The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

[blackheart]

Matthew Vines speaks on the theological debate regarding the Bible and the role of gay Christians in the church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

Although it is an hour long, it is very challenging to consider this young mans teaching.

Please comment after viewing.

[darinhouston]

I think this is a very important topic. This is a new approach and I think Christians need a response to it. James White is doing a series of responses. I've listened to some of it and he does a decent job, but he goes too far on some things and that seems to keep him from exploring some of the other responses he hints at but doesn't dwell on.

There are other responses starting to come out also... For example, this exegetical response from another gay Christian with an entirely different perspective.

http://moorematt.com/2012/03/28/god-con ... hew-vines/

[wwalkeriv]

When discussing the passage in Leviticus, Mr. Vines appears to completely ignore the argument that the law is made up of both ritualistic AND moral laws. Ritualistic laws being those that have been fulfilled, and moral laws being those that we are obligated to obey because failing to do so would be going against the nature of God.

Vines seems to go to great lengths to make the scriptures conform to his argument. Which, of course, justifies his lifestyle.

Thank you for posting the video. I now have a fuller understanding of how homosexuals try to justify their lifestyles.

[Perry]

I was honestly hoping for something new here. I really was. But I was disappointed. I found his reasoning uncompelling, and his exegesis to be eisegesis.

And while having a same-sex orientation is not in and of itself a sin, according to the traditional interpretation, acting upon it is, because the Bible is clear, both in what it negatively prohibits and in what it positively approves.

I think this is the correct position. Later on, though, same-sex orientation seems to magically morph into the same-sex as the only option available to him... ever. I don't see how that follows.

The emotional bond that gay couples share, the quality of love, is identical to that of straight couples.

He's making a knowledge claim here that is pure speculation. There's no way he can back that up.

Whenever I came to know someone whose company I really enjoyed, I would always fear that I might come to like them too much, that I might come to love them. And within the traditional interpretation of Scripture, falling in love is one of the worst things that could happen to a gay person.

How is this different than the condition of a married person? As a married man, I need to guard against becoming too emotionally involved with another woman. To do so would be one of the worst things that could happen to this straight person.

You will always be alone.

Always? Really? Isn't that a bit like saying a smoker must always be a smoker no matter what, or a drunkard must always remain a booze hound no matter what? Doesn't this deny the healing capacity of Christ? (And yes, I'm suggesting that something needs to be healed.) Also don't you have a relationship with Christ? There are a lot of very lonely single people out there. Gays don't have a monopoly on that.

Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.

Self-esteem and self-worth are not characteristics the Bible advocates all that strongly for Christians. Also, suggesting that the teaching causes these feelings is a bit weird too. It's like saying that the Bible's teachings against drunkenness leads to feelings of incalculable pain and suffering for drunkards. It's just not the case. It's the sin that leads to bad fruit. Not the teaching.

And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner.

Another unsubstantiated truth claim.

That's as far as I got. I was planning on going through the whole thing, but there's just too much wrong to point all of it out, so I skipped to the bottom. Near there was this:

But you are also striking to the very core of another human being and gutting them of their sense of dignity and of self-worth.

That's what sin does. It does it to all of us when God points it out and we honestly confront it in ourselves we find that we don't have a lot of self-worth. Our worth is not in ourselves. It's in Christ's love for us. Gays aren't unique in that respect. Neither are they unique in working very very hard to justify their sins. We all do that too.

I don't claim that homo-sexual sin is a worse sin that heterosexual sin. I think it's interesting this this comes so near to Homer's post about qualifications for an elder.

[kaufmannphillips]

wwalkeriv wrote:
When discussing the passage in Leviticus, Mr. Vines appears to completely ignore the argument that the law is made up of both ritualistic AND moral laws. Ritualistic laws being those that have been fulfilled, and moral laws being those that we are obligated to obey because failing to do so would be going against the nature of God.

So what is the hermeneutic, then, for determining whether a particular law is "ritualistic" or "moral"?

And what if one also throws in a third category: neither "ritualistic" nor "moral," but "administrative" (practical/useful, but not universally imperative)?

[darinhouston]

I agree there's not a lot new, but it's packaged in a new and evangelically attractive format the church isn't used to (and which they haven't had a platform to hear), so I think we need to be ready with sober answers to those issues. I suspect it's quite compelling on the surface, and his mournful yet erudite (as White called him) demeanor and apparent thoughtfulness and research is the sort of thing evangelicals will listen to (compared to the Dan Save "Christians are stupid" sort of argument). White dwells on the slippery slope argument that suggests the argument fails to distinguish other perversions such as pedophilia or beastiality or the like, but I particularly think he (and others) neglect the argument Perry made above about the similar dilemmas straight men and women face in other circumstances where Scripture "gets in the way" of fulfilling their passions or even modest attraction and emotional engagement/love in a given circumstance. I also think Vines fails to appreciate that for many singles, singleness is not a "gift" and they don't have a heart to remain single. Many of them crave a relationship just as Vines does. It is, simply, an avenue unavailable to them. Many of the responses White gives are similar to Perry's above.

White was surprised he spent 2 years in research on the subject since it sounded like he lifted almost the entirety of the outline from a well known book I don't recall. White's own co-authored book is below purportedly dealing with a number of these issues...

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Controve ... 0764225243

[Perry]

So what is the hermeneutic, then, for determining whether a particular law is "ritualistic" or "moral"?

That's a good question. I've never really understood this idea that the distinction between the laws in the old/new covenants was a moral one. They're both moral laws. If we were still under the old covenant (Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's your position) then breaking the ritualistic laws would be immoral. Or, said another way, there's no such thing as an amoral law from God. Breaking his law is always immoral.

[darinhouston]

I'm still working through James Whites' responses (last two podcasts were dedicated). His approach about the procreative purpose and disregarding the "natural" way to have a family when nature prevents you strikes me as potentially debasing a marriage between a couple of can't have kids or from an already married infertile couple who wish to raise kids from adopting or undergoing in vitro or the like.

Thoughts?

[Singalphile]

For what it's worth: I'm a 33 year old man. I've never married, and I've never had any kind of sexual relationship with anyone. It seems likely that I never will.

The passages in Romans/Corinthians are clear enough.

[Perry]

Thoughts?

I haven't read White's book. Procreation is a rather obvious argument in favor of heterosexual intercourse. In and of itself, though, I don't see how it argues for the traditional view of marriage. Procreation, all by itself, doesn't seem to me to argue in favor of either marriage or monogamy, and might even be used to argue against them.

There's more to marriage, and indeed I'd say more to sex, than the mere expediency of procreation.