This is one of my least favorite topics to write on. It is not out of embarrassment or discomfort mind you, but it is because it has been so over emphasized and caused such acrimony that nearly anything said about it is going to be taken out of context by whomever reads it and twisted to suit their own preconceived notions rather than read as one way to interpret the scriptures and live faithfully. That leads me to the first part of the groundwork.

What I will write about is not only what I believe the scriptures say on the matter, but also how I arrived at that conclusion. The journey matters just as much as the destination after all. In matters of exegesis, knowing the method matters a great deal. With scripture in general, and with this subject in particular, there has been far to much surface level theology than actual critical examination. Far to much “the Bible clearly states…” and far to much “God is doing a new thing…” with no supporting critique. It is not only unhelpful, it eliminates any critical discussion on the subject matter and reduces everything to angry slogan slinging back and forth that results in nearly anything but an actual search for truth and faithful and holy living. I will strive to not slip into that trap.

To start, I will be writing quite a bit about the holiness code, sometimes called the purity code, which is found in Leviticus chapters 17-27. I know that most people find Leviticus to be extremely boring, and often not relevant any longer, but it is actually essential to proper scriptural understanding of many things, including sexual ethics. While many people find Leviticus boring at best, and disturbing at worst, but, on a personal note, it is the first part of scripture that I found Jesus in and that made Him real to me, so I admittedly have a fondness for it.

I will also be referencing the Methodist Articles of Religion, but not in any specific denominational context, but rather in the broader Wesleyan sense as they are what the original Methodist Church in America has used as their guide. Specifically, I will be referencing Article VI:

Article VI — Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

As I said, this is not in any specific denominational context, but rather in the larger Wesleyan context.

Now we come to actual interpretation. One of the things that we must come to grips with is that the scriptures were written in their particular context, but they are interpreted in our context. This is, to a certain degree, unavoidable. The method of interpretation that I use, and found to be the most useful in general, is a variation of a method popularized by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The Plain Meaning

The place that I begin is with what the words on the page, as translated, mean in a literal sense. Some of you may be tempted to stop here either because “the Bible said it” or because you are willing to write me off as a modern day literal translation type, but both are a mistake. Once the meaning has been established, history and culture must then be applied. This is to say, what did this passage mean in the time and place that it was written. Once that is established, the style of writing must be considered. Is it poetry, historic, polemic, etc. In this way, we can come to an understanding of what the passage meant at the time it was written, which is what I am looking for and what I believe is the best way to understand the scriptures.

The Law Of Christ

While scripture does not define the law of Christ, this has long been understood to refer to the moral law of God the existed before creation, that Christ is the supreme example of. Essentially, this is asking the question, how does this fit in with God’s original design and original plan before sin and death entered into the world. This is especially important when trying to discern the meaning of Old Testament passages and how they apply to the New Testament believer.

The Moral Meaning

This is, simply, the moral of the story. Once we have determined the meaning of a text, this is what it looks like put into practice. In some passages, such a Jesus parables, this is easy to see. In others, it is more difficult. John Wesley would call this practical theology and it was vital to his “method” in Methodist.

The Eschatological Meaning

How does the text aid us in looking toward the future hope of the world and ultimately the blessed hope of Christ’s return.

These ways of understanding are not in competition which each other, but rather complimentary to each other. Together, they give a depth to scripture that goes beyond a surface understanding. It also encourages us to use the whole council of scripture rather than taking a verse or two, out of the context of the whole, and basing our understanding upon that. I, like John Wesley, and Martin Luther before him, believe that scripture can be understood by all, but that doesn’t mean it is always simple.

It Isn’t One Thing

When the topic of Christian sexual ethics comes up, seemingly everyone jumps to matters relating to LGBTQ individuals, but that is a mistake. There is a fairly extensive list of forbidden sexual practices that includes, but is not limited to not engaging in intercourse with your mother or close relatives, with in laws, with animals, and so on. when scripture speaks about sexual immorality in general, it is referring to this entire list of forbidden practices, not necessarily one of them in general. So, for example, when we read in scripture about the sexual immorality in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities on the plain, we should not understand that as one particular action, but rather cities that were, among other things, so immoral, that they practiced many of the forbidden sexual practices. In short, there is no “sin of Sodom”, but a whole lot of “sins of Sodom” if you will. Sorry Augustine.

I want to finish up the groundwork by talking briefly about what this is not and will not be. This is the way that I interpret and understand scripture. Yes, I do believe it is the best way, and that is why I use it. It is not the only way, and I am not so arrogant to be unwilling to look at scripture in different ways in an effort to seek truth. No one should be. Many people will use different methodologies and come to the same conclusions I do. Many will come to different conclusions. Yes, I think that I am correct, but I am not so arrogant that I will not listen to other perspectives. No one should be. This is not a polemic against those who have a different understanding that I do, but rather an explanation, in the Wesleyan sense, of what I have found to be true, and how I have gotten there, probably in more detail than anyone will care about if I am being honest. I also hope that this might serve as a guide of a sort as to how understanding scripture often involves more than a surface reading, and often requires a great deal of effort, dedication, and, as always, prayer. I look forward to this going forward and hope that some look forward to it as well.