> This happened because someone interpreted something in the Bible, then acted on it.

This doesn't sound like something that the Bible was consulted for at all but rather a decision made based on human prejudices.

Although there some non-essential issues that may depend on how the Bible is interpreted, it is a widespread misconception that the Bible can be interpreted to mean about whatever you want it to. True, verses can be taken out of context to say a number of incorrect things, but determining context for such verses is generally not hard, and I don't believe it is possible to justify the actions of your former church with even a very liberal interpretation of the Bible. Pick almost any place in the New Testament and you're sure to find some smattering of teachings about forgiveness, judgment, the church, or, as Grishny posted about very recently, a warning against impeding a child's path to Christ, all of which amount to pretty stern instruction against what your former church did. It's not like the Bible is ambiguous about it.

The problem isn't that the Bible is adhered to too much but rather not enough: some churches put as much stock in church traditions and human discernment rather than a genuine deference to biblical truth. Had this church embraced biblical teaching above their own traditions or their own judgments or whatever it was that they put above it, then those actions would not have been taken.