologically so the anger and violence ends. This means accepting everyone . As they are . It means gender affirming care is necessary to help people. No benevolent deity would cast out those who are different. It’s just a basic premise of first do no harm. It’s consistent with do unto others. People with gender identity insecurity should get help expressing it safely. Those who don’t are subject to expressions of violence and high rates of suicide. God doesn’t say suicide or mass murder or violent rape are good things. Early childhood trauma like violent sexual abuse causes psychological damage that can cause gender identity insecurity which if not addressed may emerge later in life as anger and violence. That anger and violence then gets inflicted upon others doing them damage especially in children who suffer permanently and are subject to inflicting it on their children. Repeating the cycle for generations.
I disagree with much of what you opine. The statistics simply do not back up much of what you say. But the bottom line here is that accepting people as they are means condoning their behaviors. Immoral behavior should never be condoned.