It is no secret that our society shares less and less the values of “Christendom,” but in such a world the Christian still must be faithful to give voice to God. The range of issues that Christians must address, it seems, becomes wider daily. And inevitably this clash of cultures and values affects the thinking of some within the professing church.
As the first in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Conversant series – a series of e-books “that engage the current evangelical conversation with the full wealth of Christian conviction” – God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines addresses the issue of homosexuality in light of Scripture. Specifically in view is Matthew Vine’s God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, a professedly Evangelical argument that Scripture not only does not condemn but actually supports loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships. Only a few years ago few could have imagined such a thing, but here we are.
Al Mohler has teamed up with colleagues James Hamilton, Denny Burk, Owen Strachan, and Heath Lambert to provide a simple, clear, 62-page e-book response, and he is here to talk with us about it all today.
Books At a Glance (Fred Zaspel):
This e-booklet is the first in your new Conversant series. Can you tell us more about the series? Perhaps something about your goals for it, or some further issues you hope to address?
Mohler:
Thanks for the question, Fred. We are very excited about this new series of e-books, Conversant. Our intention is to release these periodically in order to address pressing and urgent theological issues. Many new books require and demand a good intellectual response and we think Southern Seminary is uniquely positioned to do this effectively. We have been very encouraged by the release of the first in this series, God and the Gay Christian: A Response to Matthew Vines, which has been downloaded well over 100,000 times so far. We hope to address a range of other issues in this series in the future.
Books At a Glance:
Tell us about Matthew Vines and his book. What exactly is he advocating? And why is his book important?
Mohler:
Matthew Vines is a very bright and engaging young man who has written a book that probably represents the most persuasive argument to have confronted many evangelicals. At the same time, Vines is basically borrowing scholarship from many others. He does not pose as a scholar but rather as an assimilator of these arguments. But most of the people who read his book will never engage with the academic literature he is depending on.
What he is advocating is that there is no inherent contradiction between being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ and being involved in a same-sex relationship. It is a very potent argument because it is so well timed for our cultural moment when increasing numbers of Americans are now accommodating themselves to the idea of same-sex marriage. Yet Christians must understand that this represents a direct assault upon the authority of Scripture, and upon Christian wisdom on the issues of sexuality and marriage, on which the church has been guided for two millennia. Vines’ claim is indeed astounding: what’s being demanded here is the reversal of over 2000 years of the church’s unanimous interpretation of Scripture with regard to sexual ethics.
Books At a Glance:
How does he handle, say, Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1?
Mohler:
Romans 1 is such a crucial text on the issue of same-sex behaviors and same-sex relationships in the Bible. Indeed, it is the longest and most extensive and comprehensive treatment of the issue of same-sex relationships to be found anywhere in Scripture. Matthew Vines deals with Romans 1 by suggesting that Paul is clearly condemning some sexual behaviors. Yet he makes two very interesting arguments. In the first place, he argues that Paul has no category for sexual orientation and has no understanding of any kind of faithful same-sex union. The second argument he makes is that the sexual acts and relationships that Paul condemns are exploitative in terms of their essence and that they represent the oppression of one person by another.
Put those two arguments together and Matthew Vines says that Romans 1 has nothing to do with the consensual, equal, companionate same-sex relationship or marriage. That’s a very potent argument because it’s so well timed for the cultural moment, and yet it is absolutely disastrous for our understanding of Scripture. It insists for example that the church has misread the Bible for over two millennia. That’s a claim that’s nothing less than astounding in its essence.
What makes Matthew Vines unique among authors advocating same-sex relationships is that he claims to hold to a “high view” of Scripture. But a high view of Scripture would not allow for an understanding that the Holy Spirit allowed the church to misunderstand the Scripture inspired by that same Holy Spirit for two millennia. Matthew Vines’ argument also requires us to ignore the context of Scripture and the very clear flow of Biblical Theology.
Books At a Glance:
Explain what you describe as “the most tragic aspect” of Vine’s argument. And how does this reflect on his professed “high view of Scripture”?
