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."
The majority of Catholics support the homosexual agenda and vote for their party, your reaction to this man trying to win over the bastion of Christian voters who vote as Christians, is interesting, and bizarre.
I'm not ascribing Vines' personal sins to Luther. Vines did those things himself.
I am ascribing Vines' argument in justification of his sins to Luther.
Luther argued for using Scripture as the sole grounds for theological argument, denouncing both Tradition and Reason as extraneous and dangerous.
Luther also argued that one's own personal interpretation of Scripture was the ultimate rule of faith, not any external guide.
Vines is proceeding on precisely these principles.
“the first Scriptural example of collegiality is Matthew 14:50.”
sorry! I don’t have Matthew 14:50 in my Bible.
Anyway this, Mathew Vines is in need of intercessory prayer on the part of Christian’s before he leads struggling hurting people to the wide road of destruction.
RE: I am ascribing Vines’ argument in justification of his sins to Luther.
And my point is YOU CANNOT DO IT.
Scripture ALREADY condemns homosexuality. Any sinful person can RATIONALIZE what scripture clearly teaches and ignore it.
Just as anyone can interpret scripture by rationalization, anyone can IGNORE Catholic doctrine by rationalizing it away.
There is NO GUARANTEE that because you are Catholic, you will obey Catholic doctrine ( which I am sure you will agree, is IN HARMONY with scripture ).
Therefore, mentioning Luther is a red herring. He has NOTHING TO DO with Matthew Vines, just as Pelosi, Cuomo or these priests and nuns have NOTHING TO DO with Catholic doctrine.
RE: Luther argued for using Scripture as the sole grounds for theological argument, denouncing both Tradition and Reason as extraneous and dangerous.
Let’s be clear, Luther was not against tradition or reason.
Luther was always for JUDGING tradition and reason in the light of what is written in scripture.
Is a Catholic a Catholic if he never goes to Mass?
your reaction to this man trying to win over the bastion of Christian voters who vote as Christians
Catholics who attend weekly Mass vote as Christians, just as most "cultural Protestants" and "cultural Catholics" do not vote as Christians, and if a Catholic attends weekly Mass he is most likely impervious to Vines' method of argument.
is interesting, and bizarre
Interesting because I think Vines' rhetorical strategy needs to be examined, instead of being accepted uncritically?
My reaction is bizarre because I actually paid attention to what Vines' rhetorical strategy is? Should the proper reaction be to ignore what he is doing rather than try to pick it apart?
My apologies. Mark 14:50.
Indeed. It also condemns private judgment.
Yet when one uses the principle of private judgment as one's starting point, once can justify anything.
Matthew Vines is living proof of the depths to which this principle leads.
Just as anyone can interpret scripture by rationalization, anyone can IGNORE Catholic doctrine by rationalizing it away.
They cannot, however, argue that such rationalization is justified on the grounds of an inviolable principle of private judgment.
Non serviam is where it all begins.
The gay marriage left depends on the vote of the Catholic denomination, and wrote a law promoted by the Catholic president, to import millions more Catholic voters, to advance the left’s agenda and to insure the future of the left and Europeanism over Americanism.
Now here we are on this thread arguing with the democrat owned denomination, about the Christians who are most hated by the left, the Evangelicals.
RE: Indeed. It also condemns private judgment.
Being led by the spirit and carefully and soundly interpreting scripture by studying it is COMMANDED in scripture. Therefore, studying it in community with the saints is not “private” interpretation.
Based on this, Matthew Vines is NOT interpreting scripture soundly.
The admonitions of those who refute him shows this already.
RE: They cannot, however, argue that such rationalization is justified on the grounds of an inviolable principle of private judgment.
Neither can one argue that interpreting scripture by using SOUND JUDGMENT based on the leading of the spirit in communion with like minded Christians is wrong.
Vines DID NOT DO THAT and it is shown by the responses made to his book by Christians who STUDIED SCRIPTURE seriously and interpreted it soundly and rightly interpreted it.
See Paul’s admonition in 2 Timothy 2:15.
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has, it never comes to the aid of spiritual things" - Martin Luther
That sounds like "against" to me.
Luther was always for JUDGING tradition and reason in the light of what is written in scripture
There's the hole in the argument. As long as you are doing the private judging of what Scripture actually says, then the "Scriptural" judging of tradition and reason is really a private judging of Scripture, tradition, and reason all together - Matthew Vines style.
In reality, Vines is fighting against an objective moral reality that exists outside of his private judgment or my private judgment, and which either of our judgments is powerless to change or deny.
Actually, the record shows that it tries to avoid voting altogether.
and wrote a law promoted by the Catholic president
Who wrote which law, now? And which "Catholic president" promoted this law?
"to import millions more Catholic voters"
From where, exactly?
the Christians who are most hated by the left, the Evangelicals
So the left is really upset by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Or the National Baptist Convention? Tony Campolo? Jim Wallis? Those Evangelicals?
