Assessing “God and the Gay Christian” – Part I

Vines

Why Bother?

Today’s church is being asked – pressured, really – to follow the culture’s lead, and the culture is leading towards wholesale approval of homosexuality. So Matthew Vine’s new book God and the Gay Christian is a fresh, eloquent, and well publicized addition to the pressure.

If Vines had authored an argument for immersion baptism as opposed to sprinkling, or for a Mid-Tribulation Rapture viewpoint instead of a Pre-Tribulation one, or for the continuation of the gift of tongues as opposed to its extinction, then I’d say Yawn to the whole thing. Those are non-essentials to my thinking; subjects we can argue about with no threat to unity, because they’re neither foundational to the faith nor crucial to Christian living.

And plenty of Christian voices are calling for us to view homosexuality in the same light. Tony Campolo says believers shouldn’t break fellowship over it because it’s not an essential doctrinal matter, Craig Gross of XXX Church warns against simplistic, black and white positions on the subject,  and well known blogger Rachel Held Evans joins equally well read author Andrew Marin by advocating no clear position at all on homosexuality, in lieu of simply showing love.

But a plain reading of both Testaments makes it impossible to share these views, because Scripture does, in fact, elevate the definition of marriage, the family, and normal sexual behavior to the status of essential.

The Creation account in Genesis explains the male/female union as a one-flesh joining, in answer to man’s God-ordained need for partnership (Genesis 2: 20-24), a description Jesus referenced and reinforced by asking, rhetorically, “Know ye not that He who created them created them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4) Anything falling short of this standard (monogamous and heterosexual) qualifies as sin, and significant sin at that. Sexual immorality (i.e. fornication, lust, adultery or incest)  is specifically named and condemned in 22 out of the 27 books of the New Testament; Paul exhorted the Ephesians not to let fornication even be mentioned among them (Ephesians 5:3) while warning the Corinthians that it was a significant transgression against the body. (I Corinthians 6:18), So significant, in fact, that it warranted the first recorded case of church discipline via excommunication (I Corinthians 5: 1-5) and a stern rebuke from Paul to the church for allowing it to go unchecked in its midst. (I Corinthians 5: 1-2)

Clearly, then, sexual sin matters. And it matters hugely.

That’s why this book calls for scrutiny. It asks us to revise our understanding of what we’ve traditionally considered a sexual, and thereby serious, sin. If its author is right, then we need to overhaul our thinking. If he’s wrong, then his call for revision is an invitation to gross doctrinal and moral error, having the potential to deceive believers, misinform the public, and further weaken the moral climate in the Body of Christ. And that, I’d say, is a pretty big deal. So this week, we’ll be reviewing Vine’s arguments, offering responses and counterarguments, and (hopefully) some thoughts to equip readers for the conversations they’re likely to have on the subject.

He’s Not All Wrong

 I’m impressed with some aspects of the book. Vines shows integrity by clarifying from the outset that most of the points he makes aren’t new, and indeed, they’re not. My overall impression, in fact, was that he’s re-hashed and re-articulated John Boswell’s 1980 work Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, the ground-breaking standard for a pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. But he’s done so in a style that’s much more user-friendly than Dr. Boswell’s original and somewhat ponderous book, and that alone will broaden his readership. Those unfamiliar with Boswell could easily get the impression Vines developed these revisionist ideas on his own, so I appreciated his diligence to cite original sources. Sadly, I know some conservative Christian writers who could take lessons from this openly gay apologist on fairness and honesty when it comes to giving due credit, rather than passing someone else’s ideas off as your own.

I was also struck by his earnest style. If I were to be convinced only by a gentlemanly and balanced tone, then Vines would win me over hands down. Unlike many on both sides who write about homosexuality, he avoids sarcasm and vitriol. I kept waiting for the shoe to drop while reading, and it really never did. No cheap shots; no character assassination; no demonizing his opponents. By the end of the book I found myself disagreeing with practically everything he said, while appreciating virtually everything about the way he said it. Content is primary, but attitude counts, too, so I salute Matthew Vines for displaying a pretty good one. It’s the assumptions and conclusions he comes to that I take issue with.

