A Response to Matthew Vines: The Bible Doesn't Support Same-Sex Relationships

Greg mentioned the article “50 'Hand-Picked' Christians Trained To Convince Churches To Re-Interpret Scripture's Gay Boundaries” on a recent podcast. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Fifty hand-picked Christians were part of a seminal conference last week planned by Matthew Vines, a 23-year-old Christian who believes Scripture allows for monogamous homosexual activity, in an effort to spread the idea in the American church over the next decade.

Vines says he has had success in convincing lay members of churches over the last year that monogamous homosexual activity is allowed by Scripture, but is encountering resistance from Scriptural scholars. He is likely to encounter much more, say theologians....

Vines, a gay Christian, delivered a speech in March 2012 in which he argued that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The hour-long video of that speech has been viewed over 600,000 times on YouTube and has been the subject of debate among pastors and theologians.

He told [The Christian Post] that the writers of Scripture understood same-sex behavior as "an impulse toward excess," much like gluttony or drunkenness. But the issue must be approached differently, he says, when discussing Christian gays who are living out "an expression of covenantal love in a faithful, monogamous relationship."

Many Christians think they cannot believe in the full authority and inspiration of the Bible and at the same time support same-sex relationships, says Vines, though he hopes to convince them that isn't the case.

Vines’s video has been convincing laypeople, even if he is “encountering resistance from Scriptural scholars,” because a rebuttal requires very specific knowledge about the texts involved, and the truth is, most of us haven’t looked into this issue closely enough to be ready with an answer.

James White’s Response

This is why I wanted to post a link to James White’s response to Matthew Vines. Please take the time to listen. It’s roughly five hours long, but if you listen to just 15-30 minutes a day, you’ll be finished in no time.

This issue and these arguments aren’t going to go away. I know this probably isn’t your favorite topic to spend time on, but we can’t ignore this. We need to be as prepared as Vines’s trainees if we’re to help the people in our churches who are struggling to understand this issue—including the people we love who have same-sex attractions. This is a topic worthy of our serious study because real people are making real decisions, and the question of which path will fulfill our purpose of “proclaiming the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light” and which path will destroy us is a grave one.

Christ Is Better Than Other Pleasures

This isn’t about hate. If we are truly created by God, and if it’s true that our existence has a purpose, and our bodies have a purpose, and our sexuality has a purpose, then to twist any of those things is to slowly destroy ourselves. There’s a reason why Moses chose “rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt”: he knew deprivation of some pleasures with God is a better life than one that fulfills immediate desires without Him. This is what we need to help our Christian brothers and sisters understand.

It might help for you to also hear this from someone who struggles with same-sex attractions and has chosen Christ over his desire for physical intimacy (a choice which, in itself, is an incredible testimony to the value of Christ), which is why I often recommend Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality.

Comments

[JBerr]

My wife, who is not from the United States, is utterly shocked that Christians would make the claim that sexual activity with the same partner is fine by God. Most Christians in other countries would never come to that conclusion, but in the USA it is now so common, maybe even more common than those that continue to believe same sex practice is a sin. This is frightening (not the sin itself, but rather, how quickly Christians are capitulating to culture). It shows how incredibly idolatrous the culture in the United States has become, but also how much Christians have bought into it. In my wife's country, virtually no Christians believe that sex with the same gender is not a sin, despite the fact that it is legal. It's a real head scratcher for me. I can understand how Vines might come to that conclusion, since he is gay. But how is it that so many others do? Incredible.

[DGFischer]

I am having a difficult time viewing the James White response. The claim is the file is corrupt.

Ironic.

[Amy]

DG, I just checked it again, and it works. But it takes a really long time to load if you're trying to play it in your browser. It might work better for you if you download it first.

[DGFischer]

Amy,

I had retried, failed, but found it by Google search. Technology can be wonderful.

That, too, is ironic.

[Graham]

JBerr

I can understand how Vines might come to that conclusion, since he is gay. But how is it that so many others do? Incredible.

It's not that incredible really. People reflect on scripture, study it, pray about it and have come out the other end of that process with different conclusions. It is no different to any subject ever. There is a perception that someone who doesn't believe same sex attraction/being gay (or indeed same sex sex - which is a different aspect) is not a sin, simply do so because they've not read the passages deeply enough. This is simply a lazy caricature and very very far from the truth in the vast majority of cases. Oh and I'm from the UK.

