Gay debate challenges traditional definitions of ‘evangelical’ (ANALYSIS)

The idea that one can change the attitudes of conservative religious folk through nice speeches and appeals to Biblical authority are useless. It assumes religious belief and Biblical adherence is a rational, thought out, thing.

Far from it. People of such faiths don’t act because the Bible tells them so. Its the reverse. They look to the Bible as validation for their actions. Anyone who say’s, “Its not my belief, its what the Bible tells me” is full of crap. They are just trying to shift blame for their actions and beliefs away from personal responsibility. Confirmation is the point of Biblical study for them.

Who gets to decide?

The holier than thou’s. The Only True Christians (TM).

Of course.

Its quite a sweeping generalization which usually plays out as described when one sees how such people use scripture in relation to dealing with other people.

“but do you think it’s fair to categorize literally every person of faith as you’ve laid out?”

No, just the Christians of a conservative bent. Especially since not “every person of faith” belongs to the category of “conservative religious folk” I referenced above. Typically such groups like to consider themselves the only people of “real faith” (as you seemed to do).

You know, the ones who claim all of their actions are guided by their alleged rigid adherence to scriptural text. (Which is pure fiction) The people who find excuses for avoiding “love thy neighbor” or use their faith as a method of self-aggrandizement (“I’m holier than you!”). The people Vines was trying to address.

Vines is wasting his time. Such people do not despise gays because the Bible tells them to. The Bible merely gives them a socially acceptable excuse.

Well, again, I mostly agree with you, and believe that you stated it well. I don’t think it is all quite so black and white. as with everything else when it comes to religion or homosexuality, a lot of things exist on a continuum.

I’ve talked with a number of Christians who don’t fall into the “so-called” variety, but still believe homosexuality to be a sin. What’s interesting about them is that although they believe this, they are adamantly opposed to using the law to disadvantage us, and our families. Are they pro-gay. no. Are they antigay? No. Do I have any complaint about them if they’re not actively trying to harm my life, and don’t support those that do? No.

I’m going to have to disagree. Being a gay man that was raised in a conservative Christian background, I have found most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin because they actually believe what they’ve been taught is true. You might get the occasional extremist who is simply abusing religion for their own benefit, but most evangelical Christians don’t see their actions as bigotry. The issue I see is a lack of education and a lack of actual interaction with real life LGBT people but dismissing everyone on the other side as dishonest hypocrites isn’t going to help.

Matthew Vines’ specific claims have been examined and debunked, and readers (regardless of their favorite labels), need to check it out.

These days, it almost doesn’t matter who calls themselves a “Christian”, or an “Evangelical”, or a “Catholic”, or even an “Atheist.” Single-word, sound-bite labels don’t tell the whole story. SPECIFICS are what really counts,

Vines will continue to label himself and his little “project” whatever he wants. The important point is that Vines’ specific claims have been demonstrated to be wrong. THAT, is the information that readers need to find out about.

So here is that information, and yes it is free of charge.

If you would like to read the free e-book “God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines” (2014, ed. by Dr. Albert Mohler), from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Press, just simply go to the SBTS page:

http://www.sbts.edu/god-and-the-gay-christian/

Tom…I tend to agree with your basic analysis. Evangelicalism has been shIfting for a number of years. Hence the Emergent Church movement otherwise known as a generous orthodoxy. That is a movement from the conservative right more towards middle theological ground and much more towards an openness and dialogue with people of all faiths.

in the end they made very well become predominant well Evan Jellicle ism fades into sidelines like fundamentalism did. I can only pray:)).

One of the things forgotten (or not known by the younger generation) is that a great part of what shores up conservative evangelicals is their ability to take older, receding social mores and make a ‘proof’ of their holiness out of them. For example, back in the fifties, the mainstream considered rough language, drinking, short skirts, long hair, rock music as being wrong (with a small ‘w’)…somewhere between bad and uncivil. Conservatives played on this prevailing attitude by grooming it to a means of showing holiness. There was an old expression, ‘I don’t drink, smoke or chew and I don’t run with the girls who do.’ Given the popular disdain towards gays in the fifties, it was natural for conservative Christians to elevate that disdain to the level of ‘sin’. And make themselves look upstanding by being ‘agin’ it. Up ’til now, they have failed to realize that this issue is not in the same category as Footloose. But now, finally, Vines and others have realized this has nothing to do with pure living and everything to do with prejudice and discrimination. It’s about time.

Why stop at the word, “evangelical?” Let’s drain all other words of common meaning, allowing as many definitions of a word as there are people.

The results will be quite interesting. People will lose all power to understand and to be understood in anything.

If debunk you mean, “I’m going to bury my head in the sand and ignore reality to keep pretending like my bigoted and hateful views should be the way society is run.”

