I have two general subtypes of OCD- scrupulosity and relationships. Both have tragically affected my life in numerous ways, especially contributing to my inability to keep and foster healthy relationships. It’s devastating, and the results have impacted me in heartbreaking ways; it contributed greatly to my deconversion from Christianity, something I held near and dear to my heart since birth. But while I may no longer have faith, I still have my life. And scrupulosity helped me to keep it.

So, what is ‘Scrupulosity?’

You’ve probably heard the word at least once before, but what does it mean? To me, it sounds like a Willy Wonka flavor. Rather, it “manifests as an inordinate concern with having troublesome blasphemous or sacrilegious thoughts, as well as an excessive preoccupation with moral rectitude.”¹ Scrupulosity has also been defined as “an overly obsessive fear of sinning and disappointing God.”² In more simplistic terms, I would define it as the action of one fearing God’s punishments to the extreme that they strive for perfection, even if it drags them down. And I speak from experience on this.

We cannot deny that the Bible fuels scrupulosity. After all, Jesus told his audience, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48, NRSVue). Many of us would be quick to say, “Well, it all depends on what Jesus defined as ‘perfect.’” That is a purely rational way to look at the text, but sadly, pastors do not understand this. And so they teach that we must be perfect; we must never have lustful thoughts, sinful intentions, or swear. We then strive to live up to these standards, as our faith is the core of our identity. And when we do not live up to them, we suffer.

OCD is not just an obsession with having clean hands. It is a disorder that gives people “a greater tendency toward obsessionality, especially religious obsessions and scrupulosity, and more guilt.”³ It is a disorder in which you feel as though you will never be deserving enough of God’s grace and forgiveness, one in which you are always both a sinner and a failure. It is not easy to cope with, especially when your entire life is built on a religious foundation, and religion guides your every decision.

So, how did this awful disorder save anything?

Can anything good come from a disorder in which you understand yourself as undeserving of divine love? In my experience, yes. The same cannot be said for everyone, which I understand and respect, but for me, it saved me. As you know by now, I am no longer religious. The cat who lost his faith in the title—that’s me. But I cannot deny that a life apart from faith has done more good for me and my struggles than I could have ever imagined.

If not for my scrupulosity, I would have never asked the question of suffering. I would not have a bachelor’s in biblical theology, nor would I be working on a master’s in the same field. And, in an alternate universe, I can imagine that I am still a devout Christian, attending church each Sunday and praying throughout the day. But I also know that in such a universe, I would be completely miserable. Each little bad thing I did would remind me that God cannot forgive me because I’d have a rotten heart.

My scrupulosity led me to ask the bigger questions in life. Not only to ask them, but also driving my energy to seek out the answers. As a suicide survivor and recovering alcoholic, I can see that religion played a tremendous role in my crises. I felt that I was undeserving of God’s love, therefore I deserved to die. I was undeserving of eternal life, so I should spend my earthly life drowning my emotions in booze. All of these things, in some sense, stem from bad religious experiences.

Making sense of it all

So, religion nearly killed me. I allowed it to kill me because I saw no other way except to disavow my faith, which my former Christian self would never do. Finally, in my last crisis, the narrative changed. Whereas in previous psychotic episodes, I saw demons, the one I experienced last spring was far different. I saw nothing. But I heard everything. I heard God’s voice commanding me to end my life.

Once I was stable, clearly, I had some questions. Now, I can recognize that I was not hearing the literal voice of God. It was all in my head; I was in psychosis. But that does not change the fact that my mind, haywire, decided to tell the rest of me that God wanted me dead. My psychotic mind placed God in such a high position that if I thought he told me to end it all, I would. That’s a scary thought—but it did cause me to

I should add that it was just prior to ending my medications that I had enough of religion. I could no longer identify as a Christian. At the time, I was working in a church and for a Christian health insurance company; I had just received my Bachelor of Science in theology, and I was about 18 months sober at that point. Sure, I believed God was real, but God was a monster in whom I could not put my faith. Just weeks later, I went to my appointment to have my meds changed.

And just a few months later, I was calling the suicide hotline.

Healing through questioning

I can only imagine what would have happened if I never questioned my faith. Suffering from scrupulosity is brutal, but I see it as beautiful, too. For the overwhelming majority of my life, I feared that I was too much of a sinner ever to enter heaven. Feared to the extent that I would sacrifice my identity to do anything and everything an ancient collection of writings told me to do. Feared that I would never be good enough for a God who is both vengeful and jealous. But that fear no longer guides my life.

The church made me feel as though I could never receive God’s grace. I would have to literally pluck out my eye and cut off my right arm ever to meet God’s expectations. Through therapy, personal growth, and studying, I have turned the scrupulosity that once made me feel so lost and unworthy into strength. I challenged the fundamentalist approach to the Bible that was ingrained in me throughout my life and determined that it would not guide my life any longer.

It was far from an easy process. It took several years of school, two terrible battles with alcoholism, and a psychotic episode that nearly led me to complete suicide, to see the effects religion had on me.

What about dualism?

Dualism is especially prominent in Christian theology. Dualism, in a nutshell, is “either-or;” there is no in between. You either go to heaven or hell. You’re either saved or not. You can only be good or evil. There is no gray; everything, and I mean everything, is black and white. Scrupulosity, in a nutshell, is the overwhelming fear of being such a sinner who is bound for hell and/or God’s wrathful judgement. That fear of failing ignited my quest for answers. Although it has been a long, dark, and lonely road, I am grateful that I turned my crippling fear into motivation.

While dualism may be prevalent in Christian theology, is it the same in biblical theology? It certainly has a place throughout the Bible (especially the apocalyptic literature); however, like most things I discuss here, there is not only one answer. Psalm 37 is an excellent example of this. From a general overview, dualism is prevalent throughout this psalm. But consider the following verses:

“Our steps are made firm by the Lord
    when he delights in our way;
though we stumble, we shall not fall headlong,
    for the Lord holds us by the hand.” (Psalm 37:23-24, NRSVue)

The psalm is supposedly written by King David. We know that David was perhaps the most important king of Israel throughout the Bible, that Jesus himself revered David, and that David exhibited both wisdom and the fear of God. But we also know that David was not perfect. David had issues, such as having Bathsheba’s husband murdered after he committed adultery with her. In Psalms 13 and 22, also allegedly written by David, he expresses doubt God’s use of suffering and his obvious silence and estrangement.

Concluding thoughts

Scrupulosity is a scary thing to deal with. To those of you currently wrestling with it, I genuinely hope that you do not lose your faith. Deconversion is a brutal process, one that I would not wish on my worst enemy. But, it is important to be challenged, and that is my goal here, whether you accept the Bible or not. At the end of the day, we can at least agree that there are valuable lessons for living a good life within it. The lesson for today, we cannot and never will be perfect; and that is okay. It is okay to fall short.

While scrupulosity brutally murdered my faith, it saved my life. I know the same cannot be said for everyone, but it is my hope that wherever your faith currently lies, you find a way to keep both your life and your faith.

1.  Peter Cefalu, “The Doubting Disease: Religious Scrupulosity and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Historical Context” Chicago Review 66, no. 3-4 (2010): 113, https://link-springer-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/content/pdf/10.1007/s10912-010-9107-3.pdf
2. Wang, Kenneth T, G. E. Kawika Allen, Hannah I Stokes, and Han Na Suh. “Perceived Perfectionism from God Scale: Development and Initial Evidence.” Journal of Religion and Health 57, no. 6 (2018): 2208, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0405-1.
3. Ibid.

So, where have I been? In August, I began working on my Master of Theological Studies at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology here in Georgia. I am completing this degree full-time, in addition to working full-time; therefore, for the next two years, my posts may be spaced apart significantly. I want to devote as much time to this blog as I can; unfortunately, it is incredibly hard for me to find the time to do so.

School has been wonderful! I am getting a nice mixture of all the theological areas I focus on: ecclesiology, Koine Greek, New Testament, and ethics. It is such an enriching experience to learn from a variety of differing theological approaches. As I have mentioned extensively, during my undergraduate program at Liberty University, all classes and professors upheld a high fundamentalist/evangelical perspective. And I was not allowed to think differently.

Candler, however, is quite diverse. Although I feel like the only agnostic in the school, I see a great mixture of differing denominations, conservative and liberal students (and theologians), and individuals of other Abrahamic religions. And the exposure to differing beliefs alone has taught me a lot, which I intend to address in this post.

