Matthew Vines

Matthew Vine’s seemed alien when I started hearing about his book, God and the Gay Christian. He believed in the inerrancy of the bible and that it was the last authority for all matters. He held a conservative view of sexuality that included remaining a virgin until marriage. He appeared dedicated to the institution of church. But, he was also gay and strongly advocated for the acceptance of LGBT Christians into the church.

Even though I had already changed my mind about homosexuality, I show more was curious to hear Matthew’s case. I was skeptical that a scriptural case could even be made, but when Southern Baptist potentate Al Mohler released a rebuttal I had to read it. If Matthew’s arguments threatened the evangelical gatekeepers that much, then it must have teeth.

The book begins with Matthew’s own “coming out” story. He worried about how his conservative family and friends might respond to his revelation. Though it took some time, his immediate family was accepting and supportive. Unfortunately many of those in his church chose not to be. This rejection was an extremely painful experience for Vines and readers can see how it has shaped his crusade for full acceptance of LGBT Christians.

The book makes the case that the bible is not condemning of same-sex relationships as they are understood in modern times. What makes Matthew’s case unique is his conservative scriptural approach. He gives great weight to the biblical texts, the language, and the historical contexts as he addresses all six explicit biblical references to homosexuality (three Old Testament verses and three New Testament verses).

Old Testament

Two of the Old Testament verses about homosexuality come from Leviticus, a book that deals with the ceremonial laws of the ancient Jewish religion. Most people are familiar with its infamous prohibitions against shellfish and pork, but it also has laws about beard grooming, menstrual cycles, and homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 deems homosexuality an abomination and verse 20:13 calls for the immediate execution of men who practice homosexuality – the women get a pass. Vines takes a simple approach to these passages, asking those who use them to condemn homosexuality to be consistent with their Old Testament hermeneutic.

Ask an average Christian why they love lobster, eat ham, shave their beards, wear rayon, or let their wives stay in the house during their periods. My guess is that you will receive some variation of the following response.

“We don’t follow the Old Testament law because Jesus died for our sins and we aren’t under the law anymore, we’re under grace.”

(Seriously, we were all taught this response in Sunday school as children. Go ahead and try it!)

Most evangelicals are also taught that they don’t get to pick what parts of the bible to follow. Vines highlights the cognitive dissonance that’s created by these axioms. He begs the question: If grace is good enough to negate laws about shellfish, beards, and monthly cycles why not laws about homosexuality? I felt this was perhaps the strongest argument against these particular verses. These types of calls for intellectual consistency posed the greatest challenges to my own views of the bible.

The third set of Old Testament passages used to condemn same-sex behavior is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Vine’s looks at the big picture of the Sodom and Gomorrah tale, including the Jewish moral context in which it was written. He contrasts the hospitality of Abraham and Lot with that of the men of two cities. Next he compares those events to Mosaic Law regarding the treatment of strangers.

Prior to the events at Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham meets three angelic strangers. He treats them as honored guests; washing their feet and feeding them. (Genesis 18:1-8). Lot does likewise when the group of strangers – minus one – arrive in Sodom. (Genesis 19:1-3). The actions of these two men reflect the Mosaic laws governing hospitality towards strangers. Their actions are also a sharp contrast to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah who seek to demean, subjugate, and conquer their visitors through vicious gang rape.

For centuries theologians and laymen have held up Sodom and Gomorrah as an object lesson on the depravity and consequences of homosexual behavior. What Matthew points out – and what any person who spends time with the text and context can see — is that the damning sin of the sister cities was injustice, not homosexuality. (Genesis 18-19:28, Matthew 10:14-15)

New Testament

The book takes a more nuanced approach when dealing with the three New Testament verses. Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, and 1st Timothy 1:10 are not so easily rebuffed. But, Vines asks the reader to consider Paul’s cultural understanding of the issue. What did Paul mean when he used words like natural, unnatural and effeminate to describe same-sex behavior? Was he really condemning homosexual orientation?

Debates about whether sexual orientation is a choice or a genetic disposition raged for decades, but that particular issue seems to be settled. While the fighting continues over same-sex marriage, most people including Al Mohler, have accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting a genetic role in sexuality.

