"The Authority of Scripture" v. "Do No Harm"

I just read the letter Dr. Tennant, president of Asbury Seminary, wrote in response to the letter of a large number of alumnae and alumna of Asbury.

It is disappointing that he does not acknowledge that there might be harm being done to people because of his stance that the authority of Scripture is at stake in this controversy within the Church.  "Do no harm" is John Wesley's FIRST General Rule.  Wesley does not prioritize authority of Scripture in his General Rules at all.

If Dr. Tennant could acknowledge that there is harm being done, that could start the discussion in a new direction: Is the word "homosexual" and the related passages taken to be "Scripture" properly translated and understood for their primary intent as indicated in the original languages which underlay our translation?

Dr. Tennant might find as I have that the original intent of some of the passages was to discourage sexual acts that did not lead to live births to help the people of Israel to survive in the desert, something Israelis do not subscribe to now (they practice birth control legally in Israel).  In addition, passages referring to same sex acts have words in the original language which were used primarily to identify people who preyed upon children, something nearly every culture has sanctions against, and about which there is no argument in the UMC.  No one is supportive of sexual exploitation of children by adults.

Dr. Tennant has felt that even such arguments, apparently not spelled out in the alumnae letter or his own, are insufficient for him to give up his view of what the Scriptures say and his persistence in then super-prioritizing the "authority of Scripture."  

That is indeed very disappointing.  And is leading to harm being done in the name of the Church.