God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships by Matthew Vines

God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships Reviews

• 
  Jeremy

  Imagine someone claiming that, while he is committed to a "high view" of Scripture, the Bible doesn't really condemn adultery or polygamy. When, in the New Testament, Jesus affirms the Old Testament institution of marriage between one man and one woman, what he is talking about is commitment to that one person whenever you are with that person. But there is nothing that prohibits you from sharing that love, including sexual love, with someone else when you are with that other person. Yes, Paul says that an elder should be a husband to one wife, but that simply means when you are with one of your wives, love her with all of your heart. Besides, we have plenty of Scriptural data showing polygamous relationships with no explicit condemnation. Let's also remember that the biblical writers knew nothing of the modern notion of a married couple's mutual consent to an open marriage.
  
  That is the kind of book that Matthew Vines has written (an augmented version of his 2012 talk, available on
  YouTube). He claims that he is committed to a "high view" of Scripture, so he is not rewriting or revising anything, but simply coming to a more accurate understanding of the text. He makes two claims in order to make a third claim: 1) the Bible does not condemn homosexual orientation, or the expression of sexual love in committed, monogamous homosexual relationships, and 2) homosexual relationships can and do reflect the ideal of Christian marriage as it appears in Scripture. Therefore, one can express homosexuality and still be a faithful Christian.
  
  I started reading this book 4 days after the SCOTUS decision in June 2015. The book often begs the question, assuming that homosexuality is not a sin and speaking of any opposition to it as morally repulsive (e.g., the opposition to homosexuality has led some people with SSA to be sad—you don't want that, do you?). Vines deals mostly with gays and lesbians, touching only briefly on transgenderism.
  
  For published responses, see the following:
  -
  Review by a Christian scholar who is gay, in Christianity Today.
  - Tim Keller's
  review of Vines's book (and another book).
  - Al Mohler's
  review (free ebook response to Vines
  here, plus my
  review of it).
  -
  Comments (about Vines's old arguments) by Gary DeMar.
  - Not connected to Vines's book, but here's R. C. Sproul's and Sproul Jr.'s
  response to the SCOTUS ruling.
  -
  Here is TGC's review of Brownson's book.
  - In July 2015, Kevin DeYoung published
  40 questions for Christians who had changed their minds on this issue. Vines then wrote his own
  40 questions for Christians who still opposed gay marriage. Doug Wilson answers all 40 questions
  here (excellent).
  
  Endorsements and Introduction
  There's an endorsement from Rachel Held Evans, which is interesting, considering that RHE does not have a "high view" of Scripture (Vines does—see pp. 1-3).
  3: thesis (one can be both gay and a faithful Christian); 6 main Bible passages (see pp. 11, 26)
  
  Chapter 1: A Tree and Its Fruit
  11: the shellfish argument
  12: can't see the why of this sin (it's not obviously damaging, like adultery)
  14: interpretations can be wrong
  15: most Christians throughout history (until the 18/19c) believed that slavery was biblical [Keller addresses this claim in his review]
  16-19: "bad fruit" of forced celibacy
  
  Chapter 2: Telescopes, Tradition, and Sexual Orientation
  21: heliocentric theory was condemned as heresy in the 17c
  184n6: R.C. Sproul referenced
  24: Ch. 1 was about how destructive consequences (forced celibacy) require a reinterpretation of Scripture
  25: Ch. 2 is about how new information requires a reinterpretation of Scripture
  26: passages about the larger biblical vision (marriage metaphors)
  27: Gagnon referenced
  184n9: Piper/Grudem referenced
  28: sexual orientation not a choice (this is a new viewpoint)
  41: the church's requirement that gay Christians be celibate is a new requirement, because older generations thought that you could change [Does "the church" say that if it is true that orientation cannot be changed, a Christian with homosexual desires must remain celibate?]
  
  Ch. 3: The Gift of Celibacy
  44: celibacy must be a choice
  
  Ch. 4: The Real Sin of Sodom
  67: issue with Lot in Sodom was hospitality
  197n11: Piper/hierarchy referenced
  197n14: Robert Gagnon referenced
  70-71: Philo (see 197n15)—Sodom's sin was excess
  
  Ch. 5: The Abominations of Leviticus
  78: shellfish and mixed fabrics
  82: he doesn't buy the moral/ceremonial distinction of the law
  88: Leviticus prohibition was based on patriarchy (don't treat a man like an inferior woman)
  91: Piper and Grudem again
  