Assumption 1: We Need to Know Why

I parted company with Matthew by page 12, where he questions how we can call same sex relations sinful if we can’t prove that they hurt anybody. His assumption seems to be that for something to qualify as sin, the damage it does to another person needs to be verified.  When considering other sins with obvious consequences he states, “By understanding the reasons behind Scripture’s teachings, I could apply its principles to all circumstances in my life”, he asserts. But what literal damage, he ponders, does a committed same sex relationship cause? The question thus shifts from “Is it declared wrong?” to “Why should it be declared wrong?” In other words, I not only need to know what God has said, but why He said it as well.

But that can’t be right. Does every sin need to be proven harmful to be classified as sin? Sexual relations before or apart from marriage are Biblically prohibited, but can we really prove that an unmarried couple living together, or an adulterous relationship that’s kept secret, cause verifiable harm? Or that the young man secretly and sexually fantasizing about the pretty girl next door is hurting anyone?

No, nor do we have to, because sin needn’t have a verifiable outcome to qualify as sin. It need only fall short of what God intended. Consider King David’s words after his horrendous acts with Bathsheba and against her husband: “Against Thee, and Thee only, have I sinned.” (Psalm 51:4) Obviously others had been harmed, Bathsheba’s innocent husband topping the list. But ultimately sin is an offense to God, no matter who else may or may not be proven to have been hurt in the process. If our bodies belong to Him, than straying outside His will for them is, in and of itself, the definition of transgression.

That said, we do know that a same sex union disregards the obvious biological differences in human anatomy. As Evan Lenow, assistant professor of Ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, notes:

“God’s design for man is that he could enter into a complimentary relationship with a woman, who is like him yet still different. At a very basic level, the complimentary biological differences between man and woman make this clear. Thus homosexual intercourse cannot be the union of a man and his suitable helper –”

This isn’t rocket science. In man’s unfallen state, the intended nature of sexual union is evidenced in our first parent’s very specific plumbing, unmistakable in form and function. A deviation from that is inherently a deviation from divine design.

Not that we have to know but, in answer to the question “Why?”  – that’s why.

Assumption 2: Better in Love than Alone

The author’s second assumption seems even more serious. Vines argues that, since God declared it’s not good for man to be alone, then everyone should be in a marital relationship, unless they’re called to celibacy, and the nature of that relationship (homosexual or heterosexual) doesn’t matter. The relationship, not it’s nature, is the main thing. To prove his point he makes a few sub-points:

  1. “Adam and Eve were right for each other, not because they were different, but because they were alike” (p. 46) This undermines the importance of a complimentary union by saying it didn’t really matter what sexes they were; what mattered is that they were brought together, which paves the way for allowing same sex intimacy.
  2. “Celibacy is a gift, and those who do not have the gift should marry” (p. 48) Therefore, if someone does not have the gift of celibacy, they should not only marry, but they should marry whichever sex appeals the most to them. Again, the form of marriage becomes secondary to the experience of a partnership.
  3. “Mandatory celibacy for gay Christians — sends the message to gay Christians that their sexual selves are inherently shameful.” (p. 57) Since everyone should be married, and since people should only marry those they are primarily attracted to, it logically follows that gay marriage is right because gay people, like all people, should be married, and gay people can only marry their own sex.So the real issue for partnership, according to Vines, is not the sex of your partner, but the fact that you have one, and to tell homosexual people not to partner with other homosexuals violates God’s observation that man should not be alone.

    The Junk Food Dilemma

    But having a legitimate need for intimacy cannot justify illegitimate ways of fulfilling that need. It’s not good for man to go hungry; that doesn’t legitimize unhealthy foods. It’s not good for a man to be broke; that doesn’t legitimize robbery. It is better, in fact, to have a legitimate need go unmet, than to fulfill it in the wrong way, and our sexual needs aren’t exempt from this principle. In this fallen world, and dealing with my fallen nature, if the only thing that really turns me on sexually and emotionally is Activity B, yet only Activity A is sanctioned by God, then I cannot rewrite the rules to accommodate my taste. Rather, I need to explore the possibility of engaging in Activity A, or do without. That may not mean I have the gift of celibacy so much as the unfortunate necessity of celibacy, but if the choice is between celibacy and sin, for the Believer the decision should be a no-brainer.

