When Tradition and Truth Collide

The Church Has Changed Before—Should We Again?

One of the most common objections to rethinking the church’s stance on gay marriage is this: “Are you saying the church has been wrong for 2,000 years?” It may feel like a safeguard to fall back on, but history tells a more complex story.

The church has changed its teachings before, on many issues. Faithfulness has never meant being unchanging; it has meant being willing to return to the heart of Jesus and questioning our traditions, even if it means admitting we got something wrong.

Tradition shapes how we read Scripture. Relying on others for interpretation and truth has often been at the heart of some of the most harmful theologies in church history.

Tradition used the Bible to enforce slavery.
Tradition used the Bible to enforce geocentrism, the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who challenged it were labeled heretics and sometimes killed or imprisoned.
Tradition used the Bible to Manifest Destiny, rationalizing the slaughter of 50–100 million Indigenous people across the Americas.
Tradition used the Bible to enforce Antisemitism, laying the theological groundwork for nearly 2,000 years of persecution—including the Holocaust, where over 6 million Jews were murdered.
Tradition has used the Bible to justify Islamophobia, fostering fear, fueling violence, and casting Muslims as enemies of God instead of neighbors to be loved.

In church history, it’s when some saw people being harmed, that they finally questioned their interpretation of scripture. That is when the church was finally willing to reconsider how they had understood God’s truth. They did not question God. They questioned man’s interpretation of God’s word.

Our church, our family, our friends, our beliefs, our past, our experiences, social media, and our mentors. All do have an influence of what we believe and how we are reading the Bible, whether we acknowledge it or not.

“Moral tradition matters. We don’t just read the Bible as if nobody else has ever interpreted it before … and we stand on the shoulders of those who have done those interpretations.” Dr. David Gushee, The Bible for Normal People Podcast, Episode 211, July 4, 2022

Acknowledging that thousands of years of tradition have caused people to make theological mistakes in the past, should encourage us to take the uncomfortable step of “testing the scriptures” as the Bible tells us to do.

Scripture Invites Testing

Sometimes tradition keeps us on the right path. But sometimes, tradition has lost it way. Far from demanding blind loyalty to tradition, the Bible invites and commands us to test, to examine and discern:

What we hear (1 John 4:1)
What we believe (2 Corinthians 13:5)
What we’ve inherited (Gal. 1:8)
What we ourselves believe to be true (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Relying on our church, leaders, teachers, spouse, family, or friends for truth may feel faithful, but Scripture calls us to examine truth for ourselves.

People drift.

A boat naturally drifts unless it’s anchored or steered—it takes intentional action to keep it on course. It’s the same with us and the Bible. If we aren’t continually returning to God’s Word, our theologies can slowly drift. Not out of harmful intent, but from inaction.

Let’s look at some examples of how the church has re-examined it’s beliefs in the past and learn from their experiences.

The Change on Loan Interests

Born out of a necessity to protect people being harmed, this prohibition was an “abomination” mentioned 17 times in the Bible, even Jesus affirms this rule: “If he has exacted usury [charged interest on loans]… If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die.” Ezekiel 18:13.

The verses do not only address excessive interest or exploitative lending, but all interests. Jewish laws and church fathers all condemned it. They said it was a crime against nature, anyone who does will not inherit the kingdom of God, and they would lose their salvation (Athenasius of Alexandria, 296 AD). They said it was a crime against nature and unnatural (Basil of Caesarea, 330 AD, Gregory of Nyssa, 379 AD), led to spiritual death (Ambrose of Milan 374 AD), and anyone who even thought it was ok, must be excommunicated, punished, or executed (the Second Lateran Council, 1139 AD, the council of Vienne, 1311 AD). Thomas Aquinas, considered one of the most important theologians in church history, said it was a mortal sin that would lead to eternal damnation without repentance.

Following this law today would mean that the way we structure nearly all modern loans (mortgages, car loans, student loans) would fall under this biblical ban.

The Change: In 1545, John Calvin was one of the first voices to say that it was a law that not only didn’t apply anymore, but was now harming people. He stated that, while the law was born for a time that demanded extra protection for the poor, now “usury” would actually be beneficial to them. Eventually, after 2000 years, the church changed it’s mind. With the change of economic realities and societal norms, the church realized that loans could help people, as long as interests were not abused.

The Lesson: The early church recognized that when the spirit of a law could be better upheld in a different way, faithful reinterpretation was not only possible but necessary.

The Change on Circumcision

Two pillars identified the faithful Jewish man. One of them was male circumcision. Anyone who was not circumcised was to be “cut off” from the community for breaking the covenant (Genesis 17:10-14) and excluded from passover (Exodus 12:48). Certain people were teaching: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1).

Some Jewish believers taught that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised to be saved, just as the prophets had taught. It said it in the law. It said it in the Torah. This sparked a major debate, leading to the Jerusalem Council, where the apostles and elders came together to settle the issue. Even Peter and Paul had a public confrontation on this subject.

The pressure for the pro-circumcision view was so strong that many Gentiles probably thought it would be easier to get circumcised, just to not be judged.

The Change: Going back and studying Jesus’ teachings, the council ultimately affirmed that salvation was through grace, not the law, and that anyone was welcome to be saved. The decision was made. Gentile believers were no longer required to be circumcised to be fully included in the church (Acts 15:11, 19). It was a defining moment that clarified we are saved by faith in Jesus, not by religious rituals or the law. In fact, Paul started preaching that circumcising the Gentiles was even sinful, because it was “putting them back under the law” (Galatians 5:2–6).

The Lesson: Paul taught that the law was about the heart and redefined what it means to belong to God: it’s about the heart, not physical rituals (Romans 2:28–29). Circumcision was a matter of salvation. And yet, it was changed in order to save life and include those who were excluded. Churches have historically blocked certain people from access to God. May we learn from the early church and how they revisited Jesus’ teachings.