  Ch. 6: Excess Passion and Unnatural Acts in Romans 1
  96: Richard Mouw; Romans 1 is the most important passage in this debate
  99: Romans 1 prohibits lust
  103: excess (Ch. 2)
  105: moderation is heterosexual
  107: Colson
  110-11: Gagnon
  115: moderation = right use
  
  Ch. 7: Will Gay People Inherit the Kingdom of God?
  118: malakoi and arsenokoitai
  122 (and 127): 1587 Geneva Bible
  122: malakoi refers to those who lack self-control
  123: [contra Vines, yes, understand does come from under and stand]
  125: arsenokoitas is exploitation
  129: the Bible doesn't address orientation because it's a modern concept
  129-30: summary of the chapters so far
  131: transition from "the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality" to "homosexuality fulfills the biblical understanding of marriage"
  
  Ch. 8: The Biblical Argument for Marriage Equality
  133: Piper referenced
  134: orientation is fixed and unchosen
  138: [contra Vines, biological procreation never determined membership in God's kingdom]
  139: 3 changes going from OT to NT
  141: theological perspective of marriage: "a covenant keeping relationship of mutual self-giving that reflects God's love for us"
  143: no more slavery or gender hierarchy
  144: Keller referenced (see p. 210n8); don't oversexualize "one flesh"
  
  Ch. 9: What the Image of God Teaches Us About Gay Christians
  154: image of God not reducible to heterosexuality
  155: C.S. Lewis referenced (Hell as isolation)—Vines thanks Jefferson Bethke for this observation (p. 212n9)
  
  Ch. 10: Seeds of a Modern Reformation
  165: this book is a third way (one can be a committed Christian and express homosexual love
  167: briefly touches on transgenderism
  167-70: Dr. James Brownson
  173-76: Vines's proposed gameplan for Christian homosexuals going forward: share your views publicly; talk with your pastor and church leaders; lead a Bible study about gay Christians; start a support groups for LGBT Christians; if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, come out; take some risks
• 
  Todd Miles

  Much has already been written about the Vines book. Here is a quick assessment:
  The book is winsomely written and claims to be guided by evangelical sensibilities. That is, the author claims to respect the authority of Scripture. But claims to respecting the authority of Scripture are proven in the exegesis, not in their mere assertion. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
  Vines' strategy is to argue that the proof of genuineness and faithfulness is in the fruit of the truth claim (citing Jesus' admonition to recognize a false teacher by his fruits). He then argues that gay Christians have been tormented by the truth claims of "non-affirming Christians" (i.e., those Christians who do not affirm of homosexual marriage). He uses stories of depression and suicide to make his case. This is an effective way to argue in our culture, but it is really just an appeal to emotion. Fruit of a position is a test for truth, but it is not the only test, nor is it the most important. Vines' strategy is to get the Christian to question the legitimacy of his position before the Bible is ever opened.
  Vines then tackles (some of) the biblical texts that are typically used to make the case against homosexuality. He rightly starts in Genesis 1 and 2, but concludes that the emphasis of the text is the sameness of the human pair. They are like each other and not like the animals. With that, Vines eliminates any emphasis on gender complementarity, that male and female are different by design. It is a small step then to suggest that since God created two same people to combat loneliness, two males or two females are just as legitimate. Vines' foundational conclusion is flawed here. While it is true that the human pair were alike in many ways, it is a monstrous error to suggest that the designed differences between the genders is irrelevant. While God made someone like Adam to remedy the judgment that "It is not good that man should be alone," God creates a sexual other, not a sexual same. That sexual other was necessary and important in many ways, not the least of which is the propagation of the human race through Adam and Eve. Vines erroneously brushes this foundational truth away with the wave of a hand.
  Once Vines concludes that gender complementarity is irrelevant, then he takes that assumption with him into his analysis of the biblical texts. Arguing more from Greco-Roman philosophers at times than biblical authors, he brings many of the same old discredited arguments we have heard before (e.g., Boswell, et al), seeking to demonstrate that what the Bible appears to say is not what it actually means. His arguments are not persuasive, especially if one does not buy his opening appeal to emotion and deconstruction of the creation narrative.
  I found the book to be fatally flawed logically, biblical-theologically, and exegetically.
• 
  Rob Slaven

  Firstly and as usual I received this book free in exchange for a review. Also as usual I give my absolutely candid opinions about it below. To start, it should be noted that I'm not a Christian nor even remotely religious. I will review this book from an entirely secular viewpoint. This will, I suspect, be a fairly unique approach to this preeminently controversial book.
  
