Examples of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture are legion. They abound in both the ancient and and modern Church, and are committed by both those from conservative (traditionalist) and liberal (progressive) perspectives. Some of these errors are fairly benign and others are highly injurious to the health of the Church.
In news stories relating to the Vatican's recent publication of,
"Male And Female He Created Them", the most commonly cited critic of the Catholic Church's defense of traditional/biblical definitions of human anthropology (gender, marriage, sexuality, etc.) is
New Ways Ministry, a group that advocates for LGBTQ Catholics. While examining their website (something I often do when pondering stories in the news, i.e. go to the source), I discovered a section entitled,
Journeys: A Scriptural Reflection series for LGBT People and Allies. Curious, I read through the reflection questions written for the respective Scriptural passages. One such in particular caught my eye: The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11. This passage is a well known episode in John's Gospel, one that for centuries has highlighted both Jesus's humanity, in weeping at the grief of death affecting himself and his friends, and Jesus' divinity, as he overcomes the power of death with a word. This passage is an amazing precursor to Jesus' own impending victory over sin and death, as well as a further affirmation of the legitimacy of his claim to be the Son of God. The potential applications of such a passage highlighting both Jesus' compassion and his unique authority/power are many and reasonably diverse, but is there not a limit to how far afield from the original context and purpose a passage of Scripture ought to be taken?
I am well aware than in many modern literary circles that authorial intent is no longer considered to hold much, if any, value {See:
Reader-Response Theory}. The intentions of the author have been replaced with the experiences of the audience. "What is the author trying to say?" has been swapped out for, "What does it mean to me?" Setting that issue aside as it relates to literature in general, we cannot treat Scripture in the same way, as if
we are the most important factor in its interpretation/application, for an extremely simple and important reason: It is
God's Word. Behind the examination of human authorial intent, and real and important questions surrounding the Biblical authors, lies the fundamental doctrine of inspiration. It has been an accepted and celebrated doctrine of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that the sacred texts upon which our religions are founded are more than the writings of mere men. And while it is true that Islam views the Qur'an as eternal and not the product of Muhammad, and that both Judaism and Christianity affirm the role of real human beings whose viewpoints, experiences, and syntax were utilized by
God who spoke through them, all three religions depend upon the article of faith that the Word of God was the end result. {Recognizing, of course, that while all three can be correct about the divine origin of the Hebrew Scriptures, only one can be correct about the New Testament or the Qur'an}.
Given this emphasis on the human/divine nature of the Scriptures, it is neither respectful to its author, nor helpful to those who would use it as a guide of faith, to treat the Bible as something which can be bent and twisted to fit whichever notion the reader would like it to say. I know full well that this happens all the time, and am under no illusion that conservatives/traditionalists do this any less than liberals/progressives, but since the criticism of the message from the Vatican concerning the original intent of Scripture regarding human anthropology has been both loud and vehement, the illustration from New Ways Ministry's utilization of the story of Lazarus is a fitting point of comparison.
When Jesus spoke to Lazarus {whether in Aramaic or Greek we cannot be certain, John records it in Koine Greek}, telling him to "come out" (deuro exo), it is a certainty far beyond a reasonable doubt that neither the Apostle John nor his original audience had any inkling that Lazarus "coming out" of the tomb had anything to do, whatsoever, even metaphorically, with anyone revealing a hidden secret to their friends and family; let alone that this phrase would have a meaning in English (a language more than 1,000 years from existing at that point) to generations 2,000 years later about non-traditional sexuality. Jesus was not speaking about what we hide from other people, John was not writing in any way about sexuality, and making this passage a metaphor for that issue is a massive disservice to the intent of both Jesus, who spoke the words, and John who recorded them.
As New Ways Ministry writes,
In the raising of Lazarus, the Gospel of John exemplifies the decisive power of Jesus over humanity’s last and most dictating enemy – death.
For the LGBTQ community, this resurrection story may well come to symbolize God’s promise of life to those excluded, marginalized or emotionally imprisoned. “Lazarus, come out!” commands Jesus in a loud voice, and to the people around, Jesus further directs, “Unbind him, and let him go!”
People can, and will, utilize Scripture for their own purposes, but to say that the story of Lazarus, "may well come to symbolize" a vindication of "coming out of the closet", is stretching the Gospel of John far beyond the breaking point. If the story of Lazarus can "come to symbolize" this, it can symbolize anything. If Scripture can stand for anything, it stands for nothing.
If the LGBTQ community wants to debate the proper translation into English of the Greek phrase,
malakoi oute arsenokoitai used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and the similar wording in 1 Timothy 1:10), that's a debate that (at least in theory) respects the Word of God. If they want to make the argument from silence that Jesus didn't specifically call out non-traditional sexual expressions when he very much emphasized the permanent nature of marriage while he rejected divorce (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12), that's another approach that at least treats what is written as key to the conversation. And if they want to argue that the Mosaic Law's prohibitions against unions other than marital male-female are akin to the Mosaic Law's Sabbath and Kosher rules and thus no longer valid in the Church Age, while I will disagree and offer a New Testament based counter-argument, I can at least respect the effort to work within the framework of the Scriptures.
If the Bible can mean anything, even opposite things, based upon its audience, then it loses its value as a bedrock upon which to build individual relationships with God, church communities, and society as a whole. We cannot afford to jettison the guardrails of authorial intent (along with original audience understanding when that can be determined), no matter which individual or group would like to do so, no matter what motive lies behind the effort, and no matter whether we agree with the causes attempting to make the Scriptures their own, or oppose them.
