Does the Denial of Same-Sex Marriage Inflict Undue Pain?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 3

October 9, 2012 ~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

This is part 3 in an ongoing series where I answer the arguments of 22-year-old Harvard University student, Matthew Vines. In the previous two parts, I addressed his interpretation of Genesis 2 and Romans 1. In this post, I consider his argument for same-sex marriage. Follow the links for Part 1 and Part 2.

As with most discussions regarding homosexuality, the focus eventually moves to the idea of same-sex marriage. As Mr. Vines has already noted in his argument (see part 1), he believes that homosexuals are commanded by God to join in loving, committed relationships. In addition, he believes such relationships should be recognized as marriage by both the church and the state. He also believes that denying marriage to same-sex couples inflicts undue pain on them, which is a violation of God’s command to love.

Vines presents his argument as follows:

Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin. And for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things. The Song of Songs tells us that King Solomon’s wedding day was “the day his heart rejoiced.” To deny to a small minority of people, not just a wedding day, but a lifetime of love and commitment and family is to inflict on them a devastating level of hurt and anguish. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Christians are called to perpetuate that kind of pain in other people’s lives rather than work to alleviate it, especially when the problem is so easy to fix. All it takes is acceptance. The Bible is not opposed to the acceptance of gay Christians, or to the possibility of loving relationships for them. And if you are uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women in love, if you are dead-set against that idea, then I am asking you to try to see things differently for my sake, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

When Mr. Vines speaks of inflicting devastating pain and anguish on homosexuals by denying them the opportunity to marry, he is attempting to quantify pain and pleasure and determine if one outweighs the other. However, such attempts at moral calculus are inconsistent at best. Instead, we should evaluate whether or not homosexual relationships accomplish the goods of marriage according to Scripture. One of the goods of marriage in Scripture is unity (Gen 2:24). This is expressed through love, commitment, and the sexual bond. While one could make the argument that same-sex relationships accomplish this good, they only do so in violation of God’s standard for sexuality—sex between one man and one woman in the context of marriage for a lifetime. Since marriage is not commanded, proponents of same-sex marriage are actually attempting to accomplish a good at the expense of biblical sexuality. Therefore, the evil inflicted by active participation in sin actually undermines any good that could be accomplished in a loving, committed relationship. Mr. Vines, then, has transferred the blame for sin from those in violation of God’s command to those who are attempting to uphold the clear teaching of Scripture. The other goods of marriage from Scripture are also violated by homosexual couples. Genesis 1:28 proclaims procreation as a good of marriage, but that is biologically impossible for same-sex couples. The other good of marriage is sexual fidelity. While one might make an argument for fidelity in a committed same-sex relationship, the biblical concept of sexuality is between one man and one woman. We even see this in Jesus’ teaching in Matt 19:3-12.

I think Christians can always do better when addressing the issue of homosexuality. We need to remember that homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin. In 1 Cor 6:9-10, Paul gives a vice list with a number sins, including homosexuality. However, in verse 10 he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” It seems evident that there were former homosexuals in the church at Corinth. The key here is the idea “former.” Paul said, “Such were some of you.” It was in their past, but God had redeemed them from this sin. They had repented and were being sanctified. We need to focus on this.

The argument that Mr. Vines proposes typically leads to labels. The label most often attached to supporters of traditional marriage is hatred or hate speech. Even if we focus on the redemptive aspects of the biblical message and the former status of those in the church in Corinth, I suspect that Christians who oppose homosexuality will continue to be labeled as hateful. However, this is a misuse of the term. It is not hateful to disagree with someone’s position.

Proponents of homosexuality constantly call for tolerance. Unfortunately, their understanding of tolerance is one-sided. True tolerance acknowledges the existence of differing opinions, but it does not require agreement or acceptance. Mr. Vines calls for acceptance of his view while being intolerant of those who disagree. While he does not use the term “hatred,” the idea is present in his statement that proponents of traditional marriage “inflict . . . a devastating level of hurt and anguish.” Our entire culture could benefit from discussing the actual arguments rather than labeling people as hateful.

_________________________

For the full text of article on The Christian Post, see Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.

Are Homosexual Relationships “Unnatural”?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 2

October 4, 2012 ~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

In the heated rhetoric of this political season, one issue that continues to be at the forefront of discussion is homosexuality. While much of the discussion has focused on rights and the definition of marriage, one young man has garnered national attention for making a different argument. Matthew Vines, a 22-year-old Harvard University student, has set out to defend homosexuality from a biblical perspective. Unfortunately, Vines has made grave errors in his attempt to defend what Scripture clearly condemns as sin. As part of an interview with The Christian Post, I was asked to respond to several of the arguments Vines has made. In order to provide the full context of the statements made by Vines, this series of posts will offer quotations from Vines and then my responses. Part 1 of this series can be found here.

The most significant biblical passage dealing with homosexuality is Romans 1:26–27. It is significant due to its length, context, and clear statements about both male and female homosexuality. For this reason, it is important for all discussions of homosexuality to address this passage.

Vines does not shy away from Romans 1. He states:

The idolaters are without excuse because they knew the truth, they started with the truth, but they rejected it. Paul’s subsequent statements about sexual behavior follow this same pattern. The women, he says, “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural ones. And the men “abandoned” relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality—they were naturally disposed to it just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God—but they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior. Paul’s argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange; the reason, he says, that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him, exchanged Him for idols. Paul’s reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force, in order for it to make sense within this argument, the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them. And that is exactly how he describes it.