  As a secularist, I can't really say much about this book aside from noting how well it seems to argue its point. In that regard, the book is well written, cohesive and comprehensive. The author supports his viewpoint very well based on his knowledge and interpretation of the Bible and speaks to his audience "in their own language" using scripture as the fundamental basis for his thesis. He discusses the topic in a way that only someone on the inside of the Christian fundamentalist church could do so. If anyone in the universe can win this argument, it's this author or someone with his particular background.
  
  Unfortunately, as well-constructed as this argument is, I'm not of the opinion that it's going to win anyone over. I'm a poor case in point because I was already won over to the idea. I have a hard time imagining that anyone of the opposite opinion is going to be swayed by anything that anyone says no matter how well thought out it might be.
  
  In summary, if you are a rock-hard believer that homosexuality is a sin then don't bother. Frankly, nothing is going to convince you otherwise, not even this book. However, if there is even the tiniest glimmer of hope in your heart that maybe, just maybe, it's OK for people to be who they are and that maybe the Christian faith has room for everyone... then pick up this book. It is likely to swing that door of acceptance wide open.
  
  
  
  --
  Rob Slaven
  Facebook:
  https://www.facebook.com/tatteredthread/
  Amazon:
  https://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile...
  YouTube:
  https://www.youtube.com/user/RobSlave...
  WordPress:
  https://tthread.wordpress.com/
• 
  Clif Hostetler

  This book offers a theologically conservative and biblically rigorous basis for a Christian faith that arrives at the following conclusion:

  “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.” (p.3)

  It is apparent that the author of this book identifies with a Christian theology that most people would classify as sincerely conservative but arrives at a position on same-sex relationships that is generally considered to be progressive. How is that possible?
  
  Most people who believe that the Bible condemns same-sex relationships simply quote the pertinent verses in their English translation isolated from its context. There’s not much question to the meanings of the words when approached that way.
  
  In contrast to the above simple approach, the author of this book makes his case by close scrutiny of the Hebrew and Greek words used in the original texts, how those words were used at the time and in the culture in which they were written, and the attitudes and practices of the prevailing culture at that time. Then he finds the overarching theme and message of the scripture and concludes that many Bible passages have been misinterpreted and others have been given undue weight.
  
  I think he makes a convincing case. But of course I am approaching the question from a progressive social position in the first place.
  
  Apparently this book has made enough waves in conservative Christian circles to cause a book to be written in rebuttal titled “God and the Gay Christian?: A Response to Matthew Vines” written by five faculty members of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Way to go Mr. Vines, your opposition is providing additional publicity.
• 
  Dan

  It's amazing the lengths we go to try and fit the Bible to our lifestyle instead of the other way around.
• 
  Vance

  I was initially unsure whether I needed this book as I already have Justin Lee's Torn, which approaches the questions from the same basic theological framework. After reading God and the Gay Christian, I am glad I made the purchase. Vines' summaries of the Greco-Roman sex ethic and patriarchal structure of the ancient world are the best I've seen outside academic writing. The chapters directly addressing the pertinent biblical passages are very well argued, and I have yet to see anything from the non-affirming evangelical community that adequately addresses such arguments. My only points of significant disagreement with Vines revolve around statements about Paul and Second Temple Judaism that most evangelicals will already take for granted. Vines' final chapters on marriage equality, the image of God, and Christian activism will need to be supplemented by other resources, but overall, I think this is the best book on the subject matter for evangelicals with traditional positions on biblical authority and hermeneutics.
• 
  Noel Burke

  I read this book because I had never truly understood how some could justify living an openly homosexual lifestyle while maintaining a Christian lifestyle. I commend Matthew Vines for attempting to answer common questions from the opposing side. He could have set up several straw men and just knocked them down. I think there were a few faulty premises however with his logic. First, justifying today's homosexual activity based on ancient sinful practices does not make a case for its acceptance today. Sinful men performed sinful acts in the past. That does not ever mean that it's acceptable today. I will grant you that your perspective was utilizing this to explain historical context not directly justifying it today, but I still felt that it weakened the argument for its acceptance today. Second, the Bible is always relevant to the reader of every tribe tongue and nation and at any time in history. Several times it felt like the author was making the case that the Bible passages against homosexual practices were not relevant to today's society. That is simply not true. You cannot claim to hold a high view of Scripture and also discount portions of it because it does not appear to address cultural differences. Certainly orientation was not a discussion in ancient times, but the commands for human marriage, boundaries for relationships, etc. are very clear. Third, his premise that orientation that cannot be changed proves that it is acceptable is illogical. So does that mean that if a son has feelings for his mother and for years has prayed to no longer have them he should just accept it and enter into a committed relationship with her? Seriously, think about the argument. If my orientation is for the same sex, then as long as I stay in a committed relationship then it's ok. That does not work and that contradicts so many passages in Scripture. Fourthly, experience is important, but I believe the author utilized experience to dictate doctrine rather than Scripture to dictate doctrine.
  
