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."
No, JFK new what he was doing when he started pushing mass immigration in the 1950s, the Catholic vote was always democrat, and the protestant vote was always anti-democrat, and the left still fights to import more Catholics from the Catholic nations.
The left really hates the 75 and 80% conservative Evangelical voters.
But members of the Catholic denomination? The more millions the better, for the left, it is what they count on to defeat America once and for all.
RE: That’s a non-answer.
And you response is an answer? You simply make an assumption and then tell me it’s the correct one.
RE: What you have laid out, one needs to have an education that surpasses the means and ability of 99.99% of the world’s population.
Yes, so?
The problem with Christians is they REFUSE to educate themselves and leave it to pastors, priests or other person to do it for them.
A serious Christian SHOULD STRIVE to study scripture.
RE: 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.
BY TRAINING ONE-SELF for it.
There is NO OTHER WAY.
YOU ought to do it, I ought to do it such that if a priest, bishop or pope gives his interpretation of something, we can rightly judge it to be “rightly” handling the word of truth.
RE: 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.
And so, this does not absolve us from studying the same and determining whether his use of his education is rightly handling God’s word or not
RE: 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.
Again, so?
When one person says, I studied the Bible and here is my interpretation, does that absolve you or me from looking at his arguments and determining whether it passes the test of sound doctrine or logical consistency?
I would argue it does not.
RE: Vines is doing everything he is “supposed” to do: exercising private judgment, carefully studying the Scriptures, etc.
I would argue with the use of the word “carefully” above. Vines did study scripture, but with a preconceived notion. Therefore, he DID NOT study it carefully.
And the responders to his book are similarly people who EXERCISE their judgement have shown us where the FLAWS in his study are.
Even if you were to refer to Roman Catholic scholars, they would show the same flaws IN THE SAME WAY.
RE: 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.
Therefore, he DID NOT CAREFULLY STUDY scripture. The above sentence is a succinct description of his flawed methodology.
It would be great to see a shred of evidence on that front.
I mean, I realize that you and JFK were close friends and you were privy to the inner workings of his mind, but it would be great to see some proof of that.
Also, it would be good for you to explain how JFK faked his own death and secretly promoted the Immigration Act in 1965.
the Catholic vote was always democrat, and the protestant vote was always anti-democrat
I see. So that's why the South voted for Lincoln?
The left really hates the 75 and 80% conservative Evangelical voters.
According to Barna, the guy who seems to keep the most statistics, 40% of Americans consider themselves Evangelicals, but Barna only considers 8% of Americans to be Evangelicals.
But make up whatever numbers you please.
It is clear that you have one goal: to foreclose on the First Amendment.
God has provided “overseers and deacons” (or “bishops and deacons,” depending on your translation) to bear earthly responsibility and leadership for His Body.
Scripture describes these men, and their roles/responsibilities, in 1 Tim. 3:1-13, Acts 20:28, Hebrews 13:17, Eph. 4:11-12, 2 Tim. 2:2, Acts 14:23, and elsewhere.
The democrats have only won the Protestant vote in 1932, 1936, and 1964.
The republicans have only won the Catholic vote about 5 times, there is dispute about the figures and 5 might be too many, for instance a question is whether the Catholic vote had gone republican once (1956) before JFK, or never.
In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960.
In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.
After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.”
Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
To focus on the essentials:
(1) Luther, of course, used reason even as he condemned it. One cannot make an argument without using reason - yet Luther rejected the reasoning of others, while ascribing to his own arguments the influence of grace rather than reliance on base reason.
That is a rhetorical flourish, not a factual distinction.
(2) You can say that Vines or Ehrman are not really reading Scripture carefully - that doesn't mean it's so.
There are absolutely Catholic scholars who make mistakes in reading Scripture as well, but that doesn't mean that they aren't reading carefully either.
This is why there is interpretive authority in the Church. The Church is more than just a study group.
A person could literally spend all of their waking hours studying Scripture and never do more than scratch the surface.
This is not a merely human document.
I believe that part of the problem is that you don’t understand what many Protestants believe about scriptural interpretation.
“The Church” is not only the one headed by The Pope. “The Church” includes all of us who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior.
None of the Southern Baptists I know believe that we have the only true interpretation of Scripture because we have some private privilege of our own convenient interpretation. And your statement/insinuation that we do may make you feel justified in your beliefs, but it is false.
The “Protest” part of Protestant is more about someone telling us we don’t have access to God, and must go through someone else. It is more about the past injustices of the Church leadership (sort of like Jesus viewed the Pharisees).
In the past, it was mighty convenient that only priests and church officials could read. That way, “The Church” could be told anything the leaders wanted to tell them, and Christians had to bow down. Indulgences, anyone?