Mohler:
The most tragic aspect of Matthew Vines’ arguments is not just with respect to the issue of same sex relationship but also to the question of Scripture. Essentially, his argument comes down to the fact that we cannot trust the Bible to tell us anything authoritative on the issue of human sexuality. In his interpretation of Scripture, everything means something other than what it clearly on its face means. Now I can understand why that can be very important for his agenda to normalize and sanction same-sex relationships. But that is disastrous for the church.
Books At a Glance:
How is this discussion related to the question of gender complementarity?
Mohler:
In making his argument, Matthew Vines goes to the issue of complementarianism and suggests that those who reject complementarianism – that is those who reject that the Bible presents a very clear distinction in terms of relationship and roles between men and women – should by the very essence of their logic and argument accept the normalization of same sex behaviors. Now this is an argument that I have actually been making for a very long time in reverse. My argument has been this: Those who use methods of biblical interpretation to get around very clear statements in of Scripture about gender and gender roles will find it very difficult not to follow the same patterns of biblical interpretation when it comes to the very clear statements in Scripture about the sinfulness of same-sex behaviors and relationships. So the link between complementarianism and a biblical understanding of sexuality is made abundantly clear on both sides of this argument.
The cleverness of Matthew Vines’ current argument is to say to evangelicals, mostly on the left who have rejected complementarianism, that they have no intellectual defenses or consistency in failing also to bless the normalization of same-sex relationships. Oddly enough, I think this is a point on which conservatives can agree with Matthew Vines. We agree that his pattern of interpreting the Scripture is exactly predicated upon the example set by those who rejected complementarianism in the 1970’s and beyond. And yet we are on opposite sides on whether we believe that is faithful.
Books At a Glance:
How is Vines’ argument inconsistent with the gospel?
Mohler:
The question on whether or not Matthew Vines’ argument is consistent with the Gospel comes down to the most basic question on why sinners need a savior. The Bible is so clear in graciously revealing to us our sin – and doing so with remarkable specificity. By the time you look at the laws revealed in Scripture and the very clear teachings of the apostles, you come to understand that our sin is nailed in terms of its specifics. It is named. And as named it reveals to us our sin and thus our need for a savior. In contrast, any time a Christian takes any act or makes any argument that minimizes the sinfulness of sin or confuses the Bible’s clarity on sin we are effectively telling people that to that degree they are not sinners who for that reason need a savior.
That is why dealing with this issue always takes us to the Gospel, because the good news of the gospel is only good news because we come to terms with our sin and our need for redemption. The Bible is God’s gift to us in making our sin clear. And the Holy Spirit’s ministry in applying that word to our hearts is an essential part of the process whereby we become Christians. To deny the teachings of Scripture in this regard, then, is to actually alienate people from the Gospel whereby they may be saved.
Books At a Glance:
Do you have any guesses as to how this issue may bring increasing pressure on the church in the coming years?
Mohler:
Fred, I think this is such a crucial question. The pressure on the church in the present is growing at such an incalculable way. And when you look at the threats of the future we can only see this issue escalating in terms of cultural pressure and apologetic importance.
The argument made by Matthew Vines is so well timed for this cultural moment. We can understand that there are probably a good many evangelicals who have just been looking for an argument like this in order to find an off ramp from biblical authority on the culture’s imperative on the issue of normalizing same-sex relationships. But the believing church doesn’t have that option. We cannot be looking for an off ramp. We are committed to Scripture in its totality and to the authority of every text of Scripture. As increasing pressure comes upon the church both from without and from within, people are going to be looking to these kinds of arguments trying figure out if there is any credibility in moving in the kinds of directions that Matthew Vines is pointing us.
This is a crucial point of judgment and discernment for the church. The church that follows that argument will not long hold to the Gospel. The church that follows that argument has already subverted the authority of Scripture. And the church that follows that argument will find itself applauded by the world but confused about the very essence of the Gospel itself. That’s a horrifying trade off, but it’s also a decision that every single church is going to have to make and in the very near future.
Buy the books
God And The Gay Christian: A Response To Matthew Vines