Your analysis here is pretty murky.
Very thin on argument, very heavy on supposition and innuendo.
RE: “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has, it never comes to the aid of spiritual things” - Martin Luther
Read it in CONTEXT. By that, he meant RATIONALIZING away the intent and context of what scripture teaches.
What Luther is saying can be explained in simple terms of illustration; I could say that the mind is the worst enemy of swimming, for a child learning to swim often does not want to swim through fear, which is from the mind.
For a child who will not learn how to swim does so because he or she is afraid to get into the water through fear in the mind, thus you could say that ‘the mind is the greatest enemy that swimming has, even though we know that when a person learns how to swim, the mind is the greatest asset the swimmer has. Thus, if we take this understanding and apply it to Luther’s quote, we see that reason which stands in the way of taking the step of faith towards believing in Jesus, is in fact the enemy of faith, for it prevents people from believing in Jesus as savior, because of doubt and human reasoning.
Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by PLAIN REASON…I cannot and I will not recant”. Note the words, “plain reason” thus, we must conclude that Luther was not against ‘Plain reason’.
RE: As long as you are doing the private judging of what Scripture actually says, then the “Scriptural” judging of tradition and reason is really a private judging of Scripture, tradition, and reason all together - Matthew Vines style.
Nope, not so. Scriptural judging of tradition is WEIGHING what tradition teaches in light of scripture, its context, the historical basis for its teachings from the beginning of the church, and then determining whether it is valid, or has any prescriptive effectiveness in a Christian’s life.
Vines’ argument are PLAINLY AGAINST scripture and his use of “reason” is nothing but rationalizing away what scripture plainly teaches.
The fact that tradition also supports scripture is another basis for rejecting his argument. But hey, if one rejects scripture on this issue, I don’t see how having church doctrine or tradition will guarantee that such arguments will disappear.
RE: Define “SOUND JUDGMENT”, please.
St. Paul tells Timothy:
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[a] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).
What does rightly handling the word of truth mean?
It most definitely does not mean giving up your right to study the word and leaving it to the Vatican to do it for you.
Here are some basic principles of good handling of the truth which serious students of the Bible will follow:
1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.
Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.
Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.
2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.
So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.
3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.
The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.
4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.
5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.
And in all of these, you study the word in COMMUNION with like minded students of the word. And PRAY for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who Christ promises to be our guide and teacher and helper ( See John 14 ).
This mixes terms. We are discussing all mental phenomena, or even strictly mental phenomena. We are discussing "reason" or ratio (Vernunft in German), or logical argument.
Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by PLAIN REASON…I cannot and I will not recant”.
That was early in Luther's career. As his career progressed he became more and more opposed to reason, with his final sermon in Wittenberg in 1546 referring to reason as "the Devil 's greatest whore."
You see, between 1521 and 1546 he encountered many learned men, Protestants and Catholics, who made strongly reasoned arguments against his views. He began to argue more and more that feelings were more reliable than reason.
WEIGHING what tradition teaches in light of scripture, its context, the historical basis for its teachings from the beginning of the church, and then determining whether it is valid, or has any prescriptive effectiveness in a Christian’s life
Again, what is the scale to be used in doing the weighing? If we have already interpreted Scripture for ourselves, we are weighing tradition against our own sentiments.
But hey, if one rejects scripture on this issue, I don’t see how having church doctrine or tradition will guarantee that such arguments will disappear.
If one begins from the premise that the Church and not the individual is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then one has to either cleanly break with the faith or accept it.
Ultimately it comes down to whether one thinks one has the personal authority to decide on what is true or not, or whether one thinks that this authority lies outside oneself.
You wrote, “The Church is the Body of Christ.”
That is true. The Church is indeed the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ is The Church.
Now, if by “The Church” you’re meaning the Roman Catholic Church ... well, then, you’d be incorrect.
The Body of Christ includes all those adopted into God’s family, all those who follow Christ, and not just those in your denomination.
That's a non-answer.
Here are some basic principles of good handling of the truth which serious students of the Bible will follow
Why will they follow it? Because you say they should?
I'll point out that to carefully follow the principles you have laid out, one needs to have an education that surpasses the means and ability of 99.99% of the world's population.
How does one know if one has a "precise" English translation of a Hebrew text? Really only by learning Hebrew, negating the need for a precise English translation.
To get back to the original article that began the thread: Vines has precisely this level of education. Although he is wrong, he knows far more about the language, syntax, historical context, and lexicography of the Scriptures than 99% of actual Christians do.
Bart Ehrman, a far more radical critic of traditional Christianity than Vines, has an even more rarified knowledge of the original languages and the history than Vines does.
If the only authority is based on careful study and deep textual knowledge, then Ehrman and Vines are highly authoritative.