But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Paul’s argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging “the natural for the unnatural” in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.

In his discussion of Rom 1:26-27, Mr. Vines takes a very common approach by those who wish to support homosexuality. The crux of his argument is that Paul knows nothing of committed same-sex relationships. Therefore, the violation would have to be heterosexuals (by orientation) participating in homosexual behavior. The problem with this is multi-faceted. First, it assumes that Scripture is not fully inspired by God. Even if Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation, the Holy Spirit inspired the text. This would imply that God himself was not aware of the concept of sexual orientation and was incapable of framing the message in such a way that it would be clear.

Second, the idea that homosexuals have a “natural” inclination towards relationships with people of the same sex is in fact a rejection of what God has revealed about himself. Paul’s condemnation of idolatry in verses 22-25 is based on the fact that the unrighteous “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Part of the truth of God is what he has revealed about the creation. As told to us in Genesis 2-3 and evident in observing nature, God created two genders that complement one another in multiple ways, not the least of which is through biological differences making sexual intercourse procreative. To reject this natural sexual function of the body is to reject how God created mankind in Genesis 1-2. Thus, Mr. Vines is committing the same sin that he rests solely on the backs of those who worshiped false gods–exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

Finally, Mr. Vines assumes as scientific fact that which has not been proven. He assumes that sexual orientation is permanent and part of one’s genetic make-up. However, there is no scientific study that proves Mr. Vines’ position. All scientific studies attempted to prove this suffer from small sample sizes and preconceived agendas.

The argument Mr. Vines puts forth falls flat theologically, biologically, and scientifically. By contrast, the traditional interpretation of Romans 1—that Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality as sin—remains the only consistent option when one considers the theological, biological, and scientific evidence.

_________________________

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.

Is Being Alone a Sin?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 1

October 2, 2012 ~ Evan Lenow ~ 3 Comments

In my last post, I mentioned an article on The Christian Post for which I was interviewed. While they used the majority of my answers in the article, I wanted to provide them here with the context of the material from Matthew Vines. In the first question related to his argument, the journalist asked me to respond to Vines’ interpretation of Genesis 2:18 where God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Vines makes the following claim and my response proceeds after that:

In Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men–for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. 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. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.

This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bible’s own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is.

Related to the Genesis 2 text, Mr. Vines is missing the point of the text. Prior to the creation of Eve, Adam was naming the animals. Part of the creation mandate in Genesis 1 is that the animals would reproduce after their kind. This is explicitly stated in Gen 1:22 regarding the sea creatures and birds and implied regarding the beasts of the earth in the language of “after their kind” in Gen 1:24-25. Adam surely noticed that each of the animals had a “partner” by which they could reproduce. Thus, part of the idea that it was not good for man to be alone was that he could not reproduce “after his kind” without a suitable partner. Therefore, as part of the first marriage in Genesis 2, God intended for procreation to be a part of this union.

In addition, we need to look at Adam not only as a historical figure but also as the representative of all mankind. Scripture itself views Adam in this way in Romans 5 as Paul speaks to sin entering the world through one man—Adam. Therefore, in this context, we see Adam representing all of mankind. God’s design for man is that he could enter into a complementary relationship with a woman, who is like him yet still different. At a very basic level, the complementary biological differences between man and woman make this clear. Thus, homosexual intercourse cannot be the union of a man and his suitable helper since the complementary biological differences do not exist.

Related to this, if God viewed marriage as the means for mankind to reproduce after his kind, then homosexual marriage and intercourse violates God’s command in Gen 1:28. It is biologically impossible for two men or two women to have their own biological offspring. A third individual of the opposite sex must enter the picture by way of either intercourse or the introduction of genetic material.

Finally, Mr. Vines implies that a command exists in Gen 2:18 for all individuals. At that point in the creation narrative, Adam is the only human. Of course it is not good for him to be alone because the human race could never multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Turning this into a command for all individuals reads something into the text that does not exist. As Mr. Vines acknowledges, Paul commends singleness and celibacy in 1 Cor 7:7. Mr. Vines has taken a description in Gen 2:18 and made it a prescription. In using this as an argument in favor of homosexuality, he then ignores the clear command of Gen 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply.

Christian Post Interview about Theological Arguments for Homosexuality

September 28, 2012 ~ Evan Lenow

A few weeks ago, one of my students sent me a link to a video and transcript of a young man from Harvard University who was making a case for why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. My student was hoping that I could especially address the meaning of Romans 1:26-27. I quickly perused the transcript and sent a copy of an article I wrote a few years ago.

Fast forward almost three weeks, and our Communications Office at SWBTS got an email from a reporter at The Christian Post asking for a professor to answer some questions related to that same video. The seminary asked me to respond.

Today, the article was released, and it included a significant amount of my responses. I would like to encourage you to read the article. I am honored to be included with the likes of Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Seminary), Sean McDonough (Gordon-Conwell Seminary), and Richard Mouw (Fuller Seminary). It is the second part of a three-part series. The first was an interview with the student from Harvard, Matthew Vines. In the days to follow, I will also post the full text of my answers to the questions.

_________________________

Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

Stoyan Zaimov, “Matthew Vines: Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality,” The Christian Post, September 25, 2012. (Part 1 of the series)

Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” matthewvines.com.