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."
Oh, they need to be woken up? Do they post 50 anti-Catholic threads a day in their sleep?
Should the proper reaction be to ignore what he is doing rather than try to pick it apart?
...don’t know...but the improper reaction to this particular article is to make a theologically charged statement, knowing that it will engender vituperative responses from the numerous Catholiphobes on this forum, and then engage these people with what can only be viewed as ancillary arguments, detracting from an article about which nearly universal agreement should result...
Vines is turning some of the most potent destructive weapons of one branch of Christianity against it.
I'm sure most FReepers agree that Vines' position is immoral and wrong.
It is a boring FR indeed when we have 100 posts repeating the truism that Vines is wrong - the strength of FR is, or used to be, analysis. Discerning what it is actually going on beneath the surface journalism.
You cannot combat Vines' thesis by saying: "He's wrong because he didn't privately meditate on Scripture as effectively as I have privately meditated on Scripture."
That isn't an argument.
Who is using the right method to determine right from wrong?
Vines adopting Luther's methodology, or Mohler adopting Augustine's methodology?
I submit that Mohler is making the right counterargument from the right grounds.
Vines adopting Luther’s methodology, or Mohler adopting Augustine’s methodology?
I submit that Mohler is making the right counterargument from the right grounds.
...all of that is well and good, as well as the point about boring echo chamber, but my beef with your tactic remains...you took a topic about which Christians need to unite, and pointlessly developed it into a Catho-Prot brouhaha, and we get the inevitable surge of malediction from the usual Calvinist suspects, resulting in a degraded thread, as such threads normally do...
The majority of Religion Forum threads are posted by Catholics and those that end up being Catholic vs. Protestant extended battles usually were started BY Catholics intentionally to provoke those who are not Catholic. This thread was not one of them but it didn't take very long for someone to ignite the fuse. You're correct...this IS a subject that we CAN agree on and there was no need to start an argument by blaming Martin Luther for the misguided author's justification for his error. I guess some people itch so much for a fight that when there isn't one, they start one!
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.