Posted on 04/23/2014 8:23:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
With the release of Matthew Vines' God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, conservative Evangelicals are responding with warnings that the book should not cause confusion regarding Scripture's teaching on homosexuality.
The book, Andrew Walker – director of Policy Studies for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission – says, "is the first step in a larger effort to fundamentally recast long-held, universally acknowledged norms pertaining to sexual ethics."
In his review, Walker notes that not only does Vines identify himself as a conservative evangelical and claim to uphold the authority of the Bible, but his book also comes at a strategic time for the gay rights movement as it was likely written to introduce confusion among Evangelicals – "one of the last remaining constituencies in America that has not embraced homosexuality with gusto."
"This book need not be 100 percent compelling or accurate in order to succeed. All that needs to happen for Vines to claim victory is for his readers to be confused and not necessarily convinced of his argument," Walker writes.
Vines drew attention in 2012 when a video of him making the case that homosexuality is not a sin went viral. The former Harvard University student, who is gay, rejected traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and explained in an over hour-long argument using Scripture that the Bible does not condemn loving, same-sex relationships.
In a September 2012 interview with The Christian Post, Vines, who was raised in a Christian home in Wichita, said he came to that conclusion after taking a leave of absence from Harvard to study the Scriptures and scholarly works on the subject of homosexuality.
"The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. There is no biblical teaching about sexual orientation, nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people," Vines – now founder of The Reformation Project, which seeks to reform church teachings on sexual orientation – maintained.
God and the Gay Christian was released Tuesday. The publisher, Convergent Books, says that the book will "radically change the conversation about being gay in the church."
In an article on Monday in The Wichita Eagle, Vines says that his message is not that change in the church is inevitable, but that it is possible.
"My message is that change is possible. I think it's only really possible with the right biblical approach to arguments. That's what the book is all about. But once you have that, it's going to take a tremendous amount of persistence and effort and determination and grit for years to make that happen. But I'm convinced that it's possible," the author states.
"I want the Christian church to be an effective, authentic witness of God's love to the world," he adds. "That's what most Christians want, too."
Several Southern Baptists have released reviews or critiques of the new book. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. and his colleagues released on Tuesday an e-book, titled God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines.
Mohler told Southern Seminary News that many people may believe Vines' "treatment of the Bible is legitimate."
"I think that it's very important that evangelicals be reminded that the church has not misunderstood Scripture for 2,000 years," he said.
While Mohler is offering a 100-page critique, Walker has provided a more brief review, summarizing Vines' arguments and his response in nine pages.
"If I was to condense the substance of Vines' book, here's what is happening: Vines has compiled liberal biblical scholarship and popularized it for a non-technical audience," Walker sums. "Let me be clear: Vines is not advancing new arguments. In fact, his work draws largely from existing gay-affirming scholarship. Vines is making liberal scholarship accessible for common audiences and then compounding its effect by bringing in the emotionally laden context of our times."
Aware that Vines may read his review, Walker says the first thing he would do is tell Vines that he loves him and that he deserves dignity and respect.
"I would apologize to him for what I can only assume are the countless insensitivities and insults he's experienced as a same-sex attracted person. I would also apologize to Matthew for the pat, unhelpful answers and rejection he's received from Christians who don't know how to speak about homosexuality."
He adds, however, that he would also tell Vines that he has been "deceived."
"He's believed the lie that homosexuality will prosper his life."
He says he would also "implore Matthew to repent of a book designed to cast a shadow of suspicion and doubt about the Scripture's teaching on sexuality;" and "exhort him to a path of discipleship with incalculable unknowns – unknown difficulties I will not experience and can only sympathize with. But I will commend him to set his desires before the cross, knowing that Jesus is better than any desire we think needs satisfied; that Jesus is better than marriage, than children, than sexual fulfillment itself."
“And they do it with Maradiaga’s sophisms, which state that, yes, Jesus’ words on marriage are binding, “but they can be interpreted” as today there are many new situations of cohabitation and “answers which can no longer be based on authoritarianism and moralism” are needed. “
Unique marriage being discussed in the Catholic church too.
I am sure Lucifer is happy with Matthew.
re: Well, today we have three lesbians in a marriage in Massachussets.
Can you provide a source or link to that?
I am reminded of Cardinal Ottaviani's comment that the first Scriptural example of collegiality is Matthew 14:50.
RE: The ones in our ranks don’t even bother to argue that what they are doing is defensible according to Church teaching. They either publicly denounce Church teaching or they hide.
I refer you to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Andrew Cuomo and many other Pro-gay, pro-abortion Roman Catholics who are shaping the future of this country. I don’t see them hiding.
In fact, they are setting PUBLIC POLICY.
I don’t see anyone disciplining Bishop Ackermann...
You seem to have missed the point.
All three openly admit that they disagree with Church teaching.
Not one of them argues that their indefensible positions are based on Catholic tradition. Whenever they defend themselves against critics, they use secular or heretical arguments for their position because they cannot proceed on Catholic principles. They basically argue: "We are keeping up with the times: the Church is backward now, but we think it will catch up to us."
Vines, by contrast, builds his arguments on at least two core principles of the Reformation: the principle of the sufficiency of Scripture and the principle of private judgment of Scripture.
