Does a Gay Life Path Lead to Heaven?

The Bible and Same-Sex Relationships: A Critical Examination

Tim Keller, 2015

Vines, Matthew, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case for Same-Sex Relationships, Convergent Books, 2014

Wilson, Ken,A Letter to My Congregation, David Crum Media, 2014.

The connection between homosexuality and Christianity is a pivotal cultural discourse. Last fall, I published a review of works by Wesley Hill and Sam Allberry, who espouse the traditional Christian perspective—in Hill's articulation, that homosexuality was not God's original intention for humanity, rendering homosexual acts contrary to God's will, especially for those who believe in Christ.

Conversely, numerous texts contend that the Bible either permits or validates same-sex relations. Inquiries regarding these arguments have been frequent—both personally and within the Redeemer community. Given the significant debate surrounding these matters, the present review of Matthew Vines and Ken Wilson's work will exceed the usual scope. A brief overview may seem perfunctory and dismissive, necessitating an expanded analysis.

I've identified six fundamental arguments presented in these, and other similar, volumes.

Personal Experiences with Gay Individuals

Vines and Wilson recount accounts of individuals initially believing the Bible condemns homosexuality, later altering their beliefs through direct engagement with gay people. Crucially, Christians who do not identify as gay should certainly engage with and hear from those who are attracted to the same sex.

Observing the shifting beliefs of Christians, following genuine connections with caring gay individuals, one might infer that the former views were, in all likelihood, flawed. In fact, such convictions often arise from biased perceptions rather than sound theological or ethical reasoning or from a comprehensive understanding of biblical teachings. Such views are often founded on detrimental stereotypes. Therefore, a rejection of such prejudice is imperative. Nevertheless, the very existence of bigotry does not prove that the Bible does not prohibit homosexuality. It necessitates a careful examination of the texts themselves.

Historical Analysis of Scriptural Texts

Vines and Wilson posit that historical scholarship shows biblical authors did not condemn all same-sex relations, but only exploitative practices such as pederasty, prostitution, and rape. Their argument rests on the assumption that biblical authors lacked the concept of innate homosexual orientation and only encountered exploitative same-sex practices, thus lacking understanding of consensual, affectionate same-sex relations.

These arguments, initially advanced by John Boswell and Robin Scroggs in the 1980s, are now revived by Vines, Wilson, and others. However, the overwhelming majority of subsequent historical scholarship, across diverse academic viewpoints, has refuted this claim. For instance:

Bernadette Brooten and William Loader have powerfully demonstrated that ancient societies did indeed acknowledge homosexual orientation. Plato's Symposium, in particular, through Aristophanes' narrative, illustrates how ancient people recognized the existence of same-sex attraction. Whether this was an exact reflection of reality is not the central point. It provides evidence for the ancients understanding an inherent orientation towards the same sex. The ancients also knew of consensual, non-exploitative same-sex relationships. In Romans 1, Paul depicts same-sex attraction as individuals consuming passion 'for each other' (verse 27). This clearly describes mutual relations.

Paul, in Romans 1, condemns all same-sex relations, men and women alike. This is not a condemnation of exploitative acts alone. He addresses mutual same-sex attraction. However, nothing indicates that some same-sex relationships are acceptable. (Loader, Making Sense of Sex, p. 137)

Readers should explore relevant research, starting with William Loader's Sexuality in the New Testament (2010) or the more comprehensive The New Testament on Sexuality (2012). Loader, a renowned expert on ancient and biblical sexuality, authored several influential works.

Recategorizing Same-Sex Relations

A recurring argument suggests recategorizing homosexuality with issues such as slavery and segregation. The claim is that, just as Christians formerly justified these practices, they must now re-evaluate their stance on homosexuality. Vines, for example, draws an analogy between the biblical justification of slavery and the contemporary issue of same-sex relationships.

But prominent historians, such as Mark Noll, have shown that justifications for slavery in the 19th century were intensely contested and not universally accepted. Many Christians, especially in northern regions, vehemently opposed slavery. Similarly, the Catholic church and numerous Protestant congregations readily condemned the African slave trade. Furthermore, historical analyses, like that of David Chappell, highlight the negligible presence of biblical justifications for racial segregation, even within the Southern context. Consequently, the analogy between slavery and homosexuality breaks down. Complete unanimity regarding homosexuality's condemnation has existed across churches, theologians, and Christian thought throughout history, contrasting sharply with the absence of widespread support for slavery or segregation in the Bible.

Wilson, in contrast, suggests that same-sex relations should be grouped with matters like divorce, war, or in vitro fertilization — issues where differing opinions exist among Christians. However, unlike other topics, there has historically been almost total agreement on homosexual activity.

Consequently, the question arises: why the newfound support for same-sex relations in Christianity?

One explanation, akin to the historical justifications for slavery, lies in current cultural lenses. Modern Western cultures increasingly emphasize self-expression, viewing sexual desire as central to identity. This clashes with traditional biblical texts. Scholars such as Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor analyze these prevailing cultural narratives.

Revising Biblical Authority

Vines and Wilson, while claiming to uphold biblical authority, argue that the Bible does not explicitly condemn all same-sex relations. Vines' comparison of homosexual prohibitions with prohibitions against eating shellfish exemplifies this argument, suggesting that the former, as well as the Mosaic ceremonial laws, are obsolete.

The traditional Christian understanding distinguishes between ceremonial and moral laws in the Old Testament, recognizing that the ceremonial laws, including those pertaining to sacrifice and ritual purity, were fulfilled in Christ and are no longer binding. Hebrews 10:16, conversely, affirms that God's laws are imprinted in the hearts of Christians. Therefore, the moral precepts of the Old Testament remain in force. Vines' approach significantly alters the understanding of biblical authority.

The traditional view emphasizes the Bible as the ultimate authority, only the Bible can dictate which sections are no longer applicable.

Historical Progression of Social Acceptance

Wilson's argument leans towards the notion of inevitable historical advancement, suggesting that the contemporary acceptance of same-sex relations parallels the historical rejection of slavery. This perspective stems from Enlightenment optimism, which emphasizes societal progress. However, such claims do not align with biblical teachings.

The growth of more conservative religious groups disputes the notion that secularization is an inescapable historical trend.

The Overlooked Biblical Vision of Sexuality

Vines and Wilson often focus exclusively on the biblical prohibitions of same-sex acts, overlooking the positive biblical vision of sexuality. Both acknowledge the importance of heterosexual marriage, yet this perspective is not the totality of the Bible's portrayal.

The Bible emphasizes the complementary nature of opposing forces, including male and female. The union of male and female is not merely about procreation. It signifies the integration of diverse perspectives and strengths. Thus, same-sex relationships, in contrast, fail to recognize this essential integration. This absence of diverse gender perspectives in same-sex relationships limits the opportunity for nurturing a child.

This review, though brief, endeavors to fairly address the arguments presented by the authors. A respectful approach to nuanced discussions remains essential, particularly in our current climate. Despite acknowledging the authors' well-intentioned effort to maintain civility, their core arguments have failed to convincingly alter my perspective.

Make a gift

Articles in this Issue