10 Reasons God Loves Gay Christians | Time
Jun 7, Monte Vines sits at his desk at his home with a copy of his son Matthew's book, “ God and the Gay Christian,” on Thursday. (June 5, ) The. Campos and Vines, “Angola and China: A Pragmatic Relationship,” 3. sign Cooperation Deals,” China Daily, June 10, , accessed August 12, Apr 1, I work at vineyard vines in the corporate office and knew I had to incorporate VV Couple's Name . June, vineyard vines, Calendar
Thomas Sanders Age, Wiki, Career, Relationship, Vines, Earnings & Other Facts
Vines, Wilson and others are essentially repopularizing them. However, they do not seem to be aware that the great preponderance of the best historical scholarship since the s — by the full spectrum of secular, liberal and conservative researchers — has rejected that assertion.
Here are two examples. Bernadette Brooten and William Loader have presented strong evidence that homosexual orientation was known in antiquity. Whether Aristophanes believed this myth literally is not the point. It was an explanation of a phenomenon the ancients could definitely see — that some people are inherently attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Contra Vines, et al, the ancients also knew about mutual, non-exploitative same sex relationships. Paul could have used terms in Romans 1 that specifically designated those practices, but he did not.
He categorically condemns all sexual relations between people of the same sex, both men and women. Paul knew about mutual same-sex relationships, and the ancients knew of homosexual orientation.
I urge readers to familiarize themselves with this research. Loader is the most prominent expert on ancient and biblical views of sexuality, having written five large and two small volumes in his lifetime. Re-categorizing same sex relations. A third line of reasoning in these volumes and others like them involves recategorization. In the past, homosexuality was categorized by all Christian churches and theology as sin.
However, many argue that homosexuality should be put in the same category as slavery and segregation. Vines writes, for example, that the Bible supported slavery and that most Christians used to believe that some form of slavery was condoned by the Bible, but we have now come to see that all slavery is wrong.
Therefore, just as Christians interpreted the Bible to support segregation and slavery until times changed, so Christians should change their interpretations about homosexuality as history moves forward. Most Protestants in Canada and Britain and many in the northern U.
Rodney Stark For the Glory of God, points out that the Catholic church also came out early against the African slave trade. He proves that even before the Supreme Court decisions of the mids, almost no one was promoting the slender and forced biblical justifications for racial superiority and segregation.
Even otherwise racist theologians and ministers could not find a basis for white supremacy in the Bible. Up until very recently, all Christian churches and theologians unanimously read the Bible as condemning homosexuality. By contrast, there was never any consensus or even a majority of churches that thought slavery and segregation were supported by the Bible. David Chappell shows that even within the segregationist South, efforts to support racial separation from the Bible collapsed within a few years.
Does anyone really think that within a few years from now there will be no one willing to defend the traditional view of sexuality from biblical texts? The answer is surely no. This negates the claim that the number, strength, and clarity of those biblical texts supposedly supporting slavery and those texts condemning homosexuality are equal, and equally open to changed interpretations.
Wilson puts forward a different form of the recategorization argument when he says the issue of same-sex relations in the church is like issues of divorce and remarriage, Christian participation in war, or the use of in vitro fertilization. Wilson, Vines, and many others argue that same-sex relations must now be put into this category. However history shows that same-sex relations do not belong in this category, either.
There have always been substantial parts of the church that came to different positions on these issues. But until very, very recently, there had been complete unanimity about homosexuality in the church across all centuries, cultures, and even across major divisions of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions.
So homosexuality is categorically different. One has to ask, then, why is it the case that literally no church, theologian, or Christian thinker or movement ever thought that any kind of same sex relationships was allowable until now? One answer to the question is an ironic one. During the Civil War, British Presbyterian biblical scholars told their southern American colleagues who supported slavery that they were reading the Scriptural texts through cultural blinders.
Why Dr. Brown’s Failure to Answer Matthew Vines’ Question is So Important
They wanted to find evidence for their views in the Bible and voila — they found it. If no Christian reading the Bible — across diverse cultures and times — ever previously discovered support for same-sex relationships in the Bible until today, it is hard not to wonder if many now have new cultural spectacles on, having a strong predisposition to find in these texts evidence for the views they already hold.
What are those cultural spectacles?
These narratives have been well analyzed by scholars such as Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor. They are beliefs about the nature of reality that are not self-evident to most societies and they carry no more empirical proof than any other religious beliefs.
They are also filled with inconsistencies and problems. Both Vines and Wilson largely assume these cultural narratives. It is these faith assumptions about identity and freedom that make the straightforward reading of the biblical texts seem so wrong to them. They are the underlying reason for their views, but they are never identified or discussed. Vines argues that while the Levitical code forbids homosexuality Leviticus Romans male citizens could have sex their wives, their male or female slaves, or male or female prostitutes.
Romans male citizens did not engage in equal status peer male sexual relationships. For a man to place himself in the sexual role of a woman was just about the worst thing a man could submit to. The entire society was constructed around patriarchy and the superiority of men over women. Every, as in all, references to same-sex behavior in the Bible is within a context of: Brown, can you cite me any 1st century texts that refers to long term, committed, same-sex relationships?
I did not come in with Greek resources. Somewhere, there should be a nice love story between two men that mirrors what we see in same-sex relationships today.
Phaedrus, the main character, in the work, is praising pederasty. A sexual relationship purely based in lust and power between a man and a young boy.
Thomas Sanders Gay, Age, Wiki, Career, Relationship, Vines, Net worth & Other Facts
They may have fallen in love eventually, but this was not dating. Jesus lived in a time and culture where loving equal male-male relationship were a non-issue. There really are things more important than who has sex with whom.