Fundamentalism: A Thorn in Everyone’s Side

A quick recap: I was raised in a Southern Baptist family, attended church twice a week, was homeschooled, and understood the Bible to be entirely perfect and inerrant. According to nearly every pastor I had as a Christian, to deny the Bible’s inerrancy is to deny God and the Christian faith altogether. This could not be any further from the truth. You can be a Christian without believing this lie that the Bible is a perfect gift from God.

Fundamentalism teaches that unless you wholeheartedly follow “every jot and tittle” of our modern English Bibles, you are not a Christian. Except for the law, which no longer applies to us (the fundamentalist view, which is wrong). More and more, I am noticing an inherent danger in fundamentalism that is a breeding ground for hatred and division.

This disease of fundamentalism has caused significant suffering within and apart from the Christian church. Why does the church not seek to end suffering? What is an ethical way to repair the damage caused by organized religion, particularly Christianity? And perhaps most important for me, what does the Bible really say about this? These questions are never-ending.

However, I still firmly believe that there is one answer to each of the questions I posed. It is one word that Christians love to say but do not like to practice. That word is love. Love is the only thing that can end suffering. Love is what Jesus saw as the answer to suffering. And yet, here we are two thousand years later; Christians love to quote what Jesus said about love, but they are afraid to practice it.

Fundamentalism is a poison. In my personal experience, it caused me a world of suffering, which I am still recovering from as an agnostic.  Only when we push past this fairy-tale concept of a perfect, inerrant collection of books will we begin to realize that there is not one right way. That statement alone is severely controversial, but it needs to be said. It may be acceptable to say that your way is right, but to say that a Muslim, pagan, agnostic, or Buddhist will burn for eternity because they are wrong… that is wrong! On many levels! And the historical Jesus would be ashamed of “his” church. It is past time to move beyond this.

Looking Ahead

This post has been very brief but also quite dense. It is hard to synthesize everything I have learned into a short blog post. Unfortunately, I do not know when I will be able to return to posting regularly. But I want you to know I have not forgotten about Living by the Logos; I am simply overwhelmed with work and school, and my free time is sometimes nonexistent. I am extremely grateful to those of you who have continued to visit and reach out to me. Your support truly means the world to me.

I hope to write here again soon, although I do not know when that might be. In the meantime, please continue to read and share these articles. I hope to keep Living by the Logos up for quite a while; your support is the only way this can happen. I may publish some microblogs here and there, it is just difficult to find any free time.

I hope to write to you soon!

Sincerely,

Luke

A wrinkle in time
Take what is left of my life
Before you go, show me what it’s like to finally know
The face behind the silhouette
In this world I made to be infinite
But within the expanse, I finally see
A world without you isn’t meant for me

Lorna Shore, “Pain Remains I: Dancing Like Flames,” track #8 on Pain Remains, Century Media Records 2022

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Over the past several weeks, grief has truly come back to haunt me. It is the gift that keeps on giving. While much of this grief comes from the loss of my mother five years ago, there are far more ways in which grief manifests. Whether it is the grief of losing my religion or the grief that I relapsed on alcohol and became suicidal last year, grief continues to haunt. It seems that it never ends.

It is simply too easy to say that I have accepted all my losses. But that would be lying, and I do not wish to do that. This is the part where grief becomes convoluted to most people. Some think and encourage grievers to “just accept it.” If it were this simple, I would not be on antidepressants. I would not have visited over five mental health facilities in five years. And, oddly enough, I would probably still be a Christian.

Grief and Suffering

Grief is the most painful aspect of my suffering, especially when my mother was diagnosed with cancer. At this time, I was still a devout Christian. I believed that God could and would remove her pain, if he only desired to. But I also believed that I did something to warrant this. Was it because I was addicted to porn at the time? Or because my alcoholism began to bud? Did God give her a terminal disease because I did not spend enough time in prayer?

As I have mentioned before, we tend to think that suffering is the result of something bad we have done. As the line of thinking goes: we sin, thus God punishes us with suffering. This is an absolutely terrible and archaic theology. Sadly, it is still prevalent in contemporary Christianity. Is adhering to this idea a way of living by the Logos?

No, it is not. We cannot find a greater portrait of this answer than in the book of Job. Let’s explore an example below.

“Think back: what innocent person has perished?
Since when are the upright destroyed?
⁸ What I see is that those who plow sin
and sow trouble reap just that (Job 4:7-8, NIV)

Aha! These words are in the Bible… therefore they must be true! But, that is not how hermeneutics work. I know hardline evangelicals like to insist that the Bible is inerrant (it is not), but I am not writing this to argue about inerrancy. I am using this as an example. When you isolate a passage from its original context, its meaning can change drastically. This is rarely a good thing.

Such is the case in Job 4. The passage in question comes from one of the antagonists of Job, Elifaz. Elifaz is one of Job’s three friends who provides him with scorn and faulty theologies during his time of suffering. What does God have to say about these ‘friends?’ In Job 42:7, God says to Elifaz, “My anger is blazing against you and your two friends, because, unlike my servant Iyov [Job], you have not spoken rightly about me.”

Ouch. Immediately, all that comes to mind is my Christian friends who, as my mother was dying and I was questioning God, would imply that I did something to secure a spot on God’s blacklist. These former friends meant well, and I can recognize that, but they caused a lot more damage in my life. I believed I had, indeed, pissed God off and because of this, he made my life miserable.

Someone who is grieving has enough on their plate. They do not need to be reminded of their mistakes, sin, or choices. In our culture, grief almost immediately begins with the question, “What have I done to deserve this?” Nobody needs to give answers to that question. True students of the Bible will try to redirect the griever, gently encouraging them to find better ways of coping with the grief.

Grief and the Healer?

Another response of modern Christianity is the reminder of God’s love for the brokenhearted. This one is hard to write about because of how fragile the topic is. I do not, in any way whatsoever, wish to discourage belief in a higher power and I do not intend to do so. While I do not necessarily put my faith in the God of the Bible, I know that this has helped many people through the process of grief.

And, I encourage this. Spirituality is vital to recovering from grief. However, this does not mean that we cannot acknowledge our hurts. While it is easy to say “God will wipe away your tears” and “God is near to the brokenhearted,” these reminders must be made carefully. Someone trapped in the woes of grief deserves to question God. They deserve to be angry. And they need to do these things.

Repressing grief causes another world of pain and misery. I speak from experience on this. I needed to question God and I needed to be mad at him. However, I had no outlet to do so. Questioning God is a major sin to most of Christianity. Being angry at God is even worse.

Why didn’t God heal my mother? Why did God allow me to struggle with such crippling grief? I wanted answers to these questions, and I cannot say that I sinned in merely asking them. Job questioned God and he certainly got angry with God. If the healer does not heal, then I do not see why rage against him is considered sin.

Why do Christians Suffer, Too?

I cannot believe that the idea that God shields his own from suffering is still prevalent in Christianity. While it may not always be a prioritized doctrine, it is certainly an underlying one. Christians will be protected from any suffering because God does not allow bad things to happen to good people.

This is pure nonsense. Bad things do happen to good people, and quite frequently. Both in the biblical world and the modern world. We cannot ignore the existence of suffering. We may be able to debate whether God is all-powerful or all-loving, but we cannot deny this third tenet of the problem of suffering.

Suffering exists. It is everywhere. And it always leaves a trail of grief. We cannot say that Christians are immune to suffering and/or grief. Job’s friend Bildad says the following:

“If you are pure and upright;
then he will rouse himself for you
and fulfill your needs.” (Job 8:6, CJB)

But we know what God said about Job’s friends. He rebuked them for how badly they “aided” in Job’s pain and grief. And I truly hope the church does not believe God will turn a blind eye to how similarly it approaches grievers and sufferers.

Conclusion

Grief is a monster. It has absolutely devastated my life and my faith. Those two things will never again return to normal. I would love to conclude by saying “I made it through!” but that alone is not the case.

It is a battle I am still fighting. Every day as of late, I have struggled with grief. I sincerely wish I could believe that God (if I believed in him) could simply snap me back into place, but that is a mere fantasy. What counts the most is that I continue to process it. It comes in waves and thankfully, the hardest part is over.

To those currently struggling with grief, know that there is hope. The pain does not last forever. It may feel like it will, but it will not. Talk to God, get angry with God; process it however you see fit. Know that there are ways to mitigate grief’s toll on a person. The process of grief is as daunting as the monster itself, but it produces healing if you work through it properly.  