    When the Model is Muddled

    I was especially struck by Vine’s disregard for the divine concept the male/female partnership expresses – God’s union with His people in the Old Testament (Isa 54:5 Hos 2:7; Joel 1:8) and Christ’s union with His church in the New (Eph 5:25-33)– and how impossible it is to adhere to that model in anything but an opposite sex union. In the Old Testament God’s people are seen in the feminine as the Bride and He as the Bridegroom; in the New Testament Christ is in a specifically male role; His church is an equally specific female one. (Rev 19:7-9, Rev 21:2,9-10; Rev 22:17) You cannot recognize this model without recognizing the inherent heterosexuality of it – a male to female connection. And if the marital union is, as Paul declares it to be, an illustration of Christ and His church, than that union must likewise be male to female. Sex is meant to honor this model; deviate from the model, and you deviate from the plan, muddling what ought to be modeled.

    Vines instead focuses the value of the sexual relationship on the level of satisfaction it brings both partners. And from here yet another broad assumption is posed: If you’re homosexual, you can never be anything but homosexual, so marriage to the opposite sex cannot happen. Therefore, your only choice is celibacy, or union with someone of your own sex.

    Gay and Only Gay?

     At this point it’s tempting to say, “But what of all those who claim to have indeed changed and embraced a heterosexual union?” a protest I myself would be quick to make.

    But those are testimonies of people like me who admittedly have a bias – that homosexuality is wrong; heterosexuality normal. More compelling to me, it seems, are the histories of many openly gay women and men who agree with Vines, and who celebrate homosexuality, but who also admit to having once been married to the opposite sex, and to having fathered or mothered children, and to having been able to not only perform sexually but to procreate as well, all the while realizing they were homosexual, yet operating heterosexually as well. They report that their homosexual attractions remained, but – and this is something needing careful thought – those attractions didn’t prevent them from heterosexual union. Their burden was, of course, the continuation of homosexual desires, and the fact that they never seemed to have felt as attracted to their spouse as they were to the same sex. But their same-sex temptations need not have ruled them. At some point many of them chose to leave their families because they decided to partner with the sex they felt most attracted to. Still, their prior marriages proved that, despite Vine’s assertions, they were indeed capable of heterosexual marriage and parenting.

    And what about those who never, despite the most earnest prayer and efforts, feel any attraction to the opposite sex? They certainly exist, and many of them are in the pews next to us each Sunday. They are homosexual in attraction but Christian in fact, and their commitment to Christ compels them to say no to what God has forbidden. They are by no means doing anything wrong by simply having those desires, and the fact those desires remain is no indication of shortcoming on their part. For them, celibacy seems the only logical option. After all, no one should marry if they have no sexual attraction to their spouse; no one should be foolhardy enough to think marriage cures homosexuality. And there must be a place in the church for celibate believers who resist same-sex longings and embrace the disciple’s call to both Cross and Crown.

    Sexuality and the Cross

    But that hardly calls for legitimizing something God prohibits just because it’s what a person feels most naturally inclined to. Vines would have us believe it’s cruel to tell someone their sexual desires are inherently wrong. I would argue that the same can and should be said to most if not all of us. The Christian husband’s occasional attractions to his secretary; the teen’s yearning to go further than he should with his girlfriend; the older man’s inability to be aroused by his elderly wife while becoming quite aroused by a centerfold – these all qualify as “inherently wrong desires.” So at the end of the day, when we tell the believer with homosexual tendencies not to yield to those tendencies, to resist them perhaps on a daily basis, and to accept God’s grace as sufficient in times of temptations, are we really telling him to do anything we ourselves aren’t also required to do?

