Rev. Jeff Miner went on the road to provide an alternative to hate writes Timothy Kincaid in "An Alternative to Love Won Out" on Ex-Gay Watch. The comments to the piece are as edifying as the original post. I'm no Biblical scholar but I am always interested in how the language of those books has been used and misused and rewritten and invented over time. (The writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong are especially enlightening in this regard.)
I fully believe that Rev. Miner has written his book, The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-Sex Relationships, with the best of intentions but, ...
... after reading comments such as those to the story about his road trip presentation, I do have to wonder if Rev. Miner's disputed claims are a case of trying to fit a triangular peg in a misshapen old round hole or are they just part of a number of legitimate interpretations used for once in our favor?
Is it in our best interest to stretch things as the commenters seem to be claiming Rev. Miner does or is it better to err on the conservative side of such arguments rather than trend to the expansive lest we allow a perfectly good argument to be dismissed because some of the examples of it go too far? Although I tend to favor the latter, I can see benefits to both, especially in something as fluid as Biblical scholarship. Certainly, we wouldn't be the first to push the envelope a bit in that arena to enable social change!