July 11, 2014
Homosexuality
“God
and the Gay Christian” by Matthew Vines (Convergent Books, 2014)
review
by Randall F. More, P. Eng.
In defence of homosexuality Vines writes "that
true Christian sacrifice, no matter how costly, should make us more like God,
not less." Most people would agree with this but then Vines dedicates
the next 150 pages explaining why homosexuals should not have to sacrifice
anything... least of all their sex lives (p.19).
Vines writes that "mandatory celibacy for
gay Christians is more than many of them can bear." This would be
unfortunate except that it doesn't reflect reality as we know from God's Word
and it doesn't justify homosexuality. The apostle Paul reminds us that, “No
temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful,
who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation
will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (I
Corinthians 10:13 NASB). Many of us are required to endure many things
in our varied lives that we feel are unbearable but we are admonished to be strengthened
through Christ (p. 19).
Vines says that "non-affirming beliefs about
homosexuality should be reconsidered" because of "the harmful
impact on gay Christians." This does not constitute a legitimate
reason to affirm homosexuality. Should we affirm adulterous or any other sinful
behaviour just because our less-than-positive view may seem to have a harmful
impact on the person? Of course not. In fact, speaking the truth would rarely
have a negative impact on anyone. Shouldn’t we be primarily interested in the
truth? (p. 43).
Vines writes that "lifelong celibacy is a
spiritual gift and calling." If one is not blessed with such a gift,
contrary to Vines' assertion, it doesn't justify homosexual sexual
relationships. Not unlike homosexuals, there are many heterosexuals who would
prefer to be married but if they do not marry, for whatever reason, then it is incumbent
upon them to refrain from sexual relations. For homosexuals, just as
for heterosexuals, not having the gift of celibacy is not a justification for
sex or for same-sex intercourse (pp. 44, 48).
Vines writes that "Adam and Eve were right
for each other, not because they were different, but because they were alike...
Adam and Eve's sameness, not their gender difference, was what made them
suitable partners." This statement is without merit and is another attempt
to legitimize homosexuality. Their gender difference was the primary characteristic
which made them suitable partners. Sure, Adam and Eve were alike because they
were both of the humankind but that is the end of it. The fundamental and important
difference was their maleness and femaleness which made them capable of
becoming husband and wife, completing the full image of God, and allowing them
to procreate according to His command (pp. 46-47).
Vines writes that "our understanding of
same-sex orientation is uniquely modern." Contrary to Vines' notion,
there is no basis for believing that the apostle Paul did not understand the
notion of sexual orientation or that such a notion is only a contemporary
concept. Paul wrote under the authority of the Holy Spirit who knows all things.
Even if orientation had not been recognized as such at the time, it is nothing
more than a more modern expression for having wrong or wayward desires which
certainly was a clearly known concept. None of the wording does anything to
nullify the wrong of homosexuality. Regardless, homosexual orientation is only
part of the issue. The other issue is whether one acts on such desires or
orientation (p. 48).
Vines says that "Mandatory celibacy
corrodes gay Christians' capacity for relationship in general. But it does
something else equally harmful: by requiring gay Christians to view all their
sexual desires as temptations to sin, it causes many to devalue, if not loathe,
their bodies." Heterosexuals who do not marry, but those who would
like to, are exposed to similar temptations but presumably without the
self-loathing. The Bible may be responsible for bringing one to a point of
conviction but it is certainly not responsible for one's self-loathing. The
conscience is responsible for that (p. 50).
Vines says that "celibacy for gay
Christians... sends the message to gay Christians that their sexual selves are
inherently shameful." As harsh as such a message may be, the
assessment may be correct. We don't avoid the shame just because we want to. As
for any sin, the person would be wise to make constructive changes to live a
Christ honouring life rather than defending the right to homosexual sexual
intercourse (p. 57).
Vines writes that "the idea of 'gender
complementarity' is not explicit in the account of the creation of Adam and
Eve." To the contrary, it is very explicit, implicit, obvious, direct,
and very relevant. Anyone past the age of five years of age knows that they
are MALE and FEMALE and that it is the two genders which complement each other
for God's purposes in His Creation. There is no misunderstanding except if one
intentionally chooses to misunderstand (p. 66).
Vines spends an inordinate amount of effort showing
that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was one of being inhospitable, not one of
homosexuality. Whether or not the judgement and demise of the ancient cities
can be attributed to homosexuality is largely irrelevant because there are
enough other Scripture passages for one to know that homosexuality is wrong. It
is certainly not something that is sanctioned by God. As much as Vines attempts,
there is no biblical reference which condones homosexuality. It is all to the
contrary. All that Vines writes is designed to suit his own personal
sexual agenda, not to honour God’s Word or His plan for each of us (p. 72).