But the modern understanding of sexual orientation was foreign to 1st century writers like Paul. History documents widespread acceptance of same-sex behavior, including those that modern people find repugnant. Consider ancient Rome where pederasty was so common that it is celebrated in the engravings on the Warren Cup. Vines suggest that to understand Paul’s we must understand the sexual mores of his era.

Biblical and secular writings show that contentions weren’t with homosexuality, but gender roles. Same-sex behavior was an accepted practice. What ancient people found to be “unnatural” was for a male to take a submissive sexual role. Males who did so were effectively debasing themselves to a female gender role. It was considered effeminate, but it was especially debasing for a male of high social status. The submissive sexual role was for women and others of inconsequential social standing.

There still exists a strong constituency for gender roles in Christianity. But many are beginning to push back and reject the sexism inherent in the biblical cultural context. But it must be noted that Paul wasn’t simply parroting the societal norms of his day. The rest of his works bear out a desire for believers to find healthy outlets for their sexuality. God and the Gay Christian contends is that Paul was speaking out against uncontrolled sexual lust. A problem which he and his contemporaries believed was manifested in the “debasement” and “self-abuse” of willing taking a submissive same-sex role. However “backwards” some of Paul’s views may seem to modern readers, there is still some wisdom to be gained. Committed monogamous relationships, gay and straight, provide fertile ground for personal and spiritual growth and benefit society in a multitude of ways.

Final Thoughts

I found this book easy to read. The arguments were well structured and clear. Matt’s desire to enter an often vitriolic debate with humility and grace impressed me. The fact that he engages with scripture on the same terms as most conservative evangelicals is an important tool in creating understanding. This book could open constructive dialog between affirming and non-affirming Christians.Unfortunately – and certainly to my discredit – I have little interest in bridging that gap.

While I saw Matt’s relationship to scripture as a strength in dealing with evangelicals, it was a roadblock for me. It felt very much like Matt was “lawyering up” with the Bible. He uses it as a rule book that, if parsed correctly, can absolutely define morality, theology, and philosophy. This approach to scripture leaves me feeling cold and sterile. I find that I quickly become cynical and resistant to the truths that it can offer. Also many moments felt like Matt was working to justify himself to his own conscience. I fully understand this need and desire. I’ve spent great deals of time picking at biblical texts to grasp some shred of existential peace.

Call it conscience, the Holy Spirit, or heresy, but I no longer see the bible these ways. For this reason the book wasn’t for me. I liked where Matt ended up theologically, but I didn’t necessarily enjoy how he got there. But, there’s no fault for him in that. It reflects entirely on me and not the author or the book. Truth be told I don’t think Matt wrote this book for progressive/liberal/mainstream Christians. This was a book written by a conservative Christian to progress conservative Christianity and that’s something I can definitely support. show less

I found myself quite impressed with this book. Vines makes thoughtful and reasoned arguments for his belief that committed, same-sex relationships are not condemned by the Bible. I specifically appreciated how clear it was that this is a man who has a deep respect for the Biblical text, and has carefully studied to find an answer he believes to be true, not just the answer he wants to be right. Will it still be a hard sell for most conservative Evangelical Christians? Certainly. But I think show more Vines has earned the right to be heard, and his clear and well-researched thesis deserves a place at the table. Important stuff, this. (To be clear - I agree with Mr. Vines' conclusions, and am grateful to him for his work.) show less

This is an intelligent, thoughtful, relatable, and articulate book written with open-minded Christian Conservatives in mind. If you are open to persuasion or sincerely believe that orientation is not a "choice," then you will find rich insights here. If you still believe that orientation is a "choice" and that every word of the English Bible should be followed literally to its interpretation without understanding history and context, then you will likely do nothing but find faults with show more Vines' argument. show less

Great starting point if you come to questions of Christian sexual ethics from a conservative Biblical hermeneutical tradition and want to see what LGBTQIA-affirming arguments are being made about the big six Biblical passages. I admire Vines for how hard he works to engage with people who disagree with (and in some cases have dismissed or condemned) him on their territory, claiming it as his own home turf and refusing to cede it.