Why? Should RNS be yet another echo-chamber for atheists and wishy washy pseudo-Christians? There are quite enough of those already. Exchange is what is enjoyable.

Explain to us what is ‘wickedly bigoted’ about his remark. Is it the phrase ‘solidly refuted’, ‘no scriptural support’, or ‘being used’?

Larry, all communication between people, written or verbal, requires interpretation by the reader or hearer. When the original communicator is alive, we can simply ask that person to clarify the meaning. But when it comes to old communications where the person is no longer here, we have no choice but to rely on interpretation by others.

Vines’ views have been debunked in several ways.

They violate the plain and straightforward meaning of the text, ie what a reasonable person would infer at first glance.

They violate the interpretation given by the Jewish people and their commentators for millennia, going back nearly three millennia.

They violate the interpretation given by the Jewish community as a whole in ancient times, as evidenced by ancient writings remarking on Jewish opposition to homosexuality.

They violate the views of the New Testament, starting by Paul’s inclusion of the subject in the opening chapter of his epistle to the Roman church.

They violate the interpretations of Christian commentaries for the better part of 20 centuries.

And they have been debunked, as Doc says, by scholarship today which has taken a second and third look at the matter.

Shawnie, exchange is enjoyable only if one’s views are intellectually capable of being defended. The reason that some don’t enjoy exchange is that their views are based on emotion and not reason or the facts. They know that once we shovel away their mounds of…..ahem….rhetoric, all they have left is their emotions.

From what I read so far, the atheists claim is that conservative evangelical Christians held the belief that homosexuality was wrong, even before they read the Bible. It’s not even enough that this is flawed logic, but even still, they don’t apply this logic consistently. For it never struck them to ask, “If conservative Christians read what they want into the scriptures, maybe liberal Christians do this too.” But no, this is not what happens. Case in point, Vines is a gay Christian, who interprets the scriptures of the Bible such that homosexual relationships are not a violation of God’s commands. The atheists never say “Hey, maybe Vines reached his interpretation of scriptures based upon his previously held belief that homosexual relationships are OK.”

The question that has to be asked and answered is this one it seems. “Do the Biblical scriptures, as a whole, affirm or deny the claim the homosexual relations is a sin?”

A person’s independently held belief on this issue has no bearing as to the truth of this question.

Let’s redefine “Secular” to mean a religious system of beliefs that, above all else, hold to the doctrine emotional gratuitous truth. Which, by definition, means that a claim is only factual if believing it makes the person well fed, but rather very thirsty.

Shawnie: Neon’s head is buried somwhere but I am not sure that even Neon knows where it is.

It’s mostly without meaning, now. It loosely indicates that one speaker doesn’t like another’s views, but not much else.

You nailed it, Josh. I wonder what they think is our real reason for believing homosexuality is wrong? I for one rarely ever gave it a thought before it suddenly filled up our media.

Wonder, too, if we can just throw out the constitution along with the bible? After all, there are all kinds of different ways to look at it and anyone can use it as an excuse for acting badly toward others, and it really doesn’t help to go back and look at what it meant to its writers and those who knew the writers because everyone’s personal prejudices will color their interpretations of the interpretations…

And why stop there? Let’s just work our way down all the way to the local municipal ordinances…

I think you may have meant to say “Vines gives nothing BUT Biblical scripture to support his view”. This is a half-truth. I can probably explain this better by example.

There are Christians who deny the claim that Sodom was destroyed because of their homosexuality. Instead they hold to the claim that Sodom was destroyed because the people there were inhospitable. And they point to Ezekiel 16:49 to affirm their claim. Now because of this, one may be led (or misled, as is the case) to think that they support their claim with Biblical scriptures. That is, until you realize that they are purposely ignoring other scriptures which would pose a serious threat to their original claim. For instance, the people who give Ezekiel 16:49 as their proof text will wholly ignore the very next verse, namely Ezekiel 16:50. They also ignore Genesis 13:13 and there is a verse in Jude which also gives a commentary on Sodom ‘s sin, which they ignore.

In like manner, Vines probably does the same. I must admit that I have not read Vines or the refutation of Vines given by the Southern Baptists (Doc Antony has a link above). The question shouldn’t be whether or not Vines quotes a scripture verse, but it should be “Is Vines conclusion coherent between all the scripture as a whole” or does he simply refer to just one passage, or even worse, just one verse to base his entire conclusion on?

“For instance, the people who give Ezekiel 16:49 as their proof text will wholly ignore the very next verse, namely Ezekiel 16:50. ”

I saw a scoffer do exactly that right here not long ago. And even accused the quoter of manufacturing 16:50.

Way to go long here. When it comes to scripture you are handicapped by a number of things.