Vines notes that "Christ's death on the
cross liberated Christians from... 'the yoke of slavery.'" He wonders
if Christians are "also released from the prohibitions of male same-sex
intercourse." No. In fact, homosexual conduct likely places one under
even further bondage and under a greater yoke (p. 81).
Vines notes that Leviticus 18 and 20 forbid "incest,
adultery, and bestiality, which Christians continue to regard as sinful."
He notes that the same chapters prohibit "sex during a woman's
menstrual period" even though this is not a practice which is
considered sinful today. Regardless, Vines would be wise to acknowledge
homosexuality amongst the former group of sins and not spend time worrying
about other Old Testament sins, in an attempt to justify his cause (p. 83).
It seems that Vines has selected another
passage, somewhat surprisingly, wherein he notes "that men who are
church elders should be 'the husband of but one wife.'" If
complementarity or gender roles or other issues didn't matter, the apostle Paul
would most certainly have indicated that a male church elder could also be the
partner of another male partner... but doing so would just be nonsense (p. 84).
Vines comments that the Leviticus verses are not
grounded on male-female anatomical complementarity. Vines is mistaken when he
writes that "the entire question of how bodies fit together doesn't
seem to be on the radar." The issue has everything to do with
anatomical differences between male and female and has absolutely nothing to do
with the proper ordering of gender roles in a patriarchal society, as he
insists (p. 90).
Vines writes that "For countless lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender people, Romans is the book that has driven them
away from their faith and torn them from their homes and families. It's the
book that's sent so many down a path of despair." It is not right to
blame their own attitudes about themselves on God's Word. Isn't it more
important for them to examine God's Word to see what changes they might need to
make in their lives to live more righteously, instead of just assuming that
they are right because they want to be right? None of us should claim to be
faithful and then just reject His Word. Isn't it possible that Romans should
have or could have more rightly driven them to understand the truth of God's
Word as it has with so many others in the world who had earlier been bent on
exercising their homosexuality but then were wise enough to conclude that they
were wrong and that the truth of Romans needs to be honoured? (p. 96).
Vines himself couldn't be any clearer in
understanding it all himself when he writes, "Whatever the other stuff
in the Old Testament, one thing that carries over as an enduring thing is that
God disapproves of same-sex genital intimacy. He does not want men lying with
men and women lying with women, denying the natural use." God makes
it clear and Vines understands it clearly and yet he then still goes on to
attempt to justify homosexuality. This is quite extraordinary (p. 96).
Vines remarks on "the failure of the modern
'ex-gay' movement" but he fails to mention that there are many ex-gays
who have chosen to surrender their gay lifestyle and there are others who have
had their hearts and lives transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit to the
extent that they have been delivered from their homosexuality. Christopher Yuan
is a Christian who for a long time participated in homosexual sex but who
now chooses to resist his homosexual urges. He says that "the opposite
of homosexuality is holiness." Mike Haley is another one who has a remarkable
story of deliverance. Melissa Fryrear similarly came to understand the biblical truth. If Vines is genuinely interested in understanding or writing about the truth of the issue, it is disingenuous for him not to
acknowledge such individuals or to share some of their remarkable stories
before arriving at his conclusions (p. 103).
With the "apparent" failure of the ex-gay
movement, Vines goes so far as to ask if the apostle "Paul was wrong
and the Bible is in error?" Vines seems to believe that because he is
homosexual and because there are many homosexuals then homosexuality must be
okay and that God and the apostle must be wrong (p. 103).
Vines argues erroneously that the biblical
directive against homosexuality has to do with sexual excess, not sexual
orientation. Vines writes that the apostle Paul "was condemning excess
as opposed to moderation." This is just tremendous wishful thinking.
Even if Vines' assessment was correct, even one incident of anal penetration
would constitute excess (pp. 105, 130).
If homosexuals genuinely require some kind of a
union because "they desire intimacy, companionship, and long-term
commitment" then possibly they should do so without sexual intercourse
(p. 107).
Contrary to Vines' inference, there is no reason to
believe that there are any "differences between how Paul understood
same-sex relations and the modern understanding of sexual orientation."
The understanding 2000 years ago was likely the same as today. Vines writes
that translators "have separated millions of people from the
transformative power of the gospel." In fact, the converse is true.
Homosexuals who choose to continue in their conduct nullify and quench the
transforming power of the Holy Spirit (p. 128).
Vines writes "that a categorical rejection
of same-sex relationships has been deeply damaging to gay Christians."
