Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vinesâ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story is compelling. And heâs a friendâsomeone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. Today we look at the Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2. âReclaiming Our Lightâ Right from the start, Matthew shares with the reader two important elements of his identity: 1) that he is gay, and 2) that he is a theologically conservative Christian who holds a âhigh viewâ of the Bible. âThat means I believe all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life,â Matthew writes of the second. âWhile some parts of the Bible address cultural norms that do not directly apply to modern societies, all of Scripture is âuseful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.â (2 Timothy 3:16-16).â Now for some, this may seem like a conflict. I remember being told by pastors and church leaders that âgay Christianâ (or âbisexual Christianâ or âtransgender Christianâ) is an oxymoron and that no one who holds a high view of Scripture can support same-sex relationships.  But Matthewâs aim with God and the Gay Christian is to show that âChristians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.â Itâs an ambitious goal, and itâs one that Matthew tackles by bringing his story and insights alongside the research of dozens of scholars whose work on the topic he studied meticulously for four years, dropping out of Harvard so that he could devote himself to learning what it meant for him to be gay and Christian. âMy prayer,â he writes, âis that [the book] opens up a conversation in the Christian community that is truly in the spirit of Jesus. The fiercest objections to LGBT equalityâthose based on religious beliefâcan begin to fall away. The tremendous pain endured by LGBT youth in many Christian homes can become a relic of the past. Christianityâs reputation in much of the Western world can begin to rebound. Together, we can reclaim our light.â A Tree and Its Fruit Matthew speaks highly of his Christian upbringing, his loving parents, and the conservative Presbyterian church âfilled with kindhearted, caring Christiansâ in which he was raised. Like a lot of us, he asked Jesus into his heart when he was very littleâjust three years old. And like a lot of us he, ârecommittedâ a few times before middle schoolâŠ.just to be safe. Matthew loved God, loved his family, loved Scripture, and loved the Church. And yet, for years, he held on to a secret that he knew might very well jeopardize his relationship with them all: he knew he was gay. This reality generated a lot of anxiety in Matthewâs life. He had observed what happened to a friend of his who also attended his church, a young man who often shared his musical talents with the congregation on Sunday morning and was celebrated as bright, committed, and kindâa beloved member of the communityâŠuntil he came out as gay. Matthewâs friend encountered stigma and shame regarding his âdecisionâ and eventually gave up on church, Scripture, and his faith.  But Matthew didnât want to give up on his faith. Even Matthewâs father once told his son that he assumed that if God was against homosexuality, then God wouldnât make anyone gay, so those who âstruggle with same sex attractionâ could develop heterosexual attractions over time with enough effort and prayer. But Matthew couldnât change his sexual orientation. Finally, Matthew worked up the courage to come out to his family.  When I saw that Matthew had titled this section of his book âMy Dadâs Worst Day,â tears gathered in my eyes. It breaks my heart that we have created a culture in which a son or daughter bravely telling the truth about his or her sexuality can bring such devastation to a family. You have to read the story for yourself to catch the full impact, but Iâm happy to report that, after many months of struggling, questions, and tears, Matthewâs parents came around to supporting their son, fully. The testimony of their love for him shines through the pages of this book in a way that makes me both hopeful and sad because not every gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender child is this fortunate. For many, simply telling the truth is the beginning of a nightmare. Along with his parents, Matthew began carefully studying the Bibleâs few references to same-sex behavior (which will be examined, at length, throughout the rest of the book), and rethinking his position on the matter. Though he had always been taught by his church that homosexuality was a chosen and sinful âlifestyle,â this teaching did not match up with Matthewâs lived experience. âAs I became more aware of same-sex relationships,â he wrote, âI could not understand why they were supposed to be sinful, or why the Bible apparently condemned them. With most sins, it wasnât hard to pinpoint the damage they caused. Adultery violates a commitment to your spouse. Lust objectifies others. Gossip degrades people. But committed same-sex relationships did not easily fit this pattern. Not only were they not harmful to anyone, they seemed to be characterized by positive motives and traits instead, like faithfulness, commitment, mutual love, and self sacrifice. What other sin looked like that?â © 2014 Internet Archive Book Images, Flickr | PD | via Wylio This led some in Matthewâs church (he had come out to a small group) to accuse him of âelevating his experience over Scripture.â But as Matthew points out, he wasnât asking his friends to revise the Bible based on his experience, he was asking them to reconsider their interpretation of the Bible. Christians have often had to reconsider their interpretation of the Bible in light of new information, he argued, just as many did when they concluded slavery was immoral in spite of biblical instructions that seem to support it.  