1. Given the passage of time, it is pretty clear that nobody is going to be able to divine the meaning of scripture in its original language to an absolute certainty. Even the best translations require a great deal of “fudging” and personal interpretation.

Claiming a definitive ones exists is an outright (but useful) lie. Even the best scholars in ancient languages acknowledge the clear gaps in their knowledge of them due to lack of sources and lack of diversity within those existing.

2. Just because a translation is old and accepted by a group, it doesn’t mean it was the only one that must exist or can exist. Especially when the subject is religious belief. Religious belief is not a rational thing. There are no proofs, evidence or logic in religion. It is dependent on personal faith and how it will color interpretations.

3. Scriptural interpretation is so wildly diverse and divergent in Christianity that there are over 500 sects of difference. Again, it is only accepted to the point people are willing to impute to it personally.

4. You can’t ask God directly. He doesn’t exactly give unambiguous answers these days.

Vines has only been “debunked” to the degree anyone asserts scriptural authority in Christianity. Whether an audience is willing to accept it. You do not. You will find reasons not to accept it. Some Christians will find it appealing to their faith. Whether you want to consider them “Real Christians” is entirely immaterial to the matter.

You CAN claim there is an orthodox, largely accepted interpretation by a certain group. However, nobody has to take you seriously to the notion it is the only one. All you are doing is stating how a given interpretation is personally acceptable to you. It has no objective credible value. No religious argument will. People will take the interpretation which best suits them. It is entirely subjective.

“or does he simply refer to just one passage, or even worse, just one verse to base his entire conclusion on?”

Which would be different from any other conclusion on scripture, How?

Vines is wasting his time. People who want to look for scriptural excuses to treat gays badly will ignore him regardless of any argument he makes. Those who feel differently will do the opposite. The approach is really pointless if the purpose is to create a compelling argument to an opposing view. There is no such thing as a compelling argument based on scripture. It is a rather malleable tool.

So do you have a definition which would be acceptable to all self-professed Christians here? I highly doubt it.

“Wonder, too, if we can just throw out the constitution along with the bible?”

More honestly your view is to throw out the constitution FOR the Bible.

The problem with Bible thumpers who have pretensions of Constitutional scholarship is that they approach both texts the exact same way. Unlike Bible study, law binds people regardless of belief. It requires interpretation from people who need to apply it to others. So we have people who have a specific job to do so.

Any idiot can make a claim about Biblical interpretation and it will be as valid as any other idiot. There is no such thing as an objectively credible Biblical scholar. One can ignore it at will to no ill effect. Until you can have God speak to people directly and apply his wrath to those who disagree, its just spinning your weals.

The Constitution requires one to subject their views to something beyond personal belief. Judges have the power to bind people to their opinions. Its a lot more convincing than your self-styled scriptural knowledge.

So you’re saying that the Bible can’t be interpreted correctly because no one (not yet anyway) is going to smack you with a hammer if you get it wrong?

I say “Dominus reget me et nihil mihi deerit ” means “Kelly poured Coke on Fred’s green socks.” Nobody will smack me with a hammer if I am incorrect. Am I incorrect? If you say I am, aren’t you just spinning your “weals?”

And really, the debate is just about that simple and easy to conclude. It’s not a matter of theological interpretation at all but of language and history. The only reason there’s any controversy is because so many people simply don’t like the result. Big deal..we all have parts of God’s word we don’t like and find hard (the disciples certainly did) but that doesn’t make them go away.

Few theological discussions leave everyone nodding in agreement. So your “contribution” is merely to tell everyone, from a position of near-complete ignorance of the subject matter, that all views of the Bible are equally invalid? That will go over with NO ONE except the equally oblivious.

Not much of an impact to be made without actually doing homework, I’m afraid.

Old does not equal indecipherable, Larry, particularly when there is an unbroken chain of rabbinic commentary on the subject from the very beginning of the Christian era through the Middle Ages and up until just a generation or so ago. And I hardly think you’re in any position to tell us what the “best scholars in ancient languages” acknowledge or not. The “best scholars in ancient languages,” as a matter of fact, are the ones who put together the Greek lexicons which ALL say….well, you already know what. The “best scholars in ancient languages,” additionally, mostly dismiss Boswell, from which Vines and all of the “gay-affirmers” take their cues.

“Scriptural interpretation is so wildly diverse and divergent in Christianity ”

On some matters that are particularly hard for the finite to understand, sure. This is not one of them. There has been no diverse interpretation of the Biblical prohibitions on same-sex behavior, however, for two millenia up until 1980 or so.

“People will take the interpretation which best suits them.”

It doesn’t suit me at all. But there is no other understanding that makes a jot of sense.

“You can’t ask God directly. He doesn’t exactly give unambiguous answers these days.”