In this post, I wish to address some of the dangers of this false ideology. I will begin with a personal note. Biblical literalism defined much of my early life; it made me spiteful of those who are not “real Christians” and gave me a haughty view of myself and my beliefs. Once I deconverted, I realized how toxic this concept can be. Let’s get right to it.

Ignorance

The first danger of biblical literalism is ignorance. I will use a popular, yet polarizing example: creation. Now let me be clear, I do believe in creation. I personally do not believe science can explain how everything came into being. The odds of earth being the perfect distance from the sun, with enough food and water to allow humans to exist for so long, and the complexity of animal bodies, among other things, just seems too magnificent for everything to happen ‘by chance.’

But I do not believe in the Christianized Genesis account. I do not believe God created everything in six days. Additionally, I do not believe the universe is a mere 6,000 years old. I deem such beliefs completely bonkers. I have a specific reason for believing so.

The very first university-level class I took was Introduction to Earth Science; I was in eleventh grade at the time. Now, I attended Liberty University, a supremely conservative, fundamentalist university. For this course, I was required to uphold a young-earth creationist view. Each assignment required me to defend this belief and attack Darwinian thought. The course, in no way, shape, or form, encouraged critical thought or practical application of science. It simply required me to believe that the English rendition of the Genesis account was pure science.

This is quite dangerous. While, again, I do believe in creationism to a very minimal extent, the scientific consensus is that young-earth creationism is completely bogus. Biblical literalists, who believe that God made everything in six days, are purely ignorant of science. And this ignorance is not accidental, it is a choice.

If somebody believes in a six-day creation, good for them. I will not judge someone for holding this belief. However, once they begin to insist that their belief is the only way and true science is false, it becomes dangerous. Such people choose to be ignorant of knowledge, and this becomes a problem. The example of creationism is only one example.

Hatred/Bigotry

The second danger of biblical literalism is one that I have especially focused on lately. This danger is hatred and bigotry. Biblical literalists use the Bible to uphold their presuppositions (often political in nature) that encourage division, animosity, and, once again, ignorance. In keeping with my recent entries, I will use the example of the LGBTQ community.

It is no secret that biblical literalists weaponize the Bible against the LGBTQ community. They insist that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, one that will send many people to hell. When I corrected this false belief a few weeks ago, the fundamentalists had a meltdown on Facebook. They began to say I am a false teacher, I am promoting sinful lifestyles, and I, along with the LGBTQ community, will suffer for all eternity in hell.

This is outrageous. Again, I state, the tactics biblical literalists employ to encourage hatred are no different from those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And we all know how Jesus felt about them. Jesus encouraged a gospel of love. He taught that his followers must love everyone, including those they disagree with.

However, the biblical literalists continue to choose ignorance. They use the Bible to say that they are the holy ones, and those who have differing lifestyles are below them. The biblical literalists are the homophobes, the antisemites, and the racist pigs, among many other things. They believe that their way is the only way and those who oppose it will suffer.

False or misleading information

It is no secret that evangelicals believe Donald Trump is some sort of modern prophet. According to a recent Pew Research poll, Trump draws support from 81% of white evangelicals.¹ Why is it that the archetype of greed, pride, gluttony, and lust appeals to such hardline fanatics of purity? I will never understand.

But what I do know is that Trump and fundamentalists share some common ground: they both embrace misinformation. Both believe that the Bible is a history textbook. I will not venture to say that the Bible is historically inaccurate; I do not believe that to be true, either. But the Bible is not a book of history.

While there may be tidbits of historical information in the Bible, it is illogical to say all of the Bible is history. To read the Bible for history is to read Shakespeare for current events. It simply does not work. Interpreting the Bible requires much more than reading a passage and saying, “This happened.”

Remember that much of the Bible is allegorical. Interpreting a passage takes work; we must understand the original settings, contexts, socio-economic situations, and genre, among other things, before determining what it is trying to say. The Bible is ambiguous. That does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate, but it takes a higher level of interpretation than reading a news article.

Biblical Literalism is not actually biblical literalism

The biggest problem with biblical literalism is that it does not understand the true Bible. Fundamentalists do not read the original texts as they were written long ago. We read translations of translations of copies of copies, ad infinitum. Reading the KJV or NIV without the aid of research is a fruitless endeavor. Our English Bibles are translations, they are not magical.

Literal translations differ sharply from dynamic translations, as I have recently demonstrated regarding LGBTQ acceptance. A word-for-word translation produces results far different from a thought-for-thought translation. We possess so many differing types of translations that it is impossible to truly practice biblical literalism.

There is no way to interpret the Bible literally. As I mentioned previously, the text is ambiguous. That does not detract from the Bible’s significance, if anything it makes the study even more interesting. But the fundamentalist concept of biblical literalism rids the study of the Bible of its practical use. We are then left with an empty study of a book that has shaped the world we live in.

Conclusion: Biblical Literalism is Dangerous

I do not expect any fundamentalists to agree with what I have written in this post, or any of my entries for that matter. Such extremists are hard-headed; they will not accept any other methods. But to those still reading this, the study of the Bible can be life-changing. It certainly has been for me.

The Bible has a greater influence on our world than any other literary composition ever written. But blindly accepting our contemporary renditions of the text strips the mystery and intrigue of the Bible. Understanding its ambiguity is the first step in properly reading these ancient words. When you reject the boorish method of biblical literalism, you embrace the compelling nature of the mysterious Bible.

1. Gregory A. Smith, “Voters’ views of Trump and Biden differ sharply by religion,” Pew Research Center, April 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/30/voters-views-of-trump-and-biden-differ-sharply-by-religion/

“Vanity of vanities, said the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2, LXX)

Last May, I voluntarily admitted myself to a psych ward after a suicide attempt left me questioning my place in this world. They had about five books available for patients, including a shoddy translation of the Bible. After a few days of being stabilized on medications, I picked it up and turned to Ecclesiastes. I had just survived an overdose; needless to say, I possessed quite a somber mindset. I found a slight sense of relief in knowing that the biblical authors were not exempt from the feelings I experienced at that time.

I felt that I had let myself down. Moreover, I felt that God had abandoned me. While in active psychosis, I experienced severe auditory hallucinations. Specifically, I heard the voice of God telling me that I needed to end my life. Earlier that year, after reading Amos and determining that the God of the Bible is a monster, I became an agnostic. Because I had rejected the God of Christianity, I carried the guilt of apostasy. This guilt, along with severe alcohol use and medication withdrawals, led me to believe that God was punishing me for rejecting him.

In the weeks and months following my attempt, I carried the burden of being a moral failure. I found consolation in Ecclesiastes’ message that human beings possess a strong moral standing, while the divine does not. In this post, I wish to survey the Ecclesiastical theodicy that, in many ways, saved my life.

All is Vanity: An Overview

The book of Ecclesiastes may be considered a long list of grievances its author holds concerning God, the world, and human life. At the core of Ecclesiastes, as with much of the ancient didactic wisdom literature (especially in the Bible), is the human experience of suffering. The author of Ecclesiastes, without a doubt, understands the impact suffering has on all breathing creatures; this pain, he understands, is vanity.

The book begins with the repeated use of the word vanity. The Hebrew word he employs, hebel, literally translates to “vapor.”¹ This term indicates that which “is lacking substance, ephemeral, without any result.”² The author does not refer to one singular item or belief, but that all or everything lacks substance. This opening phrase sets the tone for the remainder of the dialogue.

Theology as an Ancient Coping Skill

In antiquity, suffering humans did not have access to resources such as therapy or psychiatry. The field of psychology would not develop for millennia. But trauma is certainly as old as life itself, as is the belief in beings greater than ourselves. People needed a way to cope with suffering, and the greatest help available resided in the hands of the divine. To this day, belief in deities remains a coping strategy in times of hardship.

The picture I have painted in the preceding paragraph is exactly why the question of theodicy is so important. Those of us who believe in something(s) higher than us find it hard to rectify our suffering with their existence. It was no different for the ancient Israelites. To understand what these ancient texts mean, we must consider the framework of the authors’ psyches.

As one researcher says, “[T]here was a common tendency in Israel and Mesopotamia to understand human suffering and trauma in terms of divine punishment and human flourishing in terms of divine favor.”³ …or “both Israelite and Mesopotamian cultures operated within a worldview in which sin—whether disobedience to God/gods or failure to complete a religious ritual to the deities’ satisfaction—resulted in human suffering.”⁴

This concept is seemingly instinctual. We suffer, then we wonder why we are suffering. We ask questions such as, “What have we done to deserve this? Why is God doing this to me?” As I mentioned early on in this blog, such questions alone beg the problem of suffering. The idea that God inflicts suffering upon a person due to that person sinning is known as retributive theology. I think we can all acknowledge that this branch of theology does not provide a satisfactory resolution for the problem of suffering.