  This is a tough debate and I don't want to diminish the real struggle that many have. I have a friend from college who struggles with same sex attraction. It's not a simply fix or a quick change. Only Christ can change us. Homosexuality is a sin. If we are honest though, anyone who claims to be a Christian was headed for Hell because of their sin. It doesn't matter if you were a nice person, or faithfully attended church. God pulls us out of darkness and into his light. A true Christian is changed and renewed and pursuing Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. Their lives are changed. I think the book helped me to think about the topic from a different perspective, but I still don't believe that God saves anyone who continues to live in sin. That goes for any sin, not just homosexuality.
  
• 
  Erin Thomas

  Where do I start?
  
  Matthew Vines, as a gay Conservative Christian man, carefully and courageously invites The Reader into a daring journey: seeing Scripture in a new light. He refrains from condescension, passive-aggression and straight-up insults which sadly have become a hallmark in such debates. He is reverent of Scripture, thoughtful of The Reader, and passionately in love with Jesus Christ.
  
  In terms of readability, I would feel safe giving copies of Vines' book to Grade 11 or 12 students. His tone is measured and he certainly uses terms that are sometimes cumbersome; but he is consistently careful to explain such terms in ways we can understand on a lay-person's level. While I wouldn't want to make a sweeping generalization with all youth, I would hazard a guess that some straight churched high school students may not understand all of what's being said in the book, but most LGBTQ students would.
  
  The readability is critical for Vines' work for, as Rachel Held-Evans' put it: "it's a game-changer". Vines' addresses verse-by-verse the Scriptures historically used to condemn LGBTQ people, common arguments held by churches, and historical-cultural contexts that influenced the wording we see in older translations of the Bible. He uses his own story with his father as a beacon of hope for those LGBTQ people of faith who may or may not have a place in community.
  
  Vines' refrains from beating the reader over the head with: "You shall now believe THIS!", but rather plainly lays out his thoughtful arguments, and humbly shares his testimony. It's a book I would recommend every person of faith to read, whether you come to same conclusions as Vines or not. He opens up the conversation with persuasiveness and love.
• 
  Kelly Hager

  I absolutely loved this book.
  
  My only quibble---and it's a small one---is that I would've preferred if we had seen more of a personal side to it. But I absolutely understand why Matthew Vines made the choices he did: the people he's trying to convince are more likely to be swayed by Bible verses than by stories from his life and from his family.
  
  I would recommend this book for anyone, but especially for gay kids who are in a Christian church. Obviously this is a great book for their families, too, but if there's anything that gay kids in those churches need to hear, it's this: "Don't listen to the people who say otherwise. God loves you. God values you. You matter." And I can say it (and so can all the gay celebrities) but this book can back it up with verses and historical context.
  
  It's also incredibly nice for people to know that you can be both Christian and gay. You don't have to choose between dying alone or forfeiting your beliefs. You may have to change churches, but that's not a horrible thing.
  
  This is a book that could literally save lives. Highly, highly recommended.
• 
  HG

  Matthew Vines has done so much good in providing support for LGBTQ Christians in writing this book. He is so incredibly patient in the face of all the homophobia that he faced from his family and church and details the conversations that he had with people as he tries to explain how the Bible does not condemn the LGBTQ community. (I actually started getting muscle spasms while reading about the lack of support he got from his church because it upset me so much.) He writes this book to explain to a wider audience that being a Christian and follower of the Bible does not mean that someone needs to condemn gay relationships (in fact, they shouldn’t and they should be supportive of LGBTQ people!). He goes through the clobber verses in context and also talks about how a Christian can be supportive of the LGBTQ community, whether as a whole or to the people in their lives. He ends the book talking about Christians who have dedicated their lives to supporting the LGBTQ community.
• 
  Nicole Machì

  God and the gay christian gave a remarkable and thorough analysis of what the bible has to say about LGBTQ+ relationships. If you are someone who believes in the authority of scripture, I implore you to read this book! Being “affirming” (in support of same sex relationships and lgbtq+ people participating in the church) does not require you to relinquish your commitment to the authority of scripture. A great resource and well written analysis for anyone willing to study this issue more deeply. You might be thinking...hmmm this doesn’t apply to me or change the way I live my life. Well, I earnestly encourage you to consider what that viewpoint means for queer folk, and that your stance on this issue can be pivotal for others, yourself, and the Church as a whole.
• 
  Andy

  Based on the reviews I've read, this book has been polarizing. My own assessment is that it's a very worthwhile book for the average Christian to read. No, Vines does not really make any new scholarly arguments in favor of homosexuality on the basis of the Bible. He doesn't claim to. He is interested in relating some of the many arguments he has come across in his studies, and he's a gifted communicator. I read some of the scholarly source material for Vines' book while in grad school, and I can tell you that the original works are often difficult to understand. So I applaud Vines for making some of those arguments accessible to the laity.
  
