"God and the Gay Christian" by Matthew Vines - book review by Randall F. More

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.