LOL! Well, He DID explain homosexual behavior to His people almost exactly as my parents and most of my friends’ parents explained it to us as children, so it’s hard to accuse Him of ambiguity on this subject, at least: “It’s like a man and a woman, only it’s a man and a man.”

That is so apt for the “Reformation Project”. Dr James White offered to debate them at their conference, and he says they rejected his offer. Apparently they only want speakers who agree with them.

“Growing cultural acceptance of homosexuality is leading many Christians to reconsider their historic opposition.”

To literally sell out the Gospel for, well, money. It’s tough for a Pastor to pay his rent with no parishioners. Selling out is profitable. The Catholics know that well. Now it’s time for the Protestants to profit from pop cultural.

Vines and his Gay Activist Ilk were spawned from a godless society. NOT one experiencing revival of Gospel truth. It is from a break down of morality and the rise of rejection of Christian life that brought about gay power. Vines is a huckster looking for the dupe-able. They are, of course, legion now.

The little letter of Jude was written about Vines and his gay pals. Written so fantastically accurately, you could post it as an article written today.

Let’s see:

“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”

– Jude

Vines’ idea of reforming The Church, is forming it as an offshoot of the Gay Pride movement. His desire is to have the Rainbow Flag planted over the Cross in every Church he can seduce.

The Gay Pride “reformation project” that is preached by Vines and his heretical clan, is one of licentiousness. They can seek young healthy young people that are disease free to seduce to their hearts content.

No matter the hypnotism of Vines and his gay message, the idea that homosexuality is to be celebrated in The Church is a rejection of Jesus and the consistent message of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

Vines is a liar. A false teacher with another Gospel. Though many will be seduces by his cunning ploy, c’mon now, how do you think Sodom and Gomorrah got that way?

There, that is much more accurate.

Or as Jude saw it too:

“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority . . . ”

But notice that Jude shows them IN THE CHURCH?

“These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.”

Nothing new under the sun right?

“Christians have had countercultural views about sex from the beginning.”

Exactly. Only the divide was even greater. They maintained unprecedented standards of purity that put us to shame today, in the midst of a culture in many ways more licentious than our own. And what were they faulted and murdered for then? According to Tacitus, for their “hatred of mankind.”

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Indeed. To put it another way, there is nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes says (1:9).

Vines’ idea of reforming The Church, is forming it as an offshoot of the Gay Pride movement. His desire is to have the Rainbow Flag planted over the Cross in every Church he can seduce.

The Gay Pride “reformation project” that is preached by Vines and his heretical clan, is one of licentiousness. They can seek young healthy young people that are disease free to seduce to their hearts content.”

You’re right. There is nothing new under the sun. This statement alone is sufficient to prove thatThis is the same old homohatred, always justified as sincere religious belief, always untethered from reality, always a projection of your own dark fears on innocent others. Thank you for putting it out there for all fair minded, decent, compassionate people to see. You do so very much for our cause.

Reviling and slandering innocent others. now where did I read that doing that would get you a first class reservation on a Barbeque pit in hell? when did the sole point of Christianity become “get the gays?”

there are a great many Christians, ministers, churches, and whole denominations who can see this hatred for what it so clearly is. But then, they don’t presume to know that status of the relation of God with any other person on the planet.

Just produce ANY scripture that directly celebrates, condones, encourages, promotes or evebn agree to same gender “marriage” OR behavior is acceptable for Christians.

You will find out yourself that Vines is not only a heretic, but is a common gay activist. He is working for the rainbow flag, NOT the Gospel. z

When did gays finally get around to conquering The Church?

Fresh young bodies and “affirmation” of their sexuality.

Do the math.

The LGBT pride movement is facing its licentious drooling desires towards The Church because that is where true affirmation is found.

They can only force their demands on an unwilling Christian population. Ever notice that where gays go SCHISM results?

This will take only few decades before the same old historical depravity of the homosexual life becomes dominant in Christian places. That isn’t homophobia or hate speaking, it is the history of humanity. What Vines preaches has been heard before. His desire for gay pride to develop a fresh young crop cannot be hidden for long.

And thank you for demonstrating more of thesame.

Funny, as always, we receive the blame for your own projections. We’re not the ones demanding schism. There are not enough of us, and we have no power. It is always, thus far, the ones who say “we’d rather split this church apart than treat gay people like human beings.”

If and when the Methodist church has another schism, it might be the Americans who initiate the schism with the homo-hating Africans and their American fellow travelers.

But again, it won’t be us forcing anything on anyone. It will be the decent, kind, compassionate, and THINKING moderates who will have had enough of hatred masquerading as sincere religious belief.

So again, thank you for the work you are doing.Satan–if I believed in him– would be proud of you.