God and the Gay Christian

I promise this will be my last book about sexuality and the Bible for a little while. It’s just a very important issue today that is being discussed in a variety of ways by a variety of people, and I don’t want to dismiss it. This is a great book and should be read by everyone. It takes the Scripture and shows how a serious and respectful view of it can still lead to acceptance of homosexuals. It simply takes a greater understanding of the historical and literary contexts surrounding the words that too many people take at face value without understanding what they’re meaning (and yet they would never do that with other passages).

In complete honesty, Vines’ book is mostly an abridged version of Brownson’s, Bible, Gender, Sexuality. In such, there isn’t much new content to address in the review of this book. I would like to clarify one thing, though. While this may be a summary, it does not make it an unnecessary book. There are things that Vines adds to the discussion that Brownson cannot, and that is mostly personal experience. Brownson write’s because his son is gay; Vines writes because he is gay. There’s an emotional connection in the book that cannot be fabricated, and it certainly should not be missed.

Not only that, but Vines more directly addresses the issue of being non-affirming and how it’s harmful to Christianity as a whole. Brownson stays at a more academic level, addressing the Bible from the standpoint of a professor (as he is one), Vines brings it home in a personal way. He shows how the church’s rhetoric and attitudes are not aligning with the church’s mission. That is to say, the way the church treats homosexuals is in no way producing good fruit in their lives (or in the church) and therefore, is the church really a good tree anymore?

How can the church claim to be God’s gift to the world when it’s causing self-loathing, depression, anxiety, and even suicide in so many people, simply by the words it’s using to describe an issue? Those aren’t good fruit. That’s not what Jesus intended the church to do. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, but that seems to be all the church is creating in the world today. There’s something wrong with that picture. (disclaimer: I’m not saying the church is entirely bad. However, in this instance, it is not fulfilling its purpose to produce good fruit.)

Also, because Vines’ approach is more personal, it’s an easier read than Brownson’s. While I did not find the academic nature of Brownson’s book to be difficult, there may be others who find it too vigorous for them. That’s what’s great about Vines’ book. It allows those who may have a difficult time with wordy books and intense theological and exegetical discussions to have a book that speaks to them in plain English. He writes how I assume he’d talk to you. It makes it easy to understand. I would recommend this book as an appetite starter for this issue. Read it first. It’s straightforward and makes sense. If you want to know more, then move on to Brownson’s book, as it goes into more detail about everything Vines talks about.

Another thing Vines addresses that Brownson doesn’t as much, is the idea that this isn’t something new in Christianity. Re-evaluating Bible verses in order to find a more accurate historical/literary understanding that fits both within God’s word and within the new realities, we find ourselves is something Christianity has done countless times throughout its history and will continue to do. One point Vines doesn’t make about it that I want to make first, though- most of the times, the dissenting (that is the opinion that is seen as too new, too liberal, anti-bible) view eventually becomes the accepted view. It happened with the idea that the world was flat; it happened with the idea that the world is the center of the universe and never moves; it happened with the idea that slavery was okay; it happened with the idea that interracial marriage was wrong; and it’s happening before our eyes with the idea of homosexuality and Christianity. Do you want to be on the side that, when people look back in the future (as we do today) will say, “how could they even hold that opinion? It’s contrary to everything we know about God and His love for His people,” or do you want to be on the side that people will see as normal in the future? That choice is up to you, but it’s an important personal choice to make and will have innumerable consequences no matter which one you choose.

With that, our current understanding of some of the passages that seem to condemn homosexuality have already changed throughout time. The idea that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexuality is a recent understanding (and is also slowly fading among scholars, yet is still touted by laymen and clergy as if it’s the second coming). The idea that Leviticus is talking about all forms of homosexuality is recent, and even the ancient Jewish philosophers (who held this book in high regard) didn’t necessarily hold that view. How we understand the passages in Corinthians and Timothy seem to change with each new translation of the Bible, introducing new nuances based on our understanding of the world (for instance, they changed “homosexuals” to “practicing homosexuals” based on our continued understanding of homosexuality as an orientation and the different between that and actions.) And yet, we keep saying that the views most Christians hold about sexuality and homosexuality in the Bible are the traditional ones. That’s just not the case.

I would like to caution a few things from the book, though. 1) Vines states that there are those who don’t think Romans 1:26 is talking about female homosexuality, but does not address the issue fully. He says (as I understand him) that the verse is talking about female homosexuality. 2) He states multiple times throughout the book that there is no understanding of homosexuality as we know it (an inbuilt orientation) within the ancient world.

1)That’s simply untrue. There is almost no possibility that the verse is addressing female homosexuality.  First of all, while there are accounts of homosexual activity in the ancient world, there are very few accounts of it amongst women. Also, the few accounts that do occur of female homosexuality are always brought up after both heterosexuality and male homosexuality. It is never brought up first, as it seems to be in this verse. Second, the only reason we believe it to be addressing female homosexuality is because the next verse is addressing male homosexuality. However, that form of interpretation is faulty. There are far too few cases of interpreting the first verse through the lens of the second verse in not only Biblical writings, but all writings of that time, to apply that to this case without great speculation. You can’t take the dependent clause and use it to define the first clause; that just doesn’t make sense. We way want to do it that way, but it’s not how it worked in antiquity. Lastly, the use of the words, “in the same way” in verse 27 seems to be saying that the new use was the same. That is to say that the very same activities that homosexuals can participate in (non-coital sexual relations) were the same activities described in verse 26. Not that they were both homosexual activities, but they were the same actions themselves. (Again, this was a brief overview. The details are further explained in my paper).

2) This is the point where things get tricky. Even Vines seems to be confused about the issue in his writings. He states, in no uncertain terms, that there was no idea of homosexuality without ancient times. However, he also asserts that homosexuality was essentially expected amongst everyone. What I understand him to be saying is that they had no idea of people being born gay exclusively. However, that’s also not the case. There are multiple creation accounts from ancient writers that discuss people being created gay by the various deities (a view of those are also discussed briefly my paper). With those accounts, how can one say there was no idea of a homosexuality identity? Clearly, even though they were fables, there was some concept of people being born gay in ancient times and it’s not a recently invented concept. “But they didn’t have a word for it like we do now,” you might say. And yes, that appears to be true. But let me counter that with a simple point- do we need a word for it? As it noted, there was an expected level of homosexuality activity amongst people of ancient times. Did they have a specific word for heterosexual back then as well? I doubt it. They probably viewed all forms of sexuality (straight, gay, bi, lesbian, etc.) as natural and normal. It wasn’t until society constructed a view of heteronormativity that there became the need for a word to describe those who are interested in the same sex. In ancient times, it was a nonissue. It was just who they were, how they received pleasure, and how they were created. Nothing more, nothing less. Seeing the lack of a word for a homosexual in antiquity is reading our modern assumptions into their time, and is dangerous.

With those two problems within the book addressed, I would like to, again, recommend this book to everyone. Whether or not you think you know how you feel about homosexuality and Christianity (whether it be good or bad) or, especially, if you’re still figuring out the issue for yourself, you need to read this book. At the very least, you will be educated about viewpoints; perhaps, though, you will be moved to do something to help those who are being thrown into depression based on the hurtful rhetoric of the church. Maybe it can inspire you to take a stand for those for whom good fruit is not being produced thanks to the church.