J/A ThM, and Dr. James Ach
UPDATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ARTICLE TO INCLUDE MATTHEW VINES, IMO, LYING ABOUT HIS “SALVATION” TESTIMONY
Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” offered a transcript of a video he’d posted about the Bible and homosexuality that we want to address. However, in this article we are not going to focus on the Biblical arguments against gay marriage or refute the arguments in support of it as argued in Vine’s video, that has already been done by others in a far greater capacity than what we have offered on the subject (* Resources listed below), but we will focus on one particular inconsistency in Matthew Vine’s presentation of his key argument in selling his gay “Christianity” to the masses.
Is Matthew Vines REALLY Arguing for “Loving Committed Relationships”?
Matthew Vines has pulled a sleight-of-hand trick on many defenders of traditional marriage (“TMA” or, traditional marriage advocates) and on his own followers regarding “committed same-sex relationships”. Vines has attempted to take the wind out of the TMA’s arguments against homosexuality by eliminating the sexual acts. In other words, TMA’s would have no grounds to assail homosexual behavior if he is not advocating for homosexual acts but merely celibate “committed relationships” between same sex couples. Naturally, if there is no opposition to a same-sex “loving” relationship, then it would logically follow that same-sex acts should not be prohibited, either, and although Vines is not claiming to argue for the latter conclusion, it is obvious that that his precisely his intention. Of course, Vines has never thoroughly defined just what is a loving, committed, same-sex relationship (e.g., how is a loving homosexual loving committed relationship different than a loving, committed relationship between fraternal, biological brothers, and what is it that makes the former homosexual and what is it that makes the latter, brotherly) by Vines, but it nevertheless still reveals a gross inconsistency in his attack against Traditional Marriage, as follows.
If, as Matthew claims, that he is arguing for merely “committed relationships” of same-sex couples, then why is he defending the rights of homosexuals who do practice homosexual acts (as opposed to celibacy), and why does he continue to use the term “homophobia” as a pejorative term against TMAs? Has the term “homophobia” some how taken on a new meaning that refers to merely loving committed relationships between same sex couples? I trow not. Historically, “homophobia” has always referred to the opposition of homosexual ACTS as well has the overall homosexual DISPOSITION. Why then would Vines use the term ‘homophobia’ if he is not advocating a view that permits the homosexual acts of same sex couples?
Therefore, Vine’s is being quite disingenuous to give the appearance that he is arguing for loving committed same sex relationships that exclude the ACTS of sexual intercourse within those relationships, when the very language he uses to attack TMAs is derived from rhetoric that has always supported and defended homosexual intercourse.
Furthermore, if, as Vine’s contends, he is not arguing for the justification of sexual intercourse among same sex couples, but merely the relationship (a sort of gay eunuch with a gay eunuch partner who really love each other), then why does he spend so much effort in arguing against TMAs traditional defense of Scriptures that advocate against the “acts” of homosexual relationships?
Vine’s actions while claiming one thing, are actually clearly demonstrating something else. There’s nothing in Matthew Vine’s rhetoric to indicate that he is defending a mere gay friendship that does not-and would never-include sexual intercourse between 2 “loving and committed” same-sex couples**. Furthermore, why is Vines even trying to make his own distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual relationships? Seems like a guilty conscience trying to distance itself from a problem where the attempt to create dissonance itself reveals Vines’ true motive and the fact that he knows something about his argument needs to be covered up. But WHY?
If Vine’s can’t be honest about what he is really trying to promote, then he shouldn’t be trusted with his interpretations and representations of other Christian views on this subject, and especially his misinterpretations of Scripture.
CAVEAT: Many of these resources are written by Reformed authors with which we have great theological differences. However, we are in almost complete agreement with their arguments against homosexuality, and although we will likely never agree on the centuries old debate over Calvinism or Bible versions, no other issue has the potential to destroy the freedom to express those views publicly in the way gay legislation and jurisprudence have in their ability to silence Christians of all stripes.
There are many other resources, but these are the ones that we have actually read and can recommend on this subject.
God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines (This link will immediately open a download to the free e-book by Albert Mohler & SBTS Staff)
Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, Norman Geisler This books covers ethics altogether, but has a chapter on homosexuality in Part 2 that is worth a read.
God Is Love, Peter Ruckman Although not a book on homosexuality, it covers the misuse by liberal Christians of the word “love” and deals with Biblical facts verses emotionally charged arguments.
** We do find it a bit odd also that while same-sex couples argue that their attractions are natural, they are not normally attracted to same-sex FEATURES of their same sex.
…Let me explain.
More often than not, a gay male will take on the characteristics of a female, whether it be an effeminate walking style or hand gesture, feminine clothing or talking with a skewed lisp. It is an immediately recognizable characteristic of a gay male. Likewise many female gays take on a role of a male. Yet in attempting to distance themselves from their own sexuality to prove their gayness, they are in effect, shooting themselves in the foot because a person that claims to love the same sex should be attracted to his own features. The fact that he tries to escape from and alter his own appearance and mannerisms shows that the trait is not inherent and is not natural. In other words, the gay male does not appear to love his own maleness which is a self-contradiction in what he is actually claiming that he is in love with.
If gay males were consistent, there were be no visible difference between the gay male and the straight male. Yet gay males go out of their way to create a visible difference which would be unnecessary if they were inherently predisposed to their presentations.
One of the great things about sound Christian philosophy is that when the laws of logic are consistently applied they reveal the self-defeating flaws of arguments and behaviors that defy Biblical revelation. The arguments for same-sex relationships display just such an anomaly.