  Does Vines offer a convincing interpretation of Scripture? Perhaps. I am still somewhere on the spectrum of "changing my mind" about Scripture and homosexuality, although I am definitely leaning towards an interpretation that affirms same-sex relationships (and I completely affirm the civil right to same sex marriage - sorry people, one particularly religious view of marriage doesn't necessarily get to trump all other views in our pluralistic society). What I have come to understand after reading Vines' book and browsing some of the reviews is that Christians who do not affirm same-sex relationships are often digging their heels in for more than one reason. As Vines illustrates in his book (thinly...he needs more examples), a large number of evangelicals ground their notions of sexuality, and their prohibitions against homosexuality, in gender complementarianism. This is the view that men and women are essentially equal but perform different roles, particularly in family and church life. It sounds nice, but I've come to discover that in most cases, this view is just a cover for maintaining traditional patriarchal social relations among men and women, husbands and wives, pastors and congregations. There's been a lot of ink spilled over the issue and a lot of debates over the meaning of passages from Corinthians and Ephesians. I've come to the decision that I don't really care about those conflicting interpretations. We can argue back and forth, but sometimes we have to recognize that we can't get back to Paul's original meaning. We can't be certain. When we look elsewhere, we find abundant Scripture supporting the view that God's real intent for the Christian community is to loose the bonds of gender roles and let women and men be free to live as equal laborers in garden (read the book of Acts as a starter).
  
  However, a lot of evangelicals are unwilling to accept egalitarianism, and probably for a variety of reasons: earnest readings of Scripture, pride in one's own interpretation, traditionalism, some kind of masculine fear of the kitchen, and so forth. And same-sex marriage is incompatible with this complementarian view. So what we are seeing in society right now is that those who affirm same-sex relationships and marriage are actually challenging two pillars of traditional Christian belief. It will take quite a lot for both of those pillars to crumble and make space for a new foundation of belief...but as a Lutheran Protestant, I am willing to take part in another Reformation if the Spirit is leading.
  
  So Vines' book is a solid start for someone searching for alternative interpretations of Scripture and is unafraid of the shifting reality of Biblical interpretation. It is not exhaustive, and it is not scholarly. Look elsewhere for something more scholarly and more in-depth. But whatever you read, whether it's affirming or non-affirming of same-sex relationships, read between the lines, too. Be aware of the larger social and theological issues at play.
• 
  Aaron West

  The very existence of this book embodies an incomprehensible stance and slippery slope to oblivion for some. To others, this book is a ray of hope in a world that seems unable to reconcile their orientation with a faith they cherish. As far as the discussion around the issue of affirming vs. non-affirming Christians goes, I found this book to take a serious, mature look at the implications of it for Christians at all points on the sexual-orientation spectrum. Whether or not you agree with Matthew Vines's conclusions, this book is important in that it examines the very core of the tenets the Church holds regarding sexuality, and sheds some light on what it may mean for us today.
  
  Rather than do what so many books on this topic have done: either take some broad license to stretch logic and jump to unsupported conclusions or delve into the topic with a preconceived conclusion, having "settled" it in a diatribe dripping with words like "unnatural," and "abomination," this book dives into the six instances where same-sex practice is mentioned in the Bible, and parses out their meaning. Over the course of the book, the idea is developed that, just like "slaves obey masters" and "women keep silent," the verses that speak to this issue may not be as black and white as has been the tradition, held as binding for all eternity.
  
  Matthew Vines, claiming from the get-go to hold a high view of scripture and biblical authority, leaves few stones unturned, if any. I appreciated his ability to rely on the work of historical and biblical scholars in examining the contexts and original Hebrew and Greek of the texts themselves. He calls to light some inaccurate misunderstandings that have shaped many churches' understanding of sexuality in light of our modern context, and explores the contradictions to the nature of God and creation some of our beliefs have fallen prey to (perhaps by chance) over the years.
  
