I’m going to go off on a religious tangent.

If I were asked to give a book report, and I gave my teacher the second sentence of the fourth paragraph in chapter 12 and my interpretation of it, I’d receive an F. If that sentence happens to be, “Jane sat down,” then I must know why she sat down, what she was doing before she sat down, what happened afterward, what she sat on, how she sat, and what was doing while sitting. While I’m at it, it might be helpful to know who Jane is.

Now, let’s take that standard and apply it to the Bible or any other holy text. For some reason, those same standards don’t seem to apply for some Christians when they interpret the Bible. How can you base your entire interpretation of the book based on a few verses scattered here and there? How can you not try to understand the context in which that sentence was written and the history behind it, especially when you believe that so much (like your immortal soul) is at stake?

For example, you have this guy, who wrote in to the Mobile Press-Register. Pay attention to why he believes women should not teach in the church:

The Apostle Paul, who claimed to speak by revelation from heaven, was clear when he wrote in I Timothy 2:12, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Jesus further reminds us that if we truly love him, we will follow his commands (John 14:15).

Now let’s look a little further into the situation. I Timothy was written by Paul. It is strange that he would write such a thing when Paul himself worked with women teachers. Pricilla (who taught the great teacher Apollos, Acts 18:24-26) was a co-worker. Paul also frequently mentioned other women leaders like Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Euodia, Syntyche, and Persis. In I Corinthians 11:5, Paul makes mention that it is not unusual for Corinthian women to prophesy, or preach, as he instructs them to wear head coverings while doing so (for cultural reasons).

So why would Paul write such a thing? A brief history lesson is required. Christian women were highly liberated in comparison to their secular counterparts, particularly throughout Rome. It was not unusual for them to flaunt it, and it caused bickering and offense among the secular citizens when they violated custom. It’s hard to share your beliefs with someone when you’re insulting them, so Paul instructed the Corinthian women to heed the cultural rules and avoid unnecessary conflict over something that didn’t matter. (He also told them to quit speaking out and asking questions during sermons. Rather, they were instructed to save their questions for later.) Many people forget that Paul’s letters were specific suggestions for specific churches. It doesn’t mean that the advice is useless to anyone else, but it also means that it’s not generic advice for every church everywhere. What’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander. In the case of I Timothy, Paul was referring to the Ephesian women. These women were not as schooled in scripture as their male counterparts (II Timothy 3:1-9). Many of them couldn’t even read. For that reason, they were highly susceptible to “false teachings.” That’s why Paul suggested that they not teach. Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone into a leadership position unless they were mature in their faith (3:6, 5:22).

So you can justify sexual discrimination when you look at a single verse, perhaps. But when you read the whole chapter, you see an entirely different meaning. Just imagine what you’ll learn if you read the whole book. By the way, I’d like to see the writer of that letter explain Deborah’s role as a judge of Israel who was appointed by Samuel under the instruction of God.

Now, let’s address his concern over ordaining gay priests:

A man in an active homosexual or out-of-marriage heterosexual relationship cannot be a minister, because he is living in sin and that would mock God’s commands.

You have got to be kidding me. The bible clearly defines impure thoughts, lies, adultery, divorce, malice, gluttony, greed, and about a gazillion other things as sins. I can’t find one verse, however, that says that homosexuality is a bigger no-no than malice or greed or anything else, for that matter. Instead, all sins seem to fall on equal ground. So, according to this writer’s definition, no person who is “living in sin” may become a priest. He’s going to have a hard time finding a church leader, because according to Romans 3:23: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Think homosexuality is different because it’s a “lifestyle choice”? Is it not also a “lifestyle choice” to routinely discriminate against homosexuals and to judge them, a direct violation of Christ’s command, not Paul’s? As a matter of fact, nobody twists our arms and forces us to sin. Nearly everything in life is a choice, and as the letter-writer points out, Jesus had a standard that extends beyond actions to our very thoughts. If you think about sinning, you’ve pretty much done it already. Big standards. Thank God for grace and mercy. (Those would be the things that God says we are given by Him and are supposed to give to others.)

So now for my book report on the Lord of the Rings trilogy: There was a hobbit. If that didn’t sound like a fair assessment of the story, then perhaps I should look beyond the first sentence I happen to like. I’d appreciate it if my fellow Christians would bother to do the same.