And neither does it for Qoheleth.

Retribution Theology Cannot Explain All Suffering

The book of Ecclesiastes is probably the least theological and most philosophical book in the Bible. The key belief behind Qoheleth’s monologue is, “Life is meaningless because actions fail to correspond with their consequences.”⁵ I think our modern translations are flawed in that meaningless carries an overwhelmingly pessimistic connotation. We all know that life is not meaningless. That life is a vapor, and thus it is fleeting, seems to fit better with the overall message of Ecclesiastes.

As I have heard the great biblical scholar Bart Ehrman explain in many debates on suffering, “vapor,” the literal transliteration of hebel in Ecclesiastes, means something that is here one moment and gone the next. That is life. We never know when our last day will be. We never know what tomorrow will bring. Life is not meaningless; our English Bibles do a great injustice to the original text with such translations. Life is a vapor—we need to enjoy it while it lasts.

We cannot live our lives believing what the church says. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Yes, this verse is true; but it is not the end of the story. There is no need to spend each day worrying that our pasts sins will result in hardships. We need to accept that we are wrong, we sin, and we can still enjoy life. As Qoheleth observes to be true, “A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God” (Ecc. 2:24).

Coherence, Significance, and Purpose in Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes is certainly a grim book; however, it is also extremely hopeful. It is truthful in the sense that it acknowledges the pain and misery we face in life. But it also serves as the example of one who, seemingly hopeless, hopes to find the meaning of life. And in my honest opinion, Qoheleth achieved his goal.

We as humans are instinctively inclined to seek out the meaning of life with hopeful hearts. Everyone hopes to see the sun rise another day. It is basic human psychology. In our quest for the meaning of life, psychologists have determined a “threefold scheme comprised of coherence, significance, and purpose.”⁶ Qoheleth, even if indirectly, addresses each of these in Ecclesiastes.

Coherence

We all long for coherence. We become frustrated when life does not make sense; the righteous suffer and the evil receive blessings. This, truly, is meaningless. Being upset when life is illogical is only part of being human. We know that we cannot change this, but we hope that it will all work out in the end.

Significance

We all crave significance. Nobody wants to simply lie down in isolation until the day we pass on. We want to forgive our pasts, make the most of the present, and hope for a better future. It is without a doubt that death is evil, but also inevitable. We all have that same ultimate destiny (Ecc. 9:3) and we hope that when that day comes, we can look back and appreciate our achievements.

Purpose

Lastly, we desire purpose. Whether our goals are to have a great career, find the love of our lives, or provide hope to the hopeless, we desire to know that our efforts are not in vain. We want to know that, at the end of the day, we have done something to make the world a better place. This, too, is not meaningless; it is being human.

Conclusion

Life is fleeting. Qoheleth knew this to be true, and you and I know it to be true. Ultimately, we desire to find the meaning of life through coherence, significance, and purpose. There is no sense in regretting the past, hating the present, and dreading the future. Of those three, the only two that are certain are the past and present. Tomorrow is never guaranteed.

Live each moment like it is your last. Do not waste your time beating yourself up over not going to church that one Sunday, or not making a donation to United Way (it’s only going to their CEO, anyway). We sin. Christian or not, it is important that we correct our ways of wrongdoing, but we cannot forget that life is only a vapor. It is here today, gone tomorrow. We must make it count.

1. Fox, Michael V. “Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature (Didactic).” Religion Compass 5, no. 1 (2011): 6, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00251.x

2. Murphy, Roland E.. Ecclesiastes, Volume 23A. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015, 88.

3. Meek, Russell L. and Elizabeth Mehlman. “Resilience through Disclosure and Meaning Making in Qoheleth and the Babylonian Theodicy.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47, no. 3 (2023): 292. https://doi.org/10.1177/03090892221149047

4. Ibid.

5. Keefer, Arthur. “The Meaning of Life in Ecclesiastes: Coherence, Purpose, and Significance from a Psychological Perspective.” Harvard Theological Review 112, no. 4 (2019): 453. Gale In Context: Biography (accessed June 23, 2024). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A603404458/BIC?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=605c1299.

6. Ibid., 450.

Last week, I wrote a post on one of the few biblical passages that supposedly condemns homosexual relationships. The research I provided is hard to dispute; most fundamentalists cannot wrap their minds around the logical conclusions the real biblical scholars come to. This is evidenced in the hateful and ignorant comments made by such trolls on Facebook. Among these comments, many stated that Romans 1 says homosexuality is a sin.

I first would like to thank these comment trolls for providing me the inspiration to pen this post, as well as some future entries. They thought their faulty, politicized theology (MAGAology) would make me think, “Oh, you’re right! Homosexuality is a sin… whoopsie-daisy!” These comments are pointed at someone who actually studies the Bible and does not echo their pastor’s political beliefs. Well, I am not backing down. I will continue to fight for the basic human rights of other people that the church so adamantly desires to eradicate. Let’s begin.

A Reminder: The Importance of Context

It is too easy to Google what our English Bibles say about the LGBTQ community. When we read these interpretations, we miss the greater picture. That is, the Bible was not written to 21^st Century America. The books that make up the Bible were written in different languages, in starkly different cultures, and a long, long time ago. To really understand any message in the Bible, you must be familiar with some of these differences.

Context is key. Before saying, “A-ha! That’s a sin!,” we must ensure that we understand what the authors are saying, where they are saying it, and why they are saying it. Sadly, most Christians cannot even grasp the first point, which is the basis of this article. I am happy to provide the context for you… you are welcome to disagree with me, but if you wish to debate, then please know what you are talking about.

Romans 1:23-28: What the Author Condemning? Hint: It’s Idolatry

⁽²²⁾ Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

Romans 1:23-28, NIV

Clearly, the Biblical writer identified as Paul is condemning something. Most readers, being familiar with only the English texts, believe the author is listing a bunch of random sins. This is quite a narrow-minded approach; sure, it is easy, but that alone does not make it right. As with the verse in Leviticus, our contemporary Bibles do appear to condemn same-sex relationships. However, the modern Bible is not the same as the original texts.

Even if we are to accept such modernized translations, we miss the bigger purpose of Romans 1. The main point in these passages is that idolatry is sinful. We must, again, consider the context. Romans was written in ancient Greco-Roman culture. Christianity was not the biggest religion in the world during this time. In such a time and place, paganism ruled. The biggest fault of paganism, according to the Bible, is the worship of false gods and goddesses. Remember that pagans (and Christians) are not under the scrutiny of Hebrew Law.

We will now dive into the specifics of the true issue Paul is addressing. The pagan religion of Magna Mater (Cybele, “Great Mother”) is one of the oldest religions, existing as early as the 6^th millennium BCE and prominent in Greece by the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.¹ Furthermore, this religion was introduced to Rome in 204 BCE, predating the book of Romans by at least 250 years.² Of course, paganism existed even early on in the Hebrew Bible. Pagans viewed sex as a ritual, not exclusively for procreation as in Judaism and Christianity.

Paul indubitably knew of Cybele. Statues of this goddess decorated Asia Minor, with at least one in Rome dating to 191 BCE (still centuries before the composition of Romans). Many early church fathers, such as Hippolytus and Athanasius, recognized that Paul was condemning the idolatry of the pagans in Rome.³ Paul’s audience did not understand sexuality the way we do today; for ancient Romans and Greeks, their “categories of sexual behavior seemed to prioritize status and power over gender.”⁴

While on the topic of sexual/gender preferences in antiquity, let us not forget that heterosexuals can commit sexual immorality without being gay. Sexual immorality is a broad term; it does not exclusively consist of gays and lesbians. Anyone who idolizes sex, according to the Bible, is guilty of sexual immorality, straight or not. Dio Chrysostom and Didymus the Blind speak of men who possess “frenzied passion for women.”⁵ So to all the fundamentalist males reading this, choosing a sexual partner because “she” is “hot” or rejecting because “she” is “not” is wrong ;).  

Unnatural Does Not Mean Sin

Oh, the adjectives. I will begin this discussion with an important note on the difference between Greek and English words.

