{"id":1253,"date":"2026-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-25T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qtacademy.com\/qab-ep05-faith-and-sexuality-en\/"},"modified":"2026-09-28T14:54:06","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T14:54:06","slug":"qab-ep05-faith-and-sexuality-en","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qtacademy.com\/en\/qab-ep05-faith-and-sexuality-en\/","title":{"rendered":"EP05 Stop Asking What the Bible Says: You Might Be Asking the Wrong Questions About Faith and Sexuality"},"content":{"rendered":"

Stop Asking What the Bible Says: You Might Be Asking the Wrong Questions About Faith and Sexuality<\/h1>\n

Youtube<\/a><\/h2>\n

Introduction: A Stalemated Debate<\/h2>\n
\n

\u201cIn many areas of Christian faith and practice, consensus has collapsed and is fiercely contested. The disagreement over the relevance of the Bible for understanding human sexuality is unprecedentedly vast.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Stephen C. Barton<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This quote from British theologian Stephen C. Barton accurately depicts the predicament of the contemporary church when facing the issue of \u201csex.\u201d When we touch upon human sexuality, the Bible seems to transform from a book of good news into a battlefield of endless quarrels. We brandish different scriptures, debating the original translations and historical contexts, trying to prove that our own position is the one that is \u201cbiblical.\u201d<\/p>\n

Within Christian communities, discussions about the Bible and human sexuality often devolve into a frustrating and seemingly endless debate. Many firmly believe the Bible is the authoritative guide on how to practice sexuality and love in our families, churches, and society. Many others believe the Bible is outdated, its teachings neither credible nor helpful. And some are caught in the middle, feeling a loyalty to the Bible on one hand, while on the other, deeply convinced that its literal meaning can no longer be applied to contemporary life.<\/p>\n

The core of these disagreements often lies in the method of interpretation. We constantly ask: What is the purpose of the Bible? What is the meaning of the Bible? Is the Bible true? But what if the root of the problem is not the Bible itself, but the way we ask the questions? What if a slight shift in our starting point could open a window in this stalemate and find a more life-giving, nourishing path for dialogue?<\/p>\n

\n

1. We\u2019ve Been Asking the Wrong Questions: The Focus is Not on the Bible, but on the Reader<\/h3>\n

When confronting the controversies surrounding \u201csex,\u201d we often put the Bible on the \u201cdefendant\u2019s stand,\u201d questioning and cross-examining it like lawyers, trying to defend it or, conversely, to prosecute it. We ask: \u201cIs the Bible good news for homosexuals?\u201d \u201cDoes the Bible support or oppose transgender people?\u201d\u2026 We expect it to give a black-and-white, standard answer applicable to everyone in the 21st century.<\/p>\n

However, this path seems to lead only to more division and harm. Theologian Stephen C. Barton proposes a revolutionary turn, a subversive proposal:\u00a0\u201cLet us stop putting the Bible in the dock and instead put the reader\u2014that is, ourselves\u2014there.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0He suggests we should instead ask a completely different question:\u00a0\u201cWhat kind of people should we become to be able to read the Bible in a way that brings life in the realm of gender and sexuality?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This shift seems minor, but it is extremely powerful. It moves our focus from \u201cjudging whether the biblical text is adequate\u201d to \u201creflecting on whether we ourselves\u2014the readers\u2014are prepared to receive it.\u201d This is no longer a litigation about the text, but an invitation to a life of transformation. The core of the problem is no longer whether the Bible provides the right answers, but whether our lives are ready to \u201cperform\u201d it in a way that brings life and transformation. This means that\u00a0the question we ask is no longer \u201cWhat does the Bible say?\u201d, but \u201cWho are we? What kind of people must we become to read the Bible in a life-giving way?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. \u201cReturning to the Bible\u201d Directly is a Trap<\/h3>\n

When facing controversy, a common reaction for both conservatives and liberals is to \u201creturn to the Bible,\u201d attempting to \u201cread\u201d the answers directly from the relevant texts. This approach assumes that once the correct text is found, a foundation for interpretation can be laid, and then application can proceed. However, this seemingly obvious step hides a trap.<\/p>\n

Theologian Nicholas Lash uses a vivid \u201crelay race\u201d metaphor to reveal the fallacy of this thinking. The scene Lash depicts is filled with frustration: New Testament scholars seem to be \u201cmarching in place,\u201d never able to hand over the baton called \u201coriginal meaning,\u201d leaving the systematic theologians waiting anxiously at the finish line in great annoyance.<\/p>\n

\n

When the New Testament scholar has completed his work and produced his complete package of \u201coriginal meaning,\u201d he hands it over to the systematic theologian, whose responsibility it is to translate the received meaning into a form intelligible in our contemporary cultural conditions\u2026. The New Testament scholar seems to be \u201cmarching in place\u201d; he never reaches the point where he can pass the baton.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This metaphor challenges our naive idea of \u201cjust see what the Bible says.\u201d It reminds us that interpretation is not a linear, objective process of information transfer. If searching directly for the \u201coriginal meaning\u201d keeps us marching in place, then we need a new perspective on the nature of the Bible. This leads us to the next question: What is the Bible, really?<\/p>\n

3. The Bible is Not a Rulebook, but a Musical Score<\/h3>\n

How should we view the Bible? A flawed model is to see the Bible as a \u201cmineable resource\u201d from which people dig for \u201cproof texts\u201d or historical facts to support their views. In this model, both the literal application of conservatives and the historical research of liberals are just forms of excavation and analysis.<\/p>\n

Barton proposes another, more vibrant model:\u00a0The Bible is more like a Shakespearean play script or a Beethoven symphony score.<\/strong>\u00a0The core of this metaphor is that the true meaning of the script or score does not exist on the pages themselves, but in being \u201ccorporately enacted and practically performed\u201d by a community. Each performance generates a unique meaning depending on the characteristics of the performers and the context of the performance.<\/p>\n

This view completely changes how we read the Bible. Reading is no longer a private academic activity for a scholar in their study or a believer\u2019s \u201cquiet time,\u201d but it brings Bible reading back into the process of community formation, celebration, and mission. The truth of the Bible is \u201cplayed out\u201d in the life practices of the community, a process that is vibrant, transformative, and life-giving.<\/p>\n

4. Buffet-Style Cherry-Picking Robs the Bible of Its Meaning<\/h3>\n

In the debate about gender and sexuality, an extremely common yet dangerous practice can be called\u00a0\u201cbuffet-style Bible reading.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0This method refers to people treating the Bible like a lavish buffet, picking only the \u201cdishes\u201d that suit their taste (e.g., Galatians 3:28, \u201cneither male nor female\u201d), and then debating fiercely around these \u201cselected dishes,\u201d while completely ignoring other more complex and even unpalatable \u201cdishes\u201d (i.e., the whole message of the Bible). This practice has at least three major harms:<\/p>\n