There are a few proof-tests that must never be overlooked.

43 “For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44 “For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’


I submit that men don't pick good lifelong relationships from thorns of sin. They don't develop good neighbourly relations and become pillars of the community from thistles of evil.

It's just a matter of trusting Jesus not to have given a standard that couldn't be interpreted in real life.

Plus I still think that wholistic love is unmistakable and is easily distinguished from the schismatic love of adultery. Love needs to be respected.

As for reason as a standard in interpreting the Bible, let me recommend you one of my favorite books: William Hordern's "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology."

The rule of reason is more or less a tenet of "Liberal" Christianity, which, though it still has its followers today, was mainly popular in the early 20th century. Protestantism today is mostly either fundamentalist or neo-Orthodox; the latter strain consists of people who more or less follow along the way that was elucidated by Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich.

"The revelation of Christ emphasizes love as the law of life. Love in the Christian sense is a power rather than an emotion - the power that reunites that which has been separated. Love combines the sense of an absolute ought with the relativity necessary for particular situations. In every situation in which another person is involved, we ought to treat him with love. But how love will act in any particular situation will depend upon the individual needs of the persons involved. Love is not a heteronomous law ["heteronomy is the imposition of a law upon man from outside himself"]; it expresses itself in terms of individual needs."

Christian love, rather than reason, is the standard.

The success of fundamentalism in expanding in chaotic times is based on the fact that its relative legalism offers plenty of structure to people who are trying to pull disordered lives together. My own view is that fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy are partners in contemporary protestantism. The Achilles heel of fundamentalism is illustrated by the fact that it just can't see gay love no matter which way it tilts its head; its legalism has shuttered the view. Neo-orthodoxy suffers from the problem that a lot of insight is needed to see that it's not woolly, unstructured and all-permissive. In fact, lots and lots of actions can't be represented as love! But good loving relationships that haven't infringed on any other loving relationships certainly can.