RE: All three openly admit that they disagree with Church teaching.
And Matthew Vines agrees with the church’s teachings?
Did you miss the refutations by Pastors and Scholars of various denominations to what he wrote?
RE: Vines, by contrast, builds his arguments on at least two core principles of the Reformation: the principle of the sufficiency of Scripture and the principle of private judgment of Scripture.
On the principle of sufficiency of scripture, scripture itself ALREADY condemns homosexuality both in the Old and New Testament. No amount of appeal to tradition is going to change the minds of people like Pelosi, Cuomo, Kerry or Vines.
On the private judgment of scripture -— what’s going to stop people like these from making their own private judgments of tradition?
He has expressed an opinion - and demonstrated his poor understanding of Church doctrine.
Ackermann has, however, been very careful not to issue written instructions to his flock to disobey Church teaching, nor has he presided over illicit remarriages, nor has he authorized his clergy to do so, nor has he taken any other actions to "put his money where his mouth is."
Because, if he does, he knows he will be disciplined.
He knows the Hans Kung line, and he knows not to cross it.
Discipline in the Church is not arbitrary: it is canonical.
RE: The ones in our ranks don’t even bother to argue that what they are doing is defensible according to Church teaching. They either publicly denounce Church teaching or they hide.
Not all of them..
See here:
‘Radical’ Nuns Supporting Abortion, Gay Marriage Meet With US Bishops
EXCERPT:
An “open” and “cordial” meeting was held this past weekend by three U.S. Catholic bishops and the Catholic sisters whom the Vatican has called “radical” and “feminist” for their support of same-sex marriage and abortion.
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) officers met with Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, Springfield, Ill., Bishop Thomas Paprocki and Toledo, Ohio, Bishop Leonard Blair, all members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Annmarie Sanders, Director for Communications for the LCWR, shared with The Christian Post the full statement from the group, which was said to address the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Sanders noted that further discussions were planned for a later date, although the specific issues that might have been brought up with were not revealed.
MORE HERE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/father-bob-pierson-gay-marriage-minnesota_n_1589996.html
Father Bob Pierson, Gay Priest, On Why Catholics Should Support Same-Sex Marriage (VIDEO)
You just have to LAUGH at these fools. Don’t give them one smidgen of credibility. Anyone who thinks that the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality can’t read.
I won’t list the many old and new testament verses, we all know them, but I will address the word “ABOMINATION”, used in several of those verses.
“Abomination” is what God thinks of homosexual activity (gay sex acts). It has always been my understanding that the strongest word you could use to describe something vile, is abomination.
noun: abomination; plural noun: abominations
1. a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, evil, crime, monstrosity, anathema, bane
1. Abhorrence; disgust.
2. A cause of abhorrence or disgust.
1. a person or thing that is disgusting
2. an action that is vicious, vile
3. intense loathing
1. something greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation.
3. a vile or shameful action, condition, or habit.
Abomination translated from Hebrew, means... abomination
Abomination translated from Greek, means... abomination
There is NO WAY a sane person can think that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible in any form.
There is HOPE. REPENT
•2 Chronicles 7:14 “If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
If you stop homosexual activity, you are no longer homosexual. Homosexual sex is what PROVES that a person is a homosexual.
The LCWR, which is not a canonical organization but a private one, has publicly disagreed with Church teaching.
Just as I said these sorts of people do.
Robert Pierson voluntarily withdrew from the Catholic ministry and lives in an Episcopal retreat house now.
You prove my point again.
Far from arguing from Catholic doctrine and tradition, these people argue against both.
Matthew Vines is but fuel for the fire.
His evil heart will leave him with no defense when his judgement comes before God.
He can change, and even accept Christ as his Lord and savior, but the damage he has done will make it very difficult.
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a tough one to overcome.
History is replete with reprobates who joined Satan’s army.
Ugh. I’ve come to expect Roman Catholic FReepers to be arrogant, but your injecting your denominational arrogance into this discussion within just a few comments ... is just pathetic.
Why not promote Jesus as much as you promote your denomination, yeah? And try not to derail conversations like you are doing here.
My point is this — you have Scripture and you have tradition.
If you are going to ignore scripture, you WILL ignore tradition.
Catholics do it, non-Catholics do it.
And you can’t blame Luther for sinful people regardless of which denomination they claim to come from.
RE: Far from arguing from Catholic doctrine and tradition, these people argue against both.
And is Catholic doctrine in HARMONY with Scripture or not?
If so, then, by arguing against scripture, they are DE FACTO arguing against Catholic doctrine.
That's not much of an argument.
I don't have a "denomination." The Church is the Body of Christ. You are making a false distinction.
And try not to derail conversations like you are doing here.
You're derailing the conversation.
The article clearly describes what Vines is arguing and what grounds he is using to make his argument.
It also outlines the response of the SBC to his argument.
My comments are precisely on topic and on point: Vines is using core Reformation principles to argue against traditional Christian morality.
The SBC response is to either sidestep like Walker or, like Mohler, fall back on 2,000 years of traditional Scriptural interpretation.
That's fascinating, wouldn't you say?
Exactly. It is like the Church is on the same level as Jesus. I will choose Him and His word over any church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.