Let’s start with a Sunday school example. In our English Bibles, we find the word “love” multiple times. But for the ancient Greeks, there are four separate words for love, all of which have been translated, merely, as “love” in our Bibles. In this sense, there are four different types of love in the Greek Bible: agápē, érōs, philía, and storgē. But in English, we just have “love.” See how important it is to have at least a basic understanding of these original languages? Our English Bibles can hardly differentiate Godly love from erotic love, or brotherly love from family love.

The word Paul uses for “nature” (phusis) is not a term with religious connotations. To exemplify this, the word never occurs in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, by the way).⁶ This term is cultural, not religious. “Unnatural” is not equivalent to “sin.” Not even close. It is “in ‘notable discontinuity from what would previously have been expected’, but is not itself sin.”⁷

Likewise, the argument can be made that Paul is speaking of heterosexual men in this passage. The argument goes as this: it is natural for a heterosexual man to have sex with a woman, but it is unnatural for a heterosexual man to engage in intercourse with another man. It, therefore, goes against their own nature to engage in such acts.⁸ The passages are silent on homosexual men engaging in homosexual relations. Why? Because homosexuality, as we understand it, did not yet exist in their culture. Paul, and his audience, did not understand sexual orientation the way our postmodern culture does!

What about Shame?

“What is shameful is any impulse or behavior that diminishes life and dignity, as that life and dignity is portrayed in the gospel of Christ.”⁹

The nature of the act itself is what Paul considers “shameful.” Heterosexual intercourse can be shameful as well—if it is performed out of lust, licentiousness, or force. Again, this is more of a cultural/anthropological issue than a theological one. In this culture, it did not matter whether partners were of the same gender; it was shameful if the receiver was of a higher status than the giver. Obviously, this line of thought is archaic to prideful Americans, but there is no sugar-coating the truth.

Furthermore, gender roles still existed in this culture. What could be considered shameful was for a man to take on the role of a woman in intercourse (“receiving”), thus degrading the male’s status.¹⁰ Again, this is very much outdated, but it must be noted. Greco-Roman men would not identify as another gender, as seen today (at least you fundamentalists get one minuscule victory). But still, the issue is cultural, not spiritual.

Conclusion: Romans 2:1 Applies to the Fundamentalist Trolls

Well, we have reached the end of this rather brief survey of Romans 1:23-28 and homosexuality. I know, I know, some of you cannot wait to close this window and fire away in the Facebook comments. But we should review what we learned first, before I scold you for sinning in those comments.

Number one, Romans was not written with you in mind. It was written for an audience long before your time, likely in a different country from where you are sitting. Paul was not a wizard; he was not gazing into a crystal ball, seeing that the LGBTQ movement would become what it is today. It did not exist then and it would not exist for quite some time. He did not know that these fundamentalists would desecrate his writings the way they do every day.

Number two, Romans 1:23-28 addresses cultural matters, not religious issues. Yes, of course, he wants you to live a godly life. But when he speaks of sexuality, he is speaking in the context of his time and culture. It was unnatural for such behaviors in that day; unnatural is not synonymous with sin. Shameful concerns the intent behind such behaviors, which can apply to heterosexual or homosexual relations. Also, to state my presupposition going into this post, I believed Paul was speaking of the harm of orgies. And, I believe my conviction is valid. The pagans engaged in sexual rituals, often involving many partners.

Number three… if you are about to write some lengthy condemnation in the form of a Facebook comment, you are about to sin. Immediately after speaking about sexual relations, Paul issues these words just for you:

“Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, passing judgment; for when you judge someone else, you are passing judgment against yourself; since you who are judging do the same things he does.” (Rom. 2:1)

You probably did not read this verse when you read my two previous posts and Googled, “Verses that allow me to hate gay people.” If you are a Christian, and the Bible is your book (I am just a student), then you are going against the grain of what you preach.

Stop judging. If somebody wants to love someone of their own sex, let them. Nobody needs your opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with what I have written, you need to respect the basic human rights of other people. You are acting just like the Pharisees and Sadducees by condemning others. Stop trying to take out the speck in someone else’s eye, when you have a giant sequoia growing out of yours.

Jesus’ mission was to share the love of his father with a cruel, cold world. He called you to be the salt of the earth, not the salt in the wound. Let others live their own life, and you focus on yourself. As a former Christian, that right there is being a good Christian. Get off your Facebook trolling and go immerse yourself in your community. Feed the homeless or partake in prison fellowship. Let Jesus reward you for that instead.

A Note to My Faithful Readers

To my faithful readers, thank you for your support. Together, we will put an end to the fundamentalists’ campaign of hatred. I hope you enjoyed this post. I was putting together an article on Ecclesiastes as it relates to suffering and trauma when I suddenly ticked off a bunch of MAGA worshippers. Soon, I hope to return to that, but these religious nuts have begged me to address some other “weapons” in their arsenal. I will return to my original content soon!

Yours truly,

Luke.

1. Townsley, Jeramy. “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 4 (Winter 2011): 716-717, doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/23488275

2. Ibid., 717.

3. Townsley, Jeramy. “Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26—27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and ‘Sex Contrary to Nature’?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81, no. 1 (2013): 59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23357876

4. Ibid., 57.

5. Townsley, Jeramy. “Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26—27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and ‘Sex Contrary to Nature’?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81, no. 1 (2013): 60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23357876

6. Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013, 164.

7. Loader, William. 2017. “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time.” Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 108 (1): 121, https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2017-0004.

8. Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013, 167-168.

9. Ibid., 161.

10. Ibid., 177.

Reviewing these comments, I noticed quite a few trends that I would like to address in this post. Legalistic mindsets in the church, interpreting translations of translations of translations, and, of course, using the Bible as a political weapon to promote hate and division. Out of these comments, my favorites are those that label me a false prophet. I love it! If Jesus were alive today, these evangelicals, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, would crucify him all over again… or hide out in the comments section reveling in their biases.

1. Yes, I am aware of other verses speaking on “homosexuality”

Go right ahead. Cite your modern, politicized translations of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and the like. Had I written the post on any of these passages, I am sure the comments would be filled with “But Leviticus Says!…” I study the Bible, I am not ignorant of such passages. One blog post does not allow me the space to address each and every verse. However, maybe I should write on some of these others! Thanks for the ideas!

Quite a few of these comments mention Sodom and Gomorrah. Why were these cities destroyed? American fundamentalists will answer, “Because the people were gay!” Wow. Here we have the issue of context that I mentioned before. We also have ignorance. In stories such as this and Judges 19, same-sex relations are not condemned. What is condemned is nonconsensual sex and sexual abuse. That is why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed! C’mon, people.

2. You are not reading the real sources, folks.

The Bible collecting dust on your nightstand? Guess what? That is not the original Bible. That is a translation, and things get lost in translation much easier than you think. Have you ever wondered where the King James Version gets its name? It is not because King James translated the Bible. It is named such because King James VI and I sponsored the translation. The translators wanted to appease the king! Not only so, but they were paid to do this. A quick Google search will show you that the KJV is chock full of political biases.

The KJV is not the only faulty translation of the Bible. All English translations have errors! Keep in mind that these sources are attempting to translate an ancient source, written in an ancient culture, with ancient laws and presuppositions (again, I mentioned this in my previous post). There are certain words in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that we still do not know the definitions of.

The Bible is a complicated work. Interpretation is much harder than Googling “verses that condemn homosexuality.” Try opening your mind a bit. Try taking in another perspective. When you do these things, your understanding of the Scriptures will widen. And you will realize that your old ways, the ones you have engaged in this week, are wrong.

3. Um… this is a modern problem

The LGBTQ community did not exist in the biblical world. There was no pride flag. The ratio of heterosexual to homosexual individuals was much, much different back then. Again, we have an issue of culture. The terms homosexual, gay, lesbian, bi, etc. did not exist in this world. Obviously, same-sex relations have been around for a long time. However, the writers of the Bible did not view this the same way we do in our heavily politicized world.

This is an example of what I consider a tremendous fallacy. You are using an ancient source to provide commentary on modern issues. There are a lot of things wrong with this methodology. It is flawed and baseless. We can admit that, in that day, same-sex relationships were not necessarily praised. But that does not mean the Bible condemns such actions. We really need to grasp the cultural norms, languages, and words of this era before decisively saying, “The Bible says that’s a sin!”

4. I never said the Bible endorses homosexuality

I guess I thought this would be too obvious to some of the readers I have attracted. The Bible never encourages same-sex relations; but it does not prohibit them, either. A few comments read something along the lines of “’Living by the Logos?’ More like living by sin!” Oooo, burn. Goodness people, you are thinking too hard and still not solving the basic math. You can live by the Logos without living by the legalistic, bigoted nature of the church. I guess that would make too much sense.