The Change of Geocentrism

For years, church fathers believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe. The Sun, Moon, stars, and planets orbited it. They believed this because the Bible said so: “The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.” Psalm 96:10.

The church taught that if anyone disagreed with this, they were against the Bible and against God. A man called Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for asking the church to revisit the verse and that maybe it had been misinterpreted (executed in 1600).

The Change: Astronomers, especially Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, found evidence that the Earth is not fixed but moves around the Sun (1556). Then James Bradley direct physical evidence of the Earth’s motion in 1729. Eventually, the church decided to take scientific findings into account and reinterpret the Bible text, explaining that the writers did not yet know a scientific truth.

The Change on the Torah Law

In the Old Testament, many actions were labeled as detestable or abominations. Eating shrimp was forbidden and called an abomination (Leviticus 11:9–12). Wearing clothes woven from two kinds of thread was also prohibited as detestable (Deuteronomy 22:11).

These rules were part of a detailed covenant law that defined purity, holiness, and faithfulness for God’s people. Breaking these laws was considered sin, and obedience to them was deeply tied to one’s standing before God.

The Change: After 1500 years, the church came to understand that Jesus fulfilled the law and changed salvation to a heart issue, rather than a law issue. We were no longer bound to the full Torah code (Acts 15, Romans 7, Mark 7:18-19).

The Change on Eunuchs

For centuries, men who were sexually different (whether born with ambiguous genitals, castrated by force or choice, or altered due to injury) were considered ritually impure. These individuals, often referred to as eunuchs, were excluded from temple worship and seen as unfit to fully belong among God’s people.

“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:1)

But that wasn’t the end of their story. Over time, God’s posture toward eunuchs changed in profound and surprising ways. You can learn more about who eunuchs were [on this page]. here.

The Change: Isaiah predicted the change and then Jesus brought it to be. The New Testament church changed in the belief and practice regarding Eunuchs. Whether they chose themselves or they were born that way, Eunuchs were now allowed to part of God’s family as well. This change fulfilled of Isaiah’s prophecy about Eunuchs, where God said: “to them [eunuchs], I will give within my temple and its walls, a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that will endure forever.” No eunuch will complain in the future that he is “only a dry tree” (speaking of the belief that it was degrading to be an infertile man in that day). The original law prohibiting them from entering the temples was no longer necessary to accomplish and became obsolete. The command changed. And we see Phillip apply the full inclusion in Acts 8:26-40 when he baptize a Eunuch upon his confession.

The Change on Slavery

Slavery is affirmed in over 100 verses in the Bible. It was part of the church culture for over 2000 years and accepted by Church Fathers. Not too long ago, most theologians were arguing a case for slavery. Jesus even uses slavery as an example for his teaching. For centuries, many Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. Speaking against slavery was seen as speaking against the Bible. Those who spoke out against slavery were accused of disregarding Scripture that said:

“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters.” Titus 2:9-10
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters.” 1 Peter 2:18
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters.” Ephesians 6:5
“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything.” Colossians 3:22
God commanded the Israelites to make people slaves in Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Paul affirms slavery in Ephesians 6:5
Jesus uses slavery as an example pictures for his teaching in Romans 6:15-23

The Change: How could a theology be changed after 2000 years? Could a church be wrong, after having preached a theology for so long? Why are no theologians arguing for slavery today? Once again, similar to other laws that were reinterpreted, theologians considered the culture in which scripture was written. They considered what the word “slave” meant back then, and how it was affecting people today. Was it a benefit or was it harmful.

Why all the Changes?

The Church eventually came to understand that the purpose of the law matters. Obeying the letter of the law without considering its intent—who it was for, why it was given, and what context it addressed—can lead to harmful outcomes. When we apply a rule blindly, without discernment, we risk placing burdens on people the law was never meant to condemn.

“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23:4)

Can we take a law for a certain people and apply it to others without considering the context?

Let’s take the British driving laws as an example. Can we directly apply them to driving in the States? If someone visited New York from London, rented a car, and abided by their laws back home, they would drive on the wrong side of the road and cause a head on collision. The purpose of the driving laws are the same: safety. The laws themselves, though, differ. Why? Because they are written for different contexts.

When we apply the laws from one people group to another, without considering the purpose for which they were written, the repercussions could be harmful, and sometimes deadly. We are not changing the purpose of the law.

The person who follows the spirit of the law, follows it’s intent. The person who is tied to the letter of the law, misses its true meaning.

Faithfulness Sometimes Requires Change

Every major shift in church teaching wasn’t a departure from Scripture. It was a return to truth.

When new insight revealed that old interpretations were causing harm, faithful believers had the courage to go back to the text, reexamine its context, and seek the Spirit’s guidance anew.

History teaches that faithfulness sometimes requires change. Jesus Himself modeled this. He reinterpreted Scripture, challenged tradition, and disrupted the status quo—not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

So when we ask whether the Church could be wrong about LGBTQ inclusion, we’re not dishonoring our spiritual heritage. We’re honoring the long and courageous legacy of believers who dared to reform, repent, and grow in love.

The real question isn’t “Has the Church ever been wrong?”. We know it has. The real question is: Are we willing to let God lead us back to truth, even when it disrupts our comfort?

Scripture calls us to test everything. To search, to question, to make sure we’ve understood Him right. Because there is a cost to getting it wrong. Not just to our theology, but to real people’s lives.

True faithfulness isn’t passive. It asks hard questions. It returns to God’s Word.

Let’s do that work—for God, for the marginalized, for the hurting, the lonely, the afraid. For all those who long for us to take this seriously.

Next Page: When The Bible Is Silent