[DGFischer]

Amy,

I still have not connected with "Gay Christianity" Refuted. Still have notices that file is corrupted. Instead, I have listened to dialogue between White and Justin Lee on the Alpha-Omega website. This was a truly irenic debate, or better, exchange of views. Lee understood that his ability to debate White would have been to his disadvantage, and White graciously offered to note I Cor. 6 as recognizing the homosexual believer as noting such sins committed by the Corinthian what what they once did. Lee noted that the gay needed support, not condemnation.

I feel that such argumentation centers on the misunderstanding of love, confusing the love of eros with the love of agape. The range of what is sexual sin is manifested in hetero as well as homosexual context. But the key is to love properly as Christ loved us.

[Leon Fisher]

When Christians began to stand up against slavery, women's rights and interracial marriage, they received the same response from their "conservative" brothers and sisters in Christ. The Bible was once used to support all of these oppressive positions. This is the human rights issue of OUR day. It's not twisting the Bible to fit our culture, it's finally interpreting it in a more honest way.

[SteveK]

Works for me DGFischer.

[Amy]

DGFischer, that's really strange. Try right-clicking here to download it. I haven't had any problems with it.

[r]

Let's be clear about our vocabulary: there is no such thing as a "gay Christian." The Bible is aboslutely clear that being a homosexual and engaging in gay behaviour is not at all compatible with Christianity. Instead of tolerance, repentance is called for and the command is to put to death the deeds of the flesh. Period. End of story. To try to somehow lay a claim to both is really to forsake Christ.

I purpose to always hold to this truth, no matter how much the "tolerators" might rail against me.

[Willson]

Taking "r's" point a step further, there's no such thing as a "divorced Christian" either, or at least that's not a very common thing. Unless your spouse has committed adultery, you two are bound until death according to the Bible. Period. End of story. Trying to wiggle out of Christ's words on that one is really forsaking Christ.

[Matt]

For those above who say "there's no such thing as a gay Christian," I hope they realize that many Christians who hold to a conservative sexual ethic (i.e. are attracted to the same sex but choose to be celibate) still refer to themselves as "gay" because it's simply the most convenient way to communicate their orientation - "Gay" doesn't necessarily denote that someone is actively pursuing romance any more than "straight" does.

Here's an article from the aforementioned Wes Hill http://spiritualfriendship.org/2013/02/01/once-more-on-the-label-gay-christian/

and from one of his friends, also celibate: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/why-i-call-myself-a-gay-christian

A lot of people like to sound off on this, but I'd really suggest getting to know gay people, whether or not they're celibate or non-celibate Christians, or not even Christians.

[sumsub]

" A lot of people like to sound off on this, but I'd really suggest getting to know gay people, whether or not they're celibate or non-celibate Christians, or not even Christians. "

Matt, I agree

It distresses me sometimes to hear some of my fellow brothers and sisters in christ speak of gay people with so much judgement and not much love or kindness.

And by the way, I hold the belief that engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage (which is between a man and a woman) is sinful, whether that sexual activity is gay or straight.

[Mo]

Thank you so much for dealing with this issue.

One point I have to make is that I reject the term "gay Christian". This comes across as accepting the world's view that being a homosexual is what you are and it cannot be changed either in behavior or desire, but then you choose to stay celibate in order to serve Christ.

Yes, there are genuine followers of Christ who struggle with homosexual desires. But they are no more "gay Christians" than someone who struggles with alcohol abuse is an "alcoholic Christian".

In Christ we are free! We must take on and learn to live in that identity, and not the identity of our particular sin.

I can't see how someone can overcome/have sustained victory over a sin if they are always telling themselves they are that particular thing and thinking of themselves as being defined by that sin. Once someone is in Christ, that is their identity, and it is powerful to think in those terms and not in terms of what their sin used to be.

This is especially true when it comes to homosexuality, because it's one of the few sins I know of where the people involved in it or who struggle with it have chosen to make that sin the basis for their entire identity.

