Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

[This post is part of a series. The previous post is here.]

We’re on round 9 in this series dealing with Matthew Vines and his 10 Reasons in support of homosexuality with one more to go. Here is his 9th argument:

“From the beginning of Genesis, human beings are described as having a need for relationship, just as God himself is relational. Sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person, and to condemn LGBT people’s sexuality outright damages their ability to be in relationship with all people—and with God.”

As I have been saying in this entire series: watch out for smooth words and appealing to emotion. Matthew Vines speaks the truth in his first sentence here. Yes, from Genesis forward, humans have always had a need for relationships. We should have all heard the phrase “no man is an island” in some way, shape, or form. Mankind needs to be in relationship with each other. No one questions that.

However, Vines oversteps his boundaries and his definitions with his second sentence here: that sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person. That is not true at all. Being relational does not require sex at all. Sex belongs only in the marriage bed which I addressed in more detail last week. But this brings up a key question: What does it mean to be relational if sex is not a core part of it?

There are many different types of relationships; marriage is just one of them. We have relationships with our family, our blood. We have relationships with friends, in fact two types of friends - acquaintances and true friends. Acquaintances are those we love to hang out with but we don’t have that deep bond where we can trust them with even our darkest secrets. A true friend is someone as Proverbs says can stick closer than a brother. We have relationships with those we work with. We have relationships with those we live around. There are many, many types of relationships. And only ONE of these gets the privilege of sexual intimacy.

If sexuality is a core part of relationships, does Vines want to have sex with every person he is friends with, or with any of his family members? I better quit there, but I am dead serious when I ask this. If sexuality is a core part of relationships, how does Vines integrate this with his claim that he can have a “loving, committed” relationship with just one partner? I am pretty sure he is talking about just “marriage” between two men, but such a defense does not fit with this claim here. My point here is that if you have far more relationships that have nothing to do with sex than you do with those whom you would, then sexuality is not a core part of relationships. Keep in mind that in the previous argument about marriage, Vines claims that procreation is not a key part of marriage. Now he is saying sexual activity is a key part of ANY relationship. I hope you can see the problem here.

But there is another charge Vines is making. He claims that to deny homosexuals their sexual intimacy is to deny their ability to have relationships with others AND WITH GOD! I made that all caps on purpose. To deny homosexuals their “rights” to have sex hurts their relationship with God. I have to ask two questions: What relationship with God was there to begin with? And which “God” is he referencing?

Matthew Vines MUST defend his claim that homosexuality is not a sin, and on his website and in his main talk he never did. He just claimed it and tried to explain away the Scriptural references against it. Many Scriptures deal with sexual deviancy of all types, not just homosexuality. When one chooses to pursue a lifestyle that goes against what God clearly ordained, can said person have a relationship with God? Any relationship with God we have must come from Christ, and if not, that relationship is one of enmity and rebellion against him. Vines claims to be a Christian, but with what he teaches, I cannot simply give him the benefit of the doubt. There is a huge difference between struggling with a sinful issue and promoting it. Romans 1 does not speak kindly of those who do evil and approve of it.

Matthew Vines, in his talk, said part of Christianity requires “dying to self.” However, Vines is asking us to die to “our traditions and our sensibilities” and yet Vines refuses to do it himself. Part of Christianity is surrendering control over your sexual life to Christ and have him rule over it, something Vines would not dare consider without having to give up his dream. And I have to wonder what relationship Vines has with God. It’s clearly not one I see out of every other person I would be willing to stand in court and testify they are a born again believer.

It also makes me wonder which “God” Vines worships. MANY, many people today do not worship the God of the Bible who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins. They worship an image of God in their own making. They choose the parts of God they like and create an image of him that only has those parts, completely ignoring the other parts. They want a safe, loving, merciful “god” who just lets them live how they want to live, and to let them into paradise when it is over. However, this is not the God who Christians worship. The God of the Bible is good, but he is not safe. When we take sin lightly, we take God lightly and that never ends well.

So is sexuality a core part of relationships? I will stand and emphatically say “NO!” It is only a part of a particular type of relationship (heterosexual marriage) and any deviancy to that definition that God made is sin, rebellion against his ways, and abuse of that which God gave us. Any sexual activity, even in thought, outside of marriage, is adultery. It is a crime every one of us is guilty of in some way, shape, or form. And it is crime that makes all of us in need of a Savior. But Jesus did not die merely to save us from the consequences of that sin. He died to save us from that sin… period.

Matthew Vines, Jesus died to save you from homosexuality, not to give you the freedom to do it. Drug addict, Jesus died to save you from the grip of drugs, not merely from the consequences of doing them. Porn addict, Jesus died to free your mind from those images. Bitter person, Jesus died to free you from that anger. Gossiper, Jesus died to free you from your loose tongue. Lover of money, Jesus died to free you from greed. The list goes on. Jesus did not die to save us from hell alone. He died so we can be freed from sin, from the very problem and presence of sin. If we continued to seek and pursue that sin, however, I must ask, “Are we saved?”

Next week, I wrap up this series by dealing with Vines claims of if “Other Christians support homosexuality, you should too.”

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.