Vines is doing everything he is "supposed" to do: exercising private judgment, carefully studying the Scriptures, etc.
As a result he finds in the Scriptures exactly what he wants to find there: full justification for what he thinks and feels and does.
Hmmm, then you go on to say:
The Body of Christ includes all those adopted into God’s family, all those who follow Christ
I have no disagreement with this, as far as it goes.
Here's the problem, Theo: on whom does Christ bestow earthly responsibility and leadership for His Body?
RE: This mixes terms. We are discussing all mental phenomena, or even strictly mental phenomena. We are discussing “reason” or ratio (Vernunft in German), or logical argument.
And have you proven that Luther was against using such reasoning?
RE: That was early in Luther’s career. As his career progressed he became more and more opposed to reason, with his final sermon in Wittenberg in 1546 referring to reason as “the Devil ‘s greatest whore.”
You see, between 1521 and 1546 he encountered many learned men, Protestants and Catholics, who made strongly reasoned arguments against his views. He began to argue more and more that feelings were more reliable than reason.
Luther’s basic argument is still correct.
Luther used rational argumentation in his own apologetics, which at first seems strange and yet is entirely consistent with his view. We have heard him say that every argument based on reason can be overthrown by reason. He held that it was wrong, indeed, to defend Scripture with reason, but he was sure that it was perfectly proper to combat reason with reason.
In his De servo arbitrio, the answer to the Diatribe of Erasmus, he uses rational arguments again and again.
Erasmus had argued that man must have the power to repent and believe since God had commanded him to do this. Luther said that if Erasmus is right in this argument, then he is wrong in his basic theological position and the Pelagians are right. So, Luther says, the Diatribe has her throat cut with her own sword.
It must be noted throughout, however, that Luther never sought to establish the truth by reason. But what he attempts to do is to show that the arguments of those who attacked the Christian faith are not as foolproof as the men who use them seem to think. Again and again he applies the epithets unsinnig, senseless, and unvernünftig, unreasonable, to his adversaries. While Luther would never have written a book on the reasonableness of the Christian faith, he could conceivably have written one with the title The Irrationalism of Unbelief.
I think a great way to frame and understand Luther is to read them in light of Luther’s explanation to the first and third articles of the Apostles’ Creed.
In the first article, Luther writes: “I believe that God has made me and all creatures. He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them.”
Obviously here, reason is a good thing and a gift from God to us to help us figure out life in this world. Of course, in each of the quotes, Luther isn’t talking about figuring out the things of daily life.
Contrast this however with his explanation on the third article he writes,
“I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.” Here, when it comes to knowing God, our reason isn’t useful, rather, it gets in the way of the Gospel and grace that is so contrary to our reason. This would be what Luther’s referring to in the quotes.
Like with most of Luther, thinking in and discerning between two realms (before God and before people), is really helpful in understanding what he’s saying.
It’s useful to remember When Luther writes about “reason” it’s not just using our mind or skill. He’s not railing against having a good theological education either (he was a PhD after all).
He’s talking about Reason (let’s denote it with a capital ‘R’). At that time there was a strong emphasis in using Aristotilian logic (Scolasticism, Aquinas was it’s biggest star)to explain theological things. If it didn’t pan out in Reason, it didn’t have authority.
The biggest things about Luther’s theology like God’s grace, Theology of the Cross,etc. were things that contradicted Reason (Aristotilian or otherwise.) It had to be grasped by faith not worked out in Reason.
People were saying – God is loving, benevolent, even when we’re so bad and awful? God gave Jesus to us to die on a cross? We really eat God’s body and blood? It doesn’t make sense. It’s not reasonable. The math doesn’t work out.
He saw that Reason often directly contradicted faith. (And it does!) Therefore it was a whore (he was very hyperbolic too!)
*THAT* is how we must understand what he said.
RE: Again, what is the scale to be used in doing the weighing? If we have already interpreted Scripture for ourselves, we are weighing tradition against our own sentiments.
By the way in asking the above question, it is not simply directed against me. It is also directed against the Vatican, the Pope and any man who interprets scripture.
In answer to your question, there is not one scale, but the use of several measures if you will.
The most important law of biblical interpretation is that the Bible should be interpreted literally.
Literal Bible interpretation means we understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Many make the mistake of trying to read between the lines and come up with meanings for Scriptures that are not truly in the text. Yes, of course, there are some spiritual truths behind the plain meanings of Scripture. That does not mean that every Scripture has a hidden spiritual truth, or that it should be our goal to find all such spiritual truths. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing and symbolizing Bible verses and passages that should be understood literally.
A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that a verse or passage must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Historical interpretation refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation which prompted the text. Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. Contextual interpretation involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning.
THOSE are the “scales” by which we use to determine sound handling of the word.
And nope, that is NOT saying that one has personal authority over God’s word. It is OBEYING the command to Handle it correctly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who IS the ultimate authority.
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.