It also assumes that the main authority on what teachings are true or not is the individual's capacity for reason -- that is, that one should assent to a teaching because one can derive it oneself from reason. I can't be apologetic about this point. I've have more than one clergyman assure myself and the congregation that an individual's interpretation of scripture amounts to nothing. However, this implies that the scripture is open to interpretation, and we all know that interpretation lends itself to the agenda of the translator (i.e., not necessarily innate "truth") ((plus, do we really have to go into how strictly the bible is adhered to anymore? Lev 20:10)). Along the same lines, many of these scriptures were created in a time where the average follower couldn't read; in such a time of ignorance, I can agree that independent perceptions were often misleading and incorrect. I can recognize that a theological degree would certainly help the reader in understanding some not-so-evident nuances, but nonetheless I don't think the perceived differences are so fundamentally opposite that a modern lay-reader can't draw his/her own conclusions.

Once you start splitting out parts and testing them independently, you've split yourself out of that unity. The Church is one -- it cannot be split like that. My problem with this idea is that it reduces adhering to a religion to shopping for an insurance policy; as if we are given a set of options, and though we may like certain aspects of that faith, we are also being told we have to take the good with the bad. You may be charitable to the needy, but if you support strong females (Tim 2:12), then you are an imperfect believer. As such, I have zero qualms about approaching the bible using a mental line-item-veto on some of the more outdated teachings.