  The greatest asset to Vines's thesis is the fact that the ancient/biblical world had no sense of sexual-orientation in the same way that ours does. The concept of sexual-orientation (or even what has been developed as Queer Theory) didn't exist in the ancient world. This fact is vital to keep in mind while discussing the assumptions and commands regarding sexual behavior in the Bible. This is not used to rubber-stamp voracious immoral sexual appetites or lustful immorality, but to give a much-needed nuance to the consideration of monogamous, committed, self-sacrificing romantic relationships. Vines uses this concept to shed light on the troubling implications couched in several ideas, including:
  
  - The fact that "ex-gay" ministries have very little success, and a high (for lack of a better term) recidivism rate. Not to mention the depression, anxiety, and high suicide rate of those caught in a condition of self-loathing for scripture's sake. This is because—psychologically, emotionally, and sexually speaking—the idea that one can change their sexual orientation is based more on pseudo-science than truth, and any attempts to do so involve the process of effectively hating one's body/self because of an attraction ingrained in one's being. You cannot separate yourself from your sexuality. Vines even gives a troubling example that has been reported as frequent practice in conversion-therapy settings: the manipulation of one's memories/past experiences to attempt to explain same-sex attraction as a result of poor parenting, absent emotional attention from a parent of the same gender, and, even more heinously, abuse where there wasn't any.
  
  - The idea of forced celibacy. While celibacy is a noble calling (emphasis on the call), to suggest that it is the only option for gay Christians does, in fact, pose some troubling realities. If celibacy is truly a calling—a spiritual gift, almost, in the way it is described by Paul and exemplified in Jesus, then it seems counterintuitive to insist that it be mandated by people who often do not take it seriously themselves, or consider it a reality for heterosexual individuals in light of social/cultural pressures to create and fill our churches with the "nuclear family."
  
  - The ruling idea in this discussion for non-affirming Christians is that gender complimentarity (the literal anatomical way a man and woman's body fit together) is the standard to hold all sexual practice to. When, as Vines sees it, the reality is that God created Adam and Eve to give Adam a being that was more like himself than his surroundings, rather than a being unlike himself (the puzzle-piece concept). The idea behind God's image in both men and women here being that procreation was a need for the world and companionship with a similar being was prioritized, rather than the opposite gender-complimentarity being set as the litmus test for all time, considering in the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no "male nor female" among others.
  
  Vines continues to define romantic relationships in terms I believe are healthier: not based solely on sexual need (or uninhibited sexual behavior), but on the self-sacrificing, image-bearer dignifying, committed love that denotes so many relationships built on the foundation of Christ.
  
  There is much more I could analyze from this book, but I suggest you simply read it yourself, whether or not you agree with the premise. At the very least, it will help you navigate the reality we live in more tactfully and sensitively. I found it prescient to conversations that will continue to come up within our churches (as they should) in the near future.
  
  The fact of the matter is this: in my own experience, I've witnessed a special disdain shown for gay people, especially in the church, as if to suggest that they are culpable in committing the worst sin possible. I've watched for too long as heterosexual relationships (often unhealthy ones) have passed along unnoticed and unscrutinized because of their assumed normality. I've felt the sting of being neglected as a single, supposedly eligible Christian in an environment that stresses the husband-wife-children model. The Church has done a poor job of including and integrating LGBT people in their thoughts and communities—where I guarantee someone (who may even surprise you) is sitting quietly in a pew feeling more isolated and alienated than ever because of a secret they could never imagine divulging without accepting a notion that they, intrinsically and by design, are beings caught in the snare of sin by simply existing. Too long have we offered a carrot-stick view of sexuality: where one must choose between faith in God while abandoning themselves seemingly wholesale, or being excommunicated from the Christian family due to the fact that they acknowledge their individual integrity as a human being with needs and feelings. Our churches should reject this dichotomy. Our churches must be a place of redemption, not self-loathing. A place of reliance on a broken community that is there for each other as the body of Christ, loving the Imago Dei in each man, woman, child—of all skin tones, sexual orientations, income levels, and positions in our social contexts. The time for these discussions has long been overdue, and I'm thankful (at the very least) for the perspective Vines brings to this discussion.
• 
  Tom

  As controversy has swirled in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision upholding gay marriage I wondered if anyone had managed to write a rigorous, Biblically-grounded defense of gay marriage. The answer is: yes, this book is it, and boy is it a doozy.
  
  For author Matthew Vines, the issue is personal: he was raised in a loving, Christian, Bible-believing home, but realized when he was 19 that he was gay. What to do? After coming out to his dad, the two of them began an in-depth reexamination of scripture that would ultimately change both their minds on the subject.
  