    I appreciate Vine’s concern. I had it myself when I repented of homosexuality 30 years ago, wondering if or when I would ever feel a longing for a woman, or if I’d need to adapt to singleness. And no answers were clear to me other than this: Despite my best efforts to make it say otherwise, the Bible condemned, in the plainest terms, all forms of homosexual behavior, no exceptions or qualifiers. If I therefore wanted to live as a true follower of Him, I’d be called to deny that part of myself I’d become accustomed to indulging, with no guarantee of ever losing the desire for it, or of ever enjoying sexual union with a woman. This, I believe, was nothing more than the cost of discipleship; the lot of anyone ready to take up his cross and walk, not knowing the immediate outcome, but certain of the eternal one.

    With perhaps the best intentions, Vines commends not an unqualified obedience, but a gratification of the very self Jesus calls us to deny, baptizing sin in seemingly compassionate but, in the end, very misleading terms. And thereby God and the Gay Christian promotes a God who accommodates man on man’s terms, rather than the One who sets the terms and expects them to be revered, not revised.

    Tomorrow we’ll examine Matthew Vine’s approach to the book of Leviticus, and its relevance to believers today. Hope you’ll join us.

Comments

Johnna | May 6, 2014

Thank you , joe. We are blessed to have your evaluation. We live in strange times. Christians are turning away from scripture and turning to the world for understanding.

willieb13 | May 6, 2014

Eloquently and accurately stated, Brother Joe. Looking forward to reading the remaining blogs concerning this book. . ... Rev. Bill Berry, Director, Battle Plan Ministry

Tom Cole | May 6, 2014

Joe, this is beautifully, compassionately and honestly stated. Thank you!

Lori Kinder | May 6, 2014

Always so clear, concise & compassionate - - -

Jerry | May 6, 2014

Thank you, Joe.

Darla Meeks | May 6, 2014

Good article, Joe. I haven't read Vine's work, but I own Boswell's, and have never found it to be intellectually honest or compelling in its conclusions. For instance, it is clear that Sodom was destroyed for lots of reasons, homosexuality being one of them. A lack of "hospitality" was the least of them, I am sure. Clearly, people were hurt in Sodom, as the Lord heard a "great cry" coming from it, and its sister sister, Gomorrah. I don't think that great cry came about because somebody refused to politely pass the catsup to a house guest.

Sin is sin, whether we consider it great or small, God considers it all worthy of death. Gay lifestyle is a result of the poverty of spirit that came out of the fall of humankind, and is a symptom of the irretrievably broken relationship between male and female.

That being said, secular society will likely decide in favor of a social contract like or called "marriage". Like poverty, homosexuality is always with us, and no one who isn't familiar with the gay enclaves and gay culture cannot possibly understand the need to bring order to the chaos that is called a "gay partnership". The suicide rate is atrocious. The domestic violence rate exceeds that of heterosexuals. The homicide rate would startle you. HIV/AIDS is only one of the 6 or 7 diseases caused or promoted by gay promiscuity is nothing short of a public health menace...especially since gay people do often sleep with the opposite sex (despite their very loud claims to the contrary...it's sort of like a vegetarian sneaking out to have hamburger once in a while...sssssshhhhh! Politically non-beneficial!!!).

By the way...my sources for the above? FBI statistics, the CDC, Ellen DeGeneres, and my own observances.

God allows divorce, my brother, though it is an abomination to Him. Instead of banning it, He decided to manage it. Gay people are going to live together whether we sanction it or not, and when they do, chaos and entropy are inevitable because of the outside-the-bedroom sins that arise out of that inside-the-bedroom sin. See Romans 1 for details...the sins are horrendous, up to and including murder...and in the real world those human intrigues are many, vicious and often violent. They arise out of disputes over money, property and relationships...just like when heterosexuals live together outside of marriage. And sometimes children are involved.

Social contracts similar to marriage will make gay people responsible to each other, their families, and their communities. Gay men tend to be wealthy...let them pay taxes accordingly when they live in sin.

We must be realistic. Jesus will come back and judge everyone, and give us peace on earth. There will be no more sorrow, no more sickness, no more discontented faces anywhere. Until then, folks sometimes have to get by.