What does it mean to “live by the Logos,” anyways? Well, it means doing the opposite of what you are doing. It is about spreading love throughout the world, not hate through online comments. It means following in the example of Christ: loving those you disagree with. Loving those who have different lifestyle choices. It means loving the gay as well as the Christian; the alcoholic as well as the saint; the helpless as much as the hopeful. What are these churches teaching these days?!

I guess I’m sorry that the website’s title is misleading? I’m sorry that you cannot distinguish between living by the Logos and living by the laws of your church? Or, I’m sorry that these apologies are honestly not sincere? Did Jesus encourage prostitution by loving and defending prostitutes? No? Then I am not endorsing sin by defending the basic human rights of other people.

5. Your equal hatred and denial encourage me to continue in my efforts.

Just because you are upset that I speak the truth does not mean that I am going to stop what I am doing here. Quite the opposite, actually. You are pouring gasoline on an open flame. I know you think that you are a hero and Jesus is going to reward you for presenting your version of the truth in Facebook comments but… That is not going to stop me. I will continue this movement. I will continue to deconstruct your ideology/theology of hatred.

These comments have only reminded me of my mission here: to stop the needless hating that your savior told you not to do. My mission to end the suffering that the church has caused millions of people in its existence. Call me a hippie, but I am here to promote truth, peace, and love. Just as Jesus did.

Remember, once upon a time, I was an ignorant fundamentalist, too. I thought that these politicized translations we call the KJV or NIV promoted forcing people into submission. But while studying at a strictly fundamentalist university, I realized that Christianity stands in opposition to what the Bible teaches. And I will continue to remind the world of this tragedy. You can try to silence me but know that you are only strengthening my case.

Christianity is losing the war against the LGBTQ community; the United Methodist Church is a great example of this. People are beginning to realize that being gay is not going to send you to hell. Because hell is not real and homosexuality is not a sin. Two hundred years ago, Christianity used the Bible to support slavery. Now, in the 21^st Century, we know that slavery is a sin. So too, then, is the mindless animosity the church shows toward people who embrace their identities.

In Closing…

Keep it up! Tag your pastors, fellow churchgoers, and MAGA enthusiasts. Show them how wrong I am… and I will show you how ignorant you are of the very source you claim to live by, claiming to live by it better than me. Anyway, I digress.

Thanks for labeling me a false prophet! I’ll be sure to add that to my resumé.

Yours truly,

Luke.

I am not actively involved in the LGBTQ community. I am what one may consider asexual but heteroromantic; however, I do not believe this is a vital or strict part of my identity. That being said, I understand the importance of sexuality for the majority of people in this world. For many, sexual preferences and gender identity are key components of one’s personal identity. And Christianity is wrong to condemn such orientations as sin. In this post, I would like to address a seemingly everlasting debate: is homosexuality a sin?

I will go ahead and answer that homosexuality is not a sin, and the Bible never declares it to be. I will address two key verses that evangelicals often use to attack gay rights, both from one of my least favorite biblical books: Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are frequently used to uphold the ill-meaning belief that “God hates the gays.” The problem we have with this, as with most scriptures that I address on Living by the Logos, is that Christians read modern translations of ancient writings in completely different languages, cultures, and parts of the world.

Christianity’s Stance on Homosexuality is Why I Stopped Going to Church

Nearly all branches of Christianity have, at least until recently, upheld the belief that homosexuality is a vile sin. This topic alone is exactly what led me to stop attending church; it did not lead me away from Christianity yet, but it made me lose interest in the popular Sunday ritual. After leaving the Baptist and nondenominational churches of my youth, I joined a tiny United Methodist congregation. Anyone keeping up with church politics knows that the United Methodist Church recently decided to allow LGBTQ clergy. This caused quite a stir among evangelicals, leading to the UMC itself splitting.

The United Methodist Church’s allowance of LGBTQ ministers has been in the works for several years. From the time I joined the UMC in 2017 until I stopped going in 2020, this was a major discussion within my church. The church I attended was a small white chapel, made up of about 50 congregants (all but one being white). I was the youngest member of the church by about 20-30 years. As you can imagine, the church opposed the LGBTQ community entirely.

The reason I stopped attending this church is because every Sunday, the pastor spoke about this issue. Sermons became lessons on church politics; out was the message of Jesus, in was the message of then-president Donald Trump. Keep in mind that I lost my mother (whose body rests at the church) in February of 2019. I was still grieving her loss in 2020. The problem of suffering became the most important question of faith. I needed consolation, I needed to know God loved me, and I needed to know that things would get better.

Instead, I received an endless supply of messages on why churches should not allow gay congregants or pastors. I became so frustrated that, one Sunday morning, I woke up and started getting ready for church. And I remember sitting on my bed wearing Sunday’s best trying to muster the strength to get in my car and go to church. I never went that day. I never went anytime after, either. The only times I have since visited have been to visit my mother’s grave.

What Does the Logos Say About Homosexuality?

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (Lev. 18:22, NIV)

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev. 20:13, NIV)

At first glance, it seems like the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. However, the majority of English-speaking Christians do not know the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Pastors are not trained to read the Bible in its original languages; seminaries, at best, offer introductory courses on these languages, but not enough to make one fluent. Besides, pastoral education typically relies more on systematic theology than biblical theology, thus pastors are familiar with the Christian interpretation of the Bible and not the Bible itself.

So, if we read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 out of the English NIV, KJV, ESV, or even CJB, we find that homosexuality is a sin. But with a little familiarity with ancient Hebrew, the verses change drastically, and thus the interpretation does as well. The problem with these translations is that rather than providing a literal translation of the ancient texts, they are intentionally elaborate; thus, the nature of some verses changes completely.¹

But is Homosexuality Really a Sin?

I have incorporated literal translations of the Levitical passages from a biblical Hebrew expert below:

“And with a male you will not lie down the bed(ding)s of a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22)²

“And a man which lies down with a male the bed(ding)s of a woman, the two of them have made an abomination. Dying, they will be put to death. Their blood is upon them.” (Lev. 20:13)³

Do you see the differences between the NIV and the literal translation? The verses do not say “lying with a man like a woman,” but “lies down the bed(ding)s of a woman.” Now, we can acknowledge that the phrase “lying with” does mean sexual intercourse. In the Old Testament, we find quite a few words for sex that we would not use today (lying with, knowing/knew, becoming one flesh, etc.). So, although the literal Levitical verses speak of lying on the bed of a woman, the act is still condemned… or is it?

Context is Key

Now that we have looked at the syntax of the verses, let’s look at the context. Any good Bible student knows that context is key… except pastors, context is a foreign language to (most of) them. Well before I began my study of the Bible, I remember reading somewhere about the importance of context in reading the Bible. Christians tend to isolate verses (think Jeremiah 29:11) and thus, they develop a twisted meaning. I remember reading that to interpret a verse correctly, one must not exclusively interpret the singular verse but the preceding and following verses.

Leviticus 18:21 speaks of sacrificing one’s children, while 18:23 speaks of having sex with animals (bestiality). Leviticus 20:12 speaks of men having sexual relations with their daughter-in-law, while 20:14 speaks of men marrying a woman and her mother. The author is not just listing off a bunch of random things a person should not have sex with. One scholar summarizes, “The context of Lev. 18:22 is a series of laws on incest: sexual intercourse with a mother, sister, granddaughter, aunt, and proximate female in-laws is forbidden (Lev. 18:6–17).”⁴

The verses appear to prohibit incestuous relations between men; however, there is another interpretation we should consider. That is, that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 proscribe men having sex with married men. In all the primary and secondary research I have done for this article, this option appears to be the most likely and most agreed upon by scholars. Those of us who are or have been Christians know that adultery is one of the most formidable sins. Is it possible that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 form the basis of this view?

Levitical Law is Outdated, Anyway

I would like to add one final point to this discussion. While we may not have a definite answer on what Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are specifically speaking of, we know that it is not condemning consensual, same-sex relations between two single, unrelated people. This is truly great! But does it even matter? Unfortunately, so long as the church is preaching hatred of “sinners,” this debate will not end for a long time.

I cannot believe the issue is still a question within the church. I remember hearing the late reverend Timothy Keller explaining once that men who have sex with men are no different than men who abuse alcohol. Because, as he explained, in God’s eyes, both acts are sinful. Hearing him explain this is what really made me question the church’s approach to the LGBTQ community. And this was years before I found out that I am an alcoholic!