- Mo/Maureen

[Sam]

DGFischer, an other idea is to try a different browser. I sometimes run into issues like that and discover that it works better in another browser. Like uploading videos to youtube. For some reason, I can't do it from Safari, and I have to open Firefox each time. And there are some features I can't access at the Texas Railroad Commission using Safari that I can with Firefox.

[Madi]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ravi+sacredness+of+sexuality&oq=ravi&gs_l=youtube.3.0.35i39l2j0l8.1270.2322.0.3656.4.4.0.0.0.0.71.241.4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.Ry-bC2HhLJw

ravi zacharias sums it all up pretty well

[Anar]

Wilson,

The difference between a "divorced Christian" is that divorce is consider an act, not an inherent identity from deep within someone. A "gay Christian" by many uses of the word "gay" is an oxymoron because for many "gay" is a replacement religion. It is the same as saying there is no such thing as a "Muslim Christian" or a "Hindu Christian."

Now if we are talking about homosexual activity and attraction, then yes of course that is forgivable sin. But for some reason many people like to frame the issue as identity and not action.

[Anar]

at Matt,

I would say framing the issue as "gay" or a "sexual orientation" is not at that helpful when talking about a celibate person who may internally be struggling with odd attractions.

The APA help center says, "one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."

This cannot describe a Christian. A Christian is someone who only finds fulfillment in Christ and is identified as in Him.

[DGFischer]

Sam, you are a genius! And Amy, after much encouragement, I made connection to the White web-selection. Thanks for the support.

[TC]

How many agree is, to a certain degree, unknown.

In Canada, I believe you can be fired or sued for publicly stating a non-pro-homosexual position. Even in the US, there is the a stigma to being called a bigot due to the poor treatments of minorities, regardless of whether the label is deserved.

Western culture does not want to say that it is doing anything discriminatory or in any way create any (non-financial) unequalness. Political correctness is the default moral position.

The numbers of people may be exactly as they are often reported, but they may not. I suspect there are more "bigots" pretending to be "progressive" than the other way around.

Think about many people you know. If they were at a meeting where this was being expressed, how many would stand up and be seen as promoting hate even if they thought the presenter was out twisting to their agenda.

[Jared Berryman]

I would like to point out that Christians are basically the ones who got the ball moving on slavery and women's rights.

I never said the people that read scripture and say that God has no problem with same sex actions are lazy. You can see in my other comment about this issue in the other thread that I think it is eisegesis. Eisegesis means to read into the text. I have a big problem with this. I think we must do exegesis, read a text and allow God to speak through it. The dismissal of the Bible's teaching on marriage and sex with the same gender is one big massive eisegesis. People believe this believe first, and then impose a meaning on the text that is out of context and not there at all. I actually think that they have to expend more energy in order to come to these conclusions. If you just take the time to take Romans 1 and write it down on a piece of paper (thereby reading it more slowly) and look at it inductively, you are going to think twice about this sort of thing.

Perhaps I should have said, first world Western countries along with the U.S. It's no surprise that first world Western countries are accepting homosexuality as morally acceptable (after just reading Romans 1). These societies are incredibly self-centered and idolatrous. People in these societies pass their time looking to get richer, and looking to satisfy their every sense and whim. The western first world has no use for God. Meanwhile, in many third world countries, Christians are persecuted and dying for their faith even as they make many disciples. We really aren't making disciples in the West, and we Christians don't take discipleship all that seriously. The result is a declining church and an evermore idolatrous society. The rich are getting richer, the poor are losing out. It's no surprise then, that the result is an increase in homosexuality and its acceptance.

[TC]

"I would like to point out that Christians are basically the ones who got the ball moving on slavery and women's rights."

You mean it wasn't from the Enlightenment in spite of Christians?

[Goat Head 5]

Even a surface reading of the surrounding verses to the ones Vines cites completely destroys his arguments.

Arguments for Twitter attention span. Sophomoric.

Goat Head 5

[JBerr]

The Enlightenment is what caused racial slavery in the first place (slavery existed before that, but not in the same shape and form and certainly not racial). Haven't you ever heard of William Wilberforce?

[TC]

"The Enlightenment is what caused racial slavery in the first place"

**Sarcasm on

Has Dawkins, and friends, heard about this?

**Sarcasm off

;-)