Shawn | May 6, 2014

Excellent, Joe. The best review I've read so far. Thanks!

Greg Hatton | May 6, 2014

Joe, I believe this is one of the best reviews I have read in a long time, thankyou for your honesty. I listened to part of Vine's you tube, however switched off 15 minutes in. He will make a good lawyer(solicitor in Aus). Thankyou

Joe Dallas on God and the Gay Christian | Searching for Who Know's What in West Gahannabus | May 7, 2014

[...] deny, baptizing sin in seemingly compassionate but, in the end, very misleading terms. And thereby God and the Gay Christian promotes a God who accommodates man on man’s terms, rather than the One who sets the terms and [...]

Regina Griggs | May 7, 2014

Joe,another great article,I also appreciate having the scriptures that back up your comments. Having the correct scripture verse helps me to when entering into a discussion with those who've never heard the truth,its an educational opportunity to go look and learn the truth. I look forward to reading more. Bless you
Regina

God And The Gay Christian – the Matthew Vines book | stasis online | May 7, 2014

[...] [...]

blackapologist | May 7, 2014

Dear Joe:

I read your piece while 30,000 feet in the air flying back from Houston, Texas, to my home in beautiful Southern California. Of course, you know about Cali as that is where you also live and minister. I have read many articles that you have written down through the years, especially your literature concerning homosexuality, and you always hit a home run.

Thanks for sharing your heart and knowledge on this sensitive and divisive issue that continues to cause lines to be drawn in the culture. On a national level, I think besides yourself, Dr. Robert Gagnon is the other person that seem to be able to write with such Biblical clarity, theological insight, and profound compassion.

I love the way you treat young Matthew Vines in your rebuttal to his new book. It is your genuine love and concern for this young man that stands out in your critique of his work. I've listen to Matthew's arguments going back to his first attempt to show that homosexuality is natural and normal, and have never been even remotely close to agreeing with his findings and conclusions.

I do realize however that the liberal media will seek to exalt this new book in an effort to bolster the claims that he has written. Biblically literate people will not fall for the subtle deception, and we have you to thank all the more for your careful refutation in the spirit of Christ.

Love You Brother!

jenellel | May 7, 2014

Well said. Thanks Joe!

Chad Holtz | May 14, 2014

Thank you for this well articulated review. I look forward to reading more.

I was once an affirming ally while going to seminary but over the last 2 years I've come to see how little I honored God's word and His ways. One of my favorite arguments was the first one you cited, the "Sin always hurts someone" argument.

I think it should be pointed out that the very first sin recorded in Scripture hurt no one. How does eating a piece of fruit hurt anyone? After all, we are told, it looked "desirable" and would "make one wise." How could something that looks so good be wrong? This is where Satan's lie creeps in: Did God really say?

Whether one takes this story as mythic or historic fact, the fact remains that when sin enters the world it doesn't hurt anyone in a way we imagine "hurt" today. The offense was disobeying what God said. That was, and is, enough to cause a breach in our relationship with God, whether anyone was "hurt" or not.

Thanks again for your work here!

Askme | May 15, 2014

Thank you for this. Regarding the argument that it's not sinful if it doesn't harm anyone: in God's design, one function of the sexual act within scripture is procreation and childrearing within a permanent union. The gay couple can enjoy sexual intimacy and arguably it doesn't "harm" anyone. But if they are to fulfill the mandate to raise children in a permanent union, they must break one or both parental bonds "their" child to have the family that they desire. Sex is not exclusively designed for the pleasure of adults, it's life-giving properties function to bind a child to both natural parents. God design brings wholeness. Sin brings brokenness. And we see this reality lived out within same-sex headed households. Even if the adults feel "whole," their children will suffer a broken parental relationship because of their sexual union.

Is ‘Sin’ Defined as Something that Harms Others? | stasis online | Jul 30, 2014

[...] to others, is not a great test for whether a behaviour is sinful. This principle is highlighted in this interesting post I found today online. And the post illustrates another furphy too. That being that [...]

Add Comment