Vines is mistaken. Sadly, the ongoing efforts in arguing for the acceptance of
same-sex intercourse is what is most likely confusing and damaging gay
Christians... struggling with one's conscience against a biblical mandate and
the truth of the gospel. This would be very debilitating for anyone (p. 129).
If gays genuinely desire to have a relationship of
love, commitment, and fidelity as Vines insists, then the best that they should
choose is to do so without sexual intercourse being part of their conduct (p. 129).
Vines uses Ephesians 5:21-33 to defend his position
of homosexual marriage. It is largely contradictory for Vines to even select
this passage. The passage instructs wives to submit to their husbands and
husbands to love their wives. It further speaks of the love that Christ has
for His church, His bride. If Vines was correct regarding homosexual marriage,
we can be sure that Paul would have also written about the importance of men to
love their male partners and for females to love their female partners. Of
course he did not write such things because it is clearly against God's plan
for marriage. Further, Christ's bride, the church, could never rightfully be
considered analogous to a male partner. This would just be so very wrong and
too absurd (p. 135).
Vines believes that it is not the biology of the
married partners that matters; it is only the covenant between the partners
which matters. This is very far off base. Genesis 1 and 2 makes it very clear
that the biology of being male and female is implicit and clearly understood to
be a very basic and fundamental component to any marriage covenant. This is
made clear and consistent throughout all of Scripture (p. 141).
In trying to justify that procreation is not
essential to marriage, Vines refers to Song of Songs as evidence of erotic love
and intimacy apart from procreation. It is almost incredible that he would
refer to this passage as it is clearly about erotic love between a husband and
a wife, not between two males involved with anal intercourse (p. 141).
Vines says that "Same-sex couples' inability
to procreate does not exclude them from fulfilling the Bible's basis for
marriage." To make the inference that same-sex is then acceptable
demonstrates a lack of understanding of God's plan and design for marriage, for
family, and for mankind (p. 141).
Vines acknowledges that "the essence of
Christian marriage involves keeping covenant with one's spouse in a
relationship of mutual self-giving. That picture doesn't exclude same-sex
couples." Of course it excludes same-sex couples. Apparently the
emperor has no clothes (p. 143).
Sure, as Vines writes, "Becoming 'one flesh'
encompasses much more than the act of sex" for a husband and wife but
one-flesh was most certainly not intended to include sex between two males.
Just because one-flesh encompasses far more between a husband and wife than
just the physical act is no justification to extend this to two males having
anal intercourse. This is nothing more than a leap of logic (p. 145).
Vines states with regard to one-flesh that the
"meaning of the phrase doesn't require gender difference." Of
course one-flesh requires gender difference. That is the most basic premise and
requirement for one-flesh and it is the most important characteristic of the
relationship which is only to be between a husband and his wife... and most
certainly not between a male and another male sexual partner (p. 145).
Vines writes that "condemning gay
Christians' potential for covenantal love has been deeply destructive. For
many, it's corroded the core sense of worth they should have as people created
in God's image." Anyone who speaks against gays loving each other in a
manner consistent with a marriage covenant is only speaking the truth of God's
Word. To denigrate Christians for doing their best to uphold God's Word is
wrong. Each one of us, including gays, was created in God's image but gays are
wrong to believe that their homosexuality is condoned or sanctioned by God.
Such a view is contrary to anything in His Word. The core sense of worth of a
homosexual cannot be blamed on those who believe that homosexuality is wrong.
Those who believe that homosexuality is wrong are doing their best to elevate
the homosexual to see and understand the wrong, consistent with God's Word, which
is not necessarily consistent with one's feelings (p. 156).
Vines' basic argument is that homosexuals can have a
covenantal relationship in marriage. Sure, any two or more people can
formulate any covenant that they choose but there is no biblical basis for
believing that such a homosexual relationship is God-honouring or that God
would honour it. In fact, it would all be to the contrary.
It is just too-over-the-top for Vines to write, "given
that same-sex orientation is consistent with God's image, affirming same-sex
relationships is the only way to defend those truths with clarity, coherence,
and persuasiveness." Same-sex anything is not consistent with God's
image. Vines essentially believes that his personal experience as a homosexual
reigns above God's Word. His personal experiential situation is not a
legitimate basis for justifying homosexuality. He is treading on very thin ice
(p. 161).
Vines also writes that "same-sex orientation
is in keeping with God's relational, covenant-keeping character. That means
that we should understand it as a created characteristic - not as a distortion
caused by the fall. By branding same-sex orientation broken, we are wrongly
rejecting a good part of God's creation." Vines seems to have very
little understanding of who God is or who fallen man is. Vines has completely
distorted that which God has stated is good and that which is not good... to
suit his own sinful desires. Fundamental to forming a marriage covenant is a
husband and his wife... not two males who believe they can form a God-honouring
covenant just because they say so. Rejecting same-sex marriage and its
associated anal intercourse is not a rejection of God's good creation. It
couldn't be more opposite. Two (or more) males can form their own covenant
which involves anal intercourse if they so choose but it most certainly would
not be God-honouring (p. 161).
