But in this case...

it's not merely "centuries of misinterpretation," it's almost two millenia. A ten minute search revealed that the traditional interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 appears in the writings of St. Hippolytus (martyred in 235 A.D.). I'm sure that such examples can be multiplied. I am of the opinion that such an ancient and widely accepted interpretation of Scripture demands more than a cursory dismissal of being a "misinterpretation." If we accept the modernist revisionism as being the one true interpretation of these texts, how do we explain the rise of the misinterpretation in the first place? If it was not Paul's intent to condemn homosexual activity, why did he allow that misinterpretation to take root? And if Paul instructed Timothy to "give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine" (1 Tim 4:13) would not Timothy have done the same to those he was teaching? In the first four centuries, they took doctrine very seriously. Any innovation in doctrine or interpretation spawned decades, if not centuries, of theological debate. Where is the historical debate over the interpretation of these verses? If anyone has a lot of time on your hands, please look into this. And please provide documentary evidence to show that Perry's interpretation existed in the first millenium. Otherwise, I'll save you some trouble and tell you -- the historical debate over the interpretation of these verses took place in the 20th century. A quick response to Perry's points: 1. Of course God loves gays and lesbians, just as He loves everyone else. Loves all of us so much, in fact, that He went to the Cross. 2. "The Church" has never universally embraced racism, slavery, or oppression of women. Certain Christian denominations have, but that's not quite the same thing. 3. What led him to this research, if not the conviction that the Bible as traditionally interpreted was wrong? While the acknowledgement that it's easy for people to read their prejudices and biases into God's Word is an important one to make, he really doesn't demonstrate that he's avoided that pitfall himself. Other people have done research "based on the latest scholarship, the cultural context of biblical days, and the leading of God’s Spirit" and come to the opposite conclusions. It's very easy to say "Past church leaders had read their own biases into the verses" when you disagree with them. It's rather more difficult to demonstrate that you yourself have not done the same thing. And finally, does he really believe that they "have forever changed the face of Christianity"? Perhaps amongst liberal theologians in the English-speaking world, but that is such an insignificant proportion of Christians alive today that his statement borders on the ludicrous. Try running his ideas past the underground church in China, or the Copts, or the faithful who outlasted Communism in Eastern Europe. Dirk