Now, I disagree that both acts are sinful. Love is not a sin, whether it is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. I furthermore see alcoholism as an illness, not simply a choice (although most Christians cannot comprehend this). But if Jesus is the Messiah, then should it even matter? Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. And yet, Christians still consume pork! Are we picking and choosing which Old Testament laws we keep?

I mentioned earlier that Leviticus is one of my least favorite books in the Bible. Why? Because it is irrelevant. One researcher points out that while Leviticus does condemn homosexuality (it doesn’t), it also prohibits wearing clothing of different materials and eating shellfish.⁵ Of course, the debate on which laws are still valid is not as simple as picking and choosing I mentioned before, but space does not allow a full treatment of this issue. Maybe for a book someday.

Conclusion

There is no reason for the church to continue its crusade against the LGBTQ community. It is inefficient, bigoted, and wrong. Jesus ate with prostitutes, but 21st-century American pastors cannot even look at someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. To use the words of Leviticus against the church: this is an abomination. Although I can never again associate myself with the United Methodist Church (or any church, for that matter), I am proud of the steps it has taken to resolve this dilemma.

Would Jesus turn a blind eye to a gay person? Would Jesus say to a transgender, “My father hates you?” No, he would not! Leave it to the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to deride people based on gender or sexual orientation. It is a total shame that this is what Christianity has become. It worships a man who welcomed the outcasts but turns away the same people in the modern world.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not the only passages that have been used to advance Christianity’s hateful message against the LGBTQ community. I hope to dive into some of the others in the coming days. For now, we can acknowledge that the two favored verses do not mean what fundamentalists think they mean.

1. Töyräänvuori, Joanna. “Homosexuality, the Holiness Code, and Ritual Pollution: A Case of Mistaken Identity.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament., vol. 45, no. 2, 2020, pp. 239, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089220903431.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., 240.

4. Joosten, Jan. 2020. “A New Interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 (Par. 20:13) and Its Ethical Implications.” Journal of Theological Studies 71 (1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flaa002.

5. Sklar, Jay. 2018. “The Prohibitions against Homosexual Sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Are They Relevant Today?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 28 (2): 168. https://doi.org/10.5325/bullbiblrese.28.2.0165

There was a time when I would speak like I was there

Under the light of absolution and repair

But here in the fallout I can see where I went wrong

Playing Judas in the dark under my song

Where is the peace that I once heard

Would follow grace?

All of the holes within my heart

Go separate ways

Introduction

Regret is a feeling that we have all experienced at one point or another. We regret our actions, the words we use, and the hurt we cause others, ourselves, and our higher powers. It is never a feeling that anybody wants, but oftentimes, it is one that we need. In this post, I would like to paint a portrait of the beauty of regret. Of all the negative emotions humans experience, regret is the one that promotes growth and healing in times of suffering.

As I have discussed before, I am a recovering alcoholic. I am currently in my second round of recovery after a major slip-up last year. Although I never desired broken relationships, the pain I caused others and myself, or the time I wasted getting drunk, the regret for my actions was necessary for me to heal. We all know that the first step in recovery is admitting that we have a problem. We have a problem that we regret.

This week, I did something that I deeply regretted. I acted out of character and caused someone close to me to suffer. I used poor words and judgment and rather than first address the problem internally, I pushed the blame on someone else. In the moment, it seemed right; in the days that followed, I began to realize the consequences my actions held over me, and the other person involved. And I slipped into a captivating feeling of regret.

Having made my amends and at least corrected my ill-tempered behavior, I began to evaluate my position on regret and what the Bible says about it. I know now that I needed that feeling, as painful as it was, to move me to right my wrongs. Throughout this struggle, I found myself asking ontological questions regarding regret. Of course, I turned to the main source I can (almost) always rely on: the Bible. The Bible endorses the same conviction I hold that it is more than just okay to experience regret. Here are my reasons why.

Regret Moves Us to Action

In the Gospel of Matthew, we find two back-to-back depictions of regret. We will first look at the second example: Judas Iscariot. Judas is infamously known for his betrayal of Jesus for a mere thirty pieces of silver. Instead of approaching this as the church normally does, wherein Judas is just the antagonist, a pawn of Satan, let us imagine that he recognized the ramifications of his actions.

Imagine having a boss you love (hard to imagine, yes, but bear with me). This boss cares for each member of your team, will listen to your concerns with an understanding and compassionate heart, and moves to remind you of your value. However, your company’s rival boss informs you that they secretly work for a major drug cartel. You report this information to your boss’s supervisor and later that day, they are fired. Days later, you hear that your former boss has completed suicide and an investigation into them has proven their innocence. A lie results in the loss of an honorable member of society.

How would you feel in this moment? Would you simply shrug it off? Would you continue to trust the rival boss? Judas, no doubt, felt the burden of regret. He had betrayed one of the most important figures in history and because of him, the Son of Man died. Judas, exacerbated by his actions, buys a field and hangs himself. He dies the very fate God appointed Adam to centuries before, “For dust you are and to dust you will return” (Gen. 3:19, NIV).

The first example in Matthew is another disciple, Peter. It is the example with which we are all familiar. Fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy, Peter denies Christ three times before the rooster crows. Peter then “went out and wept bitterly” (Matt. 26:75). In the epilogue to John’s Gospel, Peter makes his amends with Jesus by affirming his love and belief for him three times. Peter became the founder of the church, as Jesus also prophesied. The church became corrupt when Paul took over and has remained corrupt ever since. But Peter found redemption through his regret.

Everyone and Everything Experiences Regret

Regret is as old as time itself. From the very first book in the Bible, characters experience regret, including God himself. The first character to express regret in the chronological order of the biblical canon is, in fact, God. In Genesis 6, God sends a flood to wipe out his people. Why does he do this? Because, according to verse 6 (CJB), “Adonai regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart.” This is not the only instance of God expressing regret; in 2 Samuel 11, God expresses his regret for making Saul King of Israel.

Whether or not we accept the doctrine of a perfect, infallible God, we can know that God feels regret the same way we do. I personally do not believe the God of the Bible is truly perfect (a discussion not for here, but a later time) as the Christian faith posits. I am sure that if he regrets making an evil world, then he must surely regret the innocent people he slaughters throughout the Bible. God makes mistakes; although the Bible never states this verbatim, there are stories of God committing wrongs.

If we do accept belief in a perfect God, we are consoled in knowing that such a higher power is not excused from the emotion of regret. And if God can experience regret, then we should not let this feeling lead us to act as Judas did in his regret. Judas let his regret eat him alive; God, typical of him when wrong, corrects his wrongdoing (through archaic means, of course) and moves forward without second-guessing his actions. I would like to advocate for students of the Bible to pursue a median between the two examples. I’ll explain below.

So I was Wrong: What Should I Do?

My regrets almost consumed me the way Judas Iscariot’s regret devastated him. I will never forget the feeling I had last April when I made my latest (and final) suicide attempt. I had failed the most important person in my life at that point. I knew that I could never repair the damage I caused this person. As I became so focused on the harm I caused this other person, I began to regret the pain I had caused everyone in my life up to this point. I abandoned all hope.

I attempted suicide, and by the grace of some deity far greater than myself or, in my completely honest opinion, the God of the Bible, I am still alive. In that moment, I felt that I had no other option. Now, I can look back and imagine if I approached my regret the same way God did prior to the great deluge or appointing Saul to kingship. I could have forgiven myself only and let the pain I caused others drown all of them. Would I be happier today? I do not believe so. I can at least see that, after focusing on repairing myself, I tried to correct my actions.

Conclusion

No person truly lives without ever experiencing regret. It comes with not only being human, but existing in any form of life whatsoever. Fallible or infallible, good or evil, right or wrong, we all make mistakes. We all do things that cause others or ourselves harm. We start arguments. We yell. We fight. We do whatever we can to protect our lives, our image, or our loved ones. With this feat programmed within each of us, we are bound to do something we regret sooner or later.

But those mistakes never have to have the final word. If we have the power to make mistakes, then we have the power to correct such mistakes. It is never easy. It requires one of the most invaluable traits humans possess: humility. What is humility? It is taking steps to correct our wrongs. It is being able to admit when we messed up. It is striving to do whatever it takes to correct said actions. Last but not least, it is the basis of forming healthy relationships with those we love.