Furthermore, while Scripture tells us not to rely solely on our experiences, it cautions Christians against ignoring experience altogether. The early Church decided to include Gentiles without requiring them to undergo circumcised or obey kosher, a controversial conclusion based largely on Peterâs testimony and experience. In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus says that believers will recognize false teachers by the fruit in their lives. If something bears bad fruit, it cannot be a good tree. And if something bears good fruit, it cannot be a bad tree. This assessment is typically made based on experience. âNeither Peter in his work to include Gentiles in the church nor the abolitionists in their campaign against slavery argued that their experience should take precedence over Scripture,â writes Matthew. âBut they both made the case that their experience should cause Christians to reconsider long-held interpretations of Scripture. Today, we are just as responsible for testing our beliefs in light of their outcomesâa duty in line with Jesusâs teachings about trees and their fruit.â âŠWhich raises a few questions. If same-sex relationships are really sinful, then why do they so often produce good fruitâloving families, open homes, self-sacrifice, commitment, faithfulness, joy? And if conservative Christians are really right in their response to same-sex relationships, then why does that response often produce bad fruitâsecrets, shame, depression, loneliness, broken families, and fear? Eventually, after careful study and in light of new information, even Matthewâs father changed his mind.  Matthew writes: âInstead of taking the references to same-sex behavior as a sweeping statement about all same-sex relationships, my dad started to ask: is this verse about the kind of relationship Matthew wants, or is it about abusive or lustful behavior? Is this passage about the love and intimacy Matthew longs for, or does it refer to self-centered, fleeting desires instead? After much prayer, study, and contemplation, Dad changed his mind. Only six months before, he had never seriously questioned his views. But once he saw the fruit of his beliefs more clearly, he decided to dive deeper into the Bible. In that process, he came to what he now regards as a more accurate understandingâŠâ Telescopes, Tradition, and Sexual Orientation Before getting into a more detailed analysis of the various biblical passages involved, Matthew takes Chapter 2 to argue that new information about sexuality ought to compel Christians to rethink their interpretation of Scripture. He reminds readers that Galileo was accused of heresy by the Church when he presented evidence that contradicted centuries of tradition and accepted biblical interpretation regarding the earthâs place in the universe. It would take Christians many years to change their minds, but eventually they did. âChristians did not change their minds about the solar system because they lost respect for their Christian forbearers or for the authority of Scripture,â he writes. âThey changed their minds because they were confronted with evidence their predecessors had never considered. The traditional interpretation of Psalm 93:1, Joshua 10:12-14, and other passages made sense when it was first formulated. But the invention of the telescope offered a new lens to use in interpreting those verses, opening the door to a more accurate interpretation.â Similarly, in recent generations, our understanding of sexuality has radically changed. For example, for most of human history, homosexuality was not seen as a different sexual orientation but rather as a manifestation of normal sexual desire pursued to excessâa behavior anyone might engage in if they let their passions get out of hand. Matthew highlights multiple examples from history and literature to show that this was simply the assumption for many centuries. âIâm not saying gay people did not exist in ancient societies,â Matthew writes âIâm simply pointing out that ancient societies did not think in terms of exclusive sexual orientations. Their experience of same-sex behavior led them to think of it as something anyone might doâŠ.No ancient languages even had words that mean âgayâ or âstraight.ââ Of course now we are beginning to understand that, while human sexuality is complex and is perhaps best understood as existing along a continuum, many people report having fixed same-sex orientations that do not change. (Others experience sexual attraction to both men and women. Still others lack sexual attraction altogether.)  âReparative therapy,â which seeks to change sexual orientation, has been shown to be ineffective and potentially dangerous, discouraged most notably by many of the very Christian leaders who once promoted it within the Church. In addition, in the ancient cultures from which the Bible emerged strict, patriarchal gender roles were the norm and where procreation was a matter of survival.  Because women were presumed to be inferior to men, nothing was more degrading for a man than to be seen as womanly. (Guess some things never change, huh?) So in Rome, it was considered acceptable for an adult male citizen to have sex with slaves, prostitutes, and concubines regardless of gender, but only if he took the active role in the encounter. A same-sex encounter that placed a man in a passive (considered âwomanlyâ) role would be considered humiliating. (This explains why same-sex rape wasâand isâ sometimes used to humiliate an enemy after defeat.) All of these ancient understandings of sexuality affect how same-sex behavior discussed in Scripture, and all of them should call into question the notion that peopleâand the Churchâhave a held just one single âtraditionalâ view of same-sex behavior. In light of new information and experience, maybe itâs time to reexamine some of our assumptions and interpretations. âŠNext week, weâll look at just a single chapter from God and the Gay Christian, which addresses celibacy. Questions for Discussion: 1.   How have your experiencesâor those of friends and familyâshaped how you are approaching this conversation?  2.   What do you think of Matthewâs response to the challenge that he is âelevating his experience over Scripture.â 3.   Is it helpful or fair to compare evolving understandings of human sexuality to evolving understandings of, say, the solar system or slavery? I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation!Â
kianamaiart
discoholicmusic
germansingergirl
jbbartram-illu
prguitarman
baratheonpilled
janainaart