So stop your attacks on us because someone does believe he has a private interpretation (VERY contrary to plain scripture, by the way). Most of us don’t.
RE: That’s a lot of text.
Because your question requires it. Sorry if it bothers you.
RE: That is a rhetorical flourish, not a factual distinction.
There is a distinction. Luther uses Reason UP TO A POINT. He realizes that reason only gets you so far. Up to a point, FAITH has to come in, which is BEYOND reason.
He even quotes the book of Hebrews to buttress his argument.
That is why he understands that much of what Christianity (e.g., the cross, the incarnation, forgiving one’s enemies, etc. ) presents to an unregenerate world is
unreasonable”. And it is this “reason” that the world uses that he calls a “whore”.
it is NOT a rhetorical flourish, it is EXPLAINING what he meant.
Luther was most definitely against the legitimate use of reason ( as can be seen in his use of it ).
RE: You can say that Vines or Ehrman are not really reading Scripture carefully - that doesn’t mean it’s so.
Well, you just explained what Vines did with scripture in a previous post and I agreed with you. How is what he did “careful” use of scripture?
It is coming to scripture with a preconceived notion and then mining scripture to make legitimate what one already wants to believe.
You cannot legitimately look at the book of Genesis, Leviticus, the Torah, Jewish teachings and the New Testament and say that homosexual sex is acceptable to God. A simple reading of it already tells you that.
It does not take a Ph.D or a Harvard degree to determine that at all.
Therefore, Martin Luther has NOTHING to do with what Vines is doing.
“Vines, who was raised in a Christian home in Wichita”
Very telling quote. If Vines was not raised in a Christian home but in say an atheist or agnostic home, would he be doing this?
I have more intellectual respect for secularists who will agree that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior but sadly reject it than I do for folks like Vines who are desperately looking for intellectually dishonest loopholes and scripture-twisting to justify their sins.
It doesn’t sound like Vines is saying anything new here. It sounds recycled from John Boswell arguments from about 30-40 years ago.
Instead of the new Martin Luther perhaps Vines is the new Joseph Smith?
Probably meant Lucifer.
He won’t gain any traction past the gay sector.
Libtards truly believe that everything is politics - even God’s Word. Sorry, no sale here. Anyone advocating that Christians ignore God’s clear Word for political gain is not doing God’s work.
What's the Catholic's excuse then when they do the same? Are you aware that Reformation theology has NEVER condoned homosexual sin? That it never condoned ANY sin that God's word clearly prohibits? How typical to blame YOPIOS when self-professed "Protestants" go off the rails, yet they can be and are refuted by the SAME Holy Scripture God gifted to man. Catholics have some pretty large splinters in their own eyes to take care.
Mohler can fight Vines on EXACTLY Scriptural sufficiency grounds because even two thousand years ago - heck, thousands of years before THAT - God had ALREADY spoken about what is sinful conduct. The way you put it, it took the Catholic church to decide what God was saying. Instead, we know that all along people of God KNEW what was and wasn't pleasing to God and He condemned homosexual sin as well as heterosexual sin from the start. Had the Bible been hazy or nebulous on the matter, you would have some grounds for your argument, but it wasn't and you don't.
Good point! People have ALWAYS tried to rationalize and justify their sinful actions - Catholics among them. The state of the Catholic clergy around the time of the Reformation and for hundreds of years before was complicit in the debauchery, simony, depravity and licentiousness of their own. Even a quick glance at St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah adequately demonstrates this fact. Here's a FR link to that topic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696871/posts
P.S. I find it ironic how quick some Catholics are to heap condemnation on fellow non-Catholic Freeper Christians when we post threads that actually AGREE with them on certain issues! Curious that.
Fascinating for you maybe, but not for me. There WAS no sidestep since disputing Vines' novel idea is easily done by appealing to Scripture, in the first place, and tradition, since the true church of Jesus Christ has never strayed from His holy word from the start - the start of the WORLD, that is. Vines may be claiming to use what you call "core Reformation principles", but sola Scriptura is ALL that is needed to show his error. Personal interpretation of Scripture is NOT, no matter how many times y'all toss it out there, a core principle of the Reformation. Your straw-man argument is what is pretty weak.
The Roman Catholic church didn't INVENT the idea that homosexual sin was wrong, they already knew it because God already SAID it going back to Moses' time. The real conundrum Catholics have is trying to rectify what they SAY their church says and what their church actually DOES. Shouldn't that be the most important thing?
Two things...where do you contend Scripture "condemns private judgment"? And what makes you imagine it is a "core Reformation principle"?
And Luther’s great work continues.
...nice job of waking up all the Catholic bashers in Freeperville...
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.