Vines goes on to write, "So it isn't gay
Christians who are sinning against God by entering into monogamous, loving
relationships. It is the church that is sinning against them by rejecting their
intimate relationships." This is not sensible. In fact, it is
Christians who do their best to uphold God's Word who may be doing their very
best to ensure that homosexuals are not caught in the downward spiral of sin,
refusing to accept or believe that what they are doing is against God's design
and His Word. Vines has no biblical basis for believing that any homosexual
relationship honours God. It is completely against Scripture (p. 162).
Vines writes that "God's image will be
tarnished until LGBT believers are welcomed as a full, thriving part of the
body of Christ." Quite to the contrary, God's image is, in fact,
tarnished when the sin of homosexuality is intentionally propagated and
condoned in His name. We may attempt to mock God but ultimately God will not be
mocked. Any mockery will be at our own peril (p. 177).
Vines' father is a lawyer who earlier understood the
sin of homosexuality. One would think, most especially as a lawyer, for whom each and every word has a unique and important meaning, that he
would have a very difficult time in misconstruing the truth and facts as
clearly written in Scripture in order to now support homosexuality (p. 19).
Vines is making a big and costly mistake. It is one
thing for Vines to convince himself of the acceptability of homosexuality. It
is quite another to spend his time and effort attempting to convince the rest
of the world when, in truth, such an endeavour is against God's plan and design
for us. By doing so, Vines is working to nullify the transforming power of the
Holy Spirit in the lives of others. This constitutes a serious error affecting
countless lives.
Vines says that, "Christians who affirm
the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex
relationships." This is certainly not true. Scripture does not affirm
homosexual relationships. If one believes this then one could make the
Scriptures say virtually anything that one wanted (p. 3).
Ultimately Vines seems to hold a lot of resentment
for having to combat God, the Bible, and Christians and gives little credence
that, just possibly, homosexuality is wrong.
Throughout his writing, Vines chooses to elevate his
own experience and views above those of God because God's plan and design
don't suit him very well. This is wrong. Being one in Christ, as is
required, doesn't lead to justification of homosexuality. Vines desperately desires
to find his identity in homosexuality rather than in Christ. This is most
unfortunate.
Vines is too far off base as to be reasonable...
unless one is prepared to throw out the Bible.
Vines is doing exactly that which the apostle Paul
warns against which is "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness"
(Romans 1:18). Ultimately, sin doesn't come from ignorance; it comes
from stubbornness.
Vines attempts to use biblical passages to suggest
that homosexuality has been misunderstood in the past and that the meaning or
interpretation is wrong historically. Even if that was the case, just as for
greed, lust, gluttony, impatience, drunkenness, lewdness, incest, unkindness,
anger, pride, adultery, bestiality, or any other sin, there isn't any biblical
passage whatsoever which affirms or condones homosexual behaviour of any type,
manner, or sort for anyone at any time.
It is rather interesting that homosexuals are the
only group in society which essentially defines itself by the sexual
proclivities of the members. Their events, their politics, their demands for
new laws, their boasting, their celebrations and all their activities are
almost always oriented around their sexual agenda.
Melissa
Fryrear, one who left her life of homosexuality, commented in her testimony
that the journey out of homosexuality may or may not lead to marriage but the
journey is the same as it is for everyone. It is about repentance, obedience,
holiness, worship, redemption, love, and righteousness. It is not about a life
of serving and satisfying self.
Vines' position is just too difficult to fathom but
the saddest part of it all is that his perspective won't serve either him or
others well over the long term.
All that Vines writes is about justifying his
own homosexual desires. He resents being precluded from loving, marrying, and
having a family. He would be better advised to doing it all the old fashioned
biblical way but, if not, then rather than trying to convince others of his
values, he would be better advised to quietly pursue his own homosexual
marriage which is now legal in 19 states.
Vines
asks us to condone that which God has clearly condemned. Nowhere in Scripture
does God even come close to indicating that He blesses any homosexual
relationship. In fact, His Word, is all to the contrary. God's plan and design from the moment of Creation was for marriage to be between one man and one woman. The Bible is replete with supporting evidence. Regardless of what the world chooses to believe, there should be no misunderstanding.
None of
this written response to Matthew Vines’ book is intended with any impertinence
or disrespect to Mr. Vines.