Regret is a powerful word. It is an emotion that compels us to right our wrongs. Humility leads us to get over ourselves and put the needs of others before our wants and desires. I never want to cause another person to suffer; when I do, as I did last weekend, it cripples me. The very thing that I wish to (but cannot) eradicate is the same thing I have subjected the people I love most to. It is not until the fallout that I can see where I went wrong; but it is better late than never. There is always the chance to heal and repair what is broken, the things we regret; it just takes courage and humility.

I think a very common misconception, concerning those who convert or deconvert, is that there is suddenly this great “A-ha!” moment. One suddenly connects the dots and knows whether God is real or not. This is not the case. We owe this misconception to both Christian and anti-Christian media. It sure does make for a great story! But oftentimes, the greatest stories are not ones that occur in reality.

Losing my faith was not an easy process. I never wanted to renounce Christianity. I wanted the convictions I held since childhood to remain true until my deathbed and beyond. I was not living in denial, by the way; I was living in undesired ignorance. I could never question my faith because doing so is a sin, I was taught. Growing up in a conservative, Christian home, attending church twice a week, and being homeschooled sure did a number on me. Here, I will discuss how I overcame this.

Beginnings – My Quest for Answers

I have told the story a million times, both in real life and here on Living by the Logos. Just after I turned eighteen, I faced the very beginning of my greatest suffering. Shortly after graduating high school and beginning full-time college, my loving mother, true follower of Christ, was diagnosed with stage four liver cancer. At the time, I was very devout. I attended my own church, went to one of the most conservative Christian universities in the country, and prayed daily. Might I add, I studied political science that one semester (yuck!).

But when my mother received her diagnosis, my entire world was turned upside down. Immediately after hearing the news, depression entered my body, where it has remained ever since. I collapsed on the floor in my bedroom, bawling my eyes out. “God, how could you do this? Why her? Why me?” I cried. I had not the slightest idea what the problem of suffering was in that moment, but I know now that I was begging it. In that moment, my life’s journey began.

I was heavily inspired by Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ at the time. For those who do not know, Lee Strobel was a staunch atheist who launched an investigation into the Gospels to disprove Jesus and the Christian faith as a whole. In his investigation, he consulted numerous biblical scholars who all wooed him. He concluded his case by accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I must admit, I still hold a high degree of respect for Strobel, even if I disagree with him.

I took inspiration from Strobel and launched my own investigation into the Christian faith. However, I was already a Christian; my goal was not to disprove, but to prove that God always has a reason for our suffering. I knew for certain that my case would allow me to grow closer to Christ and heal the wounds that grew from the sickness and eventual death of the most important person in my life. I knew God was real, God cared, and I would show the world that this rang true.

However, I did not have faith in my faith. There was certainly a degree of skepticism regarding God’s care for our suffering, and this must be noted. Although I believed God had reasons for suffering, these reasons were hidden from me. As I began to ask fellow churchgoers, past and present, why God would allow my mother to suffer, I began to notice a common theme. These answers were far from satisfactory, and I knew there was something else buried deeply in the Bible. I was determined to find these answers.

The Case Builds (And So Does My Skepticism)

As I studied at Liberty University, it seemed as though I was only getting farther from the answers I was after. The courses I took never touched on God’s allowance of suffering. The problem of suffering? I discovered this through extracurricular research my sophomore year. I tried to find answers, but instead I constantly received information on why the Bible has one unified narrative.

Now, Liberty requires its students to uphold their fundamentalist standards in all papers, projects, and presentations. I remember one of the worst classes I took, Introduction to Church History Survey I. One of the assignments was to write a brief summary of church history since 33 CE (or AD by Liberty standards). For this assignment, I had points deducted because I mentioned the Crusades and the Inquisition (how dare I mention two of the church’s most notorious and evil acts!).

The classes I took at Liberty never provided any insight into the problem of suffering. All of the knowledge I do possess of it, I gained outside of school. Needless to say, this was a massive part of my deconversion. I took up this study to explore theodicy, yet I only received training on defending the fundamentalist faith. It was not all useless; I use this knowledge now to pigeonhole this toxic narrative and expose the flaws of evangelicalism. But I did not find what I sought at Liberty.

In Death, I Found My Answer

Last year was an extremely difficult year for me. I have written extensively on my psychosis, relapse, and suicide attempts. Why? Because these are the events that truly made me realize how destructive organized religion, Christianity in particular, has been in my life. Much of my psychosis was religious; I saw demons, I heard voices, and the greatest cross I bore was that I had renounced my faith, and as such, God was punishing me.

Early last year is when I came to the conclusion that I could no longer defend the God of Christianity. As I read the book of Amos, seeing the destruction God caused his own nation, along with its neighbors, I realized that the God of the Old Testament is not just wrathful; he is pure evil. Mind you, Satan did not exist in the Old Testament, so we cannot attribute death and destruction to God’s archnemesis.

Additionally, about these scriptures… Are they really perfect and inerrant? How can the church be so certain? We do not have the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. Seeing that, for about one thousand years, the Catholic church only allowed its priests to read the Bible… how are we certain that what we have today is not tainted? The answer: we cannot be!

While the Bible is the basis of my life, the foundation of everything I am and do, it is far from perfect. It has been edited. I believe there is valid information within it that can be used to live a happy, healthy life (thus, Living by the Logos), but it is not magical. It does not have all the answers. Moreover, the Bible does not answer the most important question in this life. Once upon a time, I was certain that the Bible contained this answer or answers. But, in fact, although it does deal with the question, it never provides any kind of answer.

You’re a Terrible, Terrible Father

The God of Christianity is frequently compared to a father, both in the scriptures and the church. My actual least favorite song, what I believe to be the worst song ever written, composed, and/or performed, is the cringe-worthy “Good Good Father” by Chris Tomlin. “You’re a good, good father,” the artificial chorus says. But is God a good father? The same God who plagued his own people? The God who, according to the Old Testament, started wars because he was offended? The God who kills the innocent? Is this really a good father?

I never had a good father. My father, who I typically refer to as my sperm donor, is a horrible person and has devastated my life, from birth to now. It is because of him that I drank. It is because of him I struggled with self-image for much of my life. The idea of God being a father at all disturbs me. I cannot reconcile God being a good father when A) he is not good and B) I never had a good father, so how can this comparison provide any meaning to me?

This concept alone I have struggled with for as long as I can remember. The closest solace I found was in Wm. Paul Young’s controversial book, The Shack. In this book, God is portrayed as an African-American mother (one of its biggest controversies; ridiculous). Viewing God as a good, good mother I could understand. I think we all could. Mothers are typically, though not always, more empathetic and caring than fathers. Gender roles aside, I cannot believe that a God who allows innocent children to die of horrid diseases to be a “good, good” God.

Stepping Away, Finding Peace, and Fighting Religion

As I lay in my bed that night I attempted, I apologized to God. I apologized for failing to keep the faith. I apologized for becoming one with the world, rather than one with God. But did the God of Christianity deserve this apology? I think not. I think I deserved the apology. For my entire life, I believed that God was just and good. When I found out that this was not the case, and that the answer (God being a monster) was right in front of me in his own book, it shattered my world.

I abandoned the church shortly after my mother’s death, in the early days of the pandemic. While in my first round of treatment for alcoholism, I learned that the legalism of Christianity was the root cause of most of my struggles. Religious legalism, I can best describe in layman’s terms, is being told, “You must live this way, or God will punish you with eternity in hell.” You are told to act a certain way, or believe something as fact… or else.

Despite this awakening, I continued to hold Christian beliefs, just minus the church. Then I worked for a church. Seeing the inner workings of a church, and how it functions just as any other business, was a major revelation. Seeing how the church continues to be involved in sexual abuse scandals made my blood boil. But it was the prophet Amos who finally made me say, “No more, God.” I realized, through my study of Amos, that God is, indeed, a monster.

The Case Concludes

This has been a very brief overview of why I abandoned Christianity. Let me be clear, I did not want to leave it. I fought to hold these beliefs for almost my entire life. I never wanted to be “that guy” who just denies Christianity. I went into the study of theology, determined that I would grow in my relationship with God and lead others on the same path. I mean this wholeheartedly. But it did not work out that way.

I held onto Christianity with every fiber of strength. But I had to recuse myself. Sometimes, holding on is much harder than letting go. In this case, instead of alleviating my suffering, it took me to the brink of death. I will not say God is dead. I still fully believe that the God of the Bible, the horrific monster he is, is still real. But is he the only God? I don’t think so. Is he the God I want to place my faith in? Hell no! But despite all of this, I have made the Bible the foundation of my life. And it will always be… though not for the reasons I once hoped.