  If you've studied what the Bible has to say on the topic of homosexuality at all you probably know two things: one, 'homosexuality' is not a word in either ancient Hebrew or Greek and indeed not something they had a cultural concept for (relevant Biblical passages tend to relate to specific acts); and two, there are six 'clobber passages' strewn across the Old and New Testament which have generally been used to show that the Bible comprehensively condemns gay sexuality.
  
  Vines of course digs into those six passages, but before he does so he spends several chapters laying some important conceptual groundwork. He examines the tools scripture gives us to judge whether a doctrine is good or bad, he delves into the history of the church changing its mind when presented with new information, and then he presents some new information: to wit, the church has only known about sexual orientations for about 200 years.
  
  What follows is one of the most fascinating parts of the book, an examination of the framework within which ancient peoples actually understood homosexual practices. It was a radically different one than we have today. In essence, virtually everyone believed that all men could be attracted to either men or women, but that interest in men generally arose when someone was no longer satisfied merely with women. Also, male-male sex usually occurred within the framework of pederasty, older men involved with young boys. The great taboo was not to be the 'effeminate' member within a relationship.
  
  It was an incredibly strange and rather icky cultural practice, but as they say, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." Suffice it to say, concepts of fixed sexual orientation are quite modern and would not have crossed the minds of early Christians.
  
  Having explored this critical cultural context, Vines breaks down the relevant passages of scripture chapter by chapter: Sodom's sin, the 'abominations' of Leviticus, the list of sins in Romans 1, and so on. He dives deep into the text, wrestling with words whose meanings are often quite obscure (remember, the ancient Greeks and Hebrews didn't have a concept of 'homosexuality' let alone words for it, so if you see those crop up in your translation of the Bible, that is lazy translation).
  
  Honestly, most of the 'clobber passages' are quite easily dismissed (the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but being generally horrible people, something that is easily proved from other scripture and backed up by contemporary sources). The real sticking point, in my mind, has always been Romans 1, which is not easily hand-waved away. However, after we have a framework in mind for how people of Paul's time would have viewed 'gay behavior', especially the common gentile sexual and cultural customs of the day, Romans 1 appears in quite a different light, one that is certainly not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.
  
  Whether you find Vines convincing on these passages will be up to you, but he does grapple directly with them as they are. He takes scripture seriously and does not attempt to simply dismiss passages that he finds inconvenient.
  
  In the final chapters of the book, Vines turns the tables on the reader and asks the question, "Is forbidding gay marriage un-Biblical?" It's a pretty gutsy move, but I think he is right to re-frame the debate on the people who have suffered the most at its hands: gay believers. He makes a compelling case that forced celibacy is in every way un-Biblical and not a scriptural answer to the question, "What do we do with gay believers?"
  
  Vines also reminds us that sexuality and sexual behavior cannot be divorced. Gay believers who attempt to deny their sexual impulses as sinful almost invariably suffer great psychological damage and engage in self-destructive behaviors. Sexuality is a part of the God-created human identity: to say it is not good is to say that the whole created person is not good. Our gay brothers and sisters are created in God's image too, as the author rightly reminds us.
  
  I can't over-state how important this book is right now for Bible-believing Christians. The story that a Bible-believing Christian can only properly have one valid opinion on gay marriage is flat out wrong. There isa scripture-based argument in favor of gay marriage, and I doubt you will ever find it more compellingly stated than in this book.
  
  Of course at the end of the day, it is just that, an argument. It is possible to read God and the Gay Christian and be ultimately unconvinced by it. But it is also possible to read arguments for or against predestination, clerical celibacy, or infant baptism and be unconvinced. Most Christians don't think that people who believe differently than they do on those topics are heathens or heretics. If nothing else, I think that reading this book will show that gay marriage is something that genuine believers might find Biblical support for, whether you think they are right or wrong.
  
  If you are a Christian wrestling with this topic, I strongly urge you to read this book. Too often the Christian response to the topic of gay marriage has been to quote some out-of-context verses at each other and end the discussion. This book goes much, much deeper into what the Bible actually says about a very complex topic, while still maintaining a Godly perspective about the fact that yes, we are all created in God's image and loved by God.
  
  On a final note, it is possible that someone may wish to debate points of this review in the comments. Please refrain unless you have read the book. I have given Matthew Vines' arguments a pretty thin gloss here. Debate the book, not the book review.
• 
  Lindsey

  This is one of the most thoughtful and scripture-focused books Ive read on this subject (and I've read a lot!) Matthew Vines depth of knowledge, clarity, and passion for the Bible are evident. This book is probably most valuable to someone who was raised in a more conservative or fundamentalist church as he speaks from that perspective and vernacular. If you've ever been told you can't "respect the authority of scripture" while affirming gay relationships this book is for you!
  
  I'm sad that he had to write it, but I'm so glad he did.
• 
  Beth Peninger

  Last month I read another book of the same topic but with a differing view. I couldn't get both books read in one month so I continued the exploration of this controversial topic this month. For my thoughts on last month's read of this same topic search for Same-Sex Marriage by Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet.
  
  While Vines doesn't make any claims that his book is a thoughtful approach to same-sex relationships, it is. He presents his views without vitriol, with respect, and with a sincere desire to live within the truth of God's word. Vines is part of a group of Christians who truly and honestly love God and are also gay. He is committed to God's design of sex for marriage so until he marries he remains celibate. You may have winced when you read that statement just now, the one about him marrying. That wince is one of the many reasons Vines wrote this book studying the Bible's take on same-sex relationships.
  What is very clear to me after the book I read last month and now this one is that when people are behaving kindly and with level heads, this is definitely an issue of perspective and how scripture is interpreted. As the Church has seen with other topics of debate, people hold different perspectives and interpretations of God's word.
  Here's the thing I want to say first. There is zero doubt in my mind that Matthew Vines loves God deeply and is most interested in following the words of God. So he and I get along, so to speak, because those are also my inclinations.
  Matthew dives into the history of sex, both opposite and same, in the ancient times. He then applies that history to the biblical texts that Christians who are against same-sex relationships use for their argument. He also studies, as did the book I read last month, the basis of biblical marriage. His study of marriage differed in very significant ways than the definition offered by the authors of last month's book. I'm inclined to lean more into Vines more complete definition rather than the rather limited one offered in Same-Sex Marriage.
  Vines makes compelling arguments, using the Bible as his foundation for those arguments. I became especially thoughtful while reading chapter 3, The Gift of Celibacy. His research on when certain scripture passages started to be translated as sexual orientation rather than sexual behavior was very interesting as well. As with the other book, lest you take anything I say in this review out of context I would encourage you to read the book for yourself. It is disheartening that the Church at large has treated people who have same-sex preferences as less than human. As Vines states early on in his book, "This debate is not simply about beliefs and rights; it's about people who are created in God's image." Unfortunately the Church as a whole seems to have forgotten that or have redefined the "qualifications" for who is in the image of God. The image of God is not defined in gender or sexual orientation terms but in characteristics and qualities. Therefore, all humans carry the image of God in them, regardless of sexual orientation.
  This is such a complicated and hurtful topic that has been debated and misunderstood. Deep wounds now exist in many people because of the thoughtless actions and words of people who think they need to take up defending God and his word. Newsflash: God doesn't need our help, he can take of himself just fine, better than any of us ever could. Both the authors of last month's book and Vines prove that we can have a thoughtful, respectful, God-honoring conversation about topics of debate - we just have to be willing to be thoughtful, respectful, and God-honoring.
  I highly recommend this book, Vines does an excellent job of researching and communicating his interpretation of scripture in regards to same-sex relationships.
• 
  Josh

  It's difficult to know how to rate a book like this. I fundamentally disagree with Vines' thesis that the Bible does not condemn committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. At the same time, I'm grieved by the difficult experiences that he describes from his own life and those of others who struggle with same-sex attraction. I long and pray that Matthew Vines will encounter Christians who faithfully challenge his truth claims, but also lovingly walk with him, and others like him, as they struggle to embody the truth we proclaim.
• 
  Katie Davis

  4.25/5 stars. I think this book is important to read whether you consider yourself an “affirming Christian” or a “non-affirming Christian”. This book objectively breaks down “non-affirming” bible verses and explains how they are often taken out of context, translated incorrectly, and misinterpreted. I appreciated that the author didn’t base his writing off of opinions, but by Scripture as the highest authority. I enjoyed reading it, and I felt as though it offered a seat at the table for everyone.
• 
  Wade Stotts

  Matthew here expands the arguments from his talk on YouTube that came out in 2012. The talk and the book contain arguments that were refuted in books written when Matthew and I were both in grade school.
  
  When Matthew's talk began to be passed around on social media, Dr James White offered a four hour response to the one hour presentation. Check it out if you'd like an interaction with the specific arguments.
  
  
  http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php...
  
  One of the most helpful books I've read on this topic is "Can You Be Gay and Christian?" By Dr Michael Brown.
  
  I've been surprised at how much the books of this kind depend on an egalitarian understanding of gender roles. Some just assume it. My wife and I are reading "Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism" by Wayne Grudem and so far it has been helpful in understanding gender issues.
• 
  Jerry

  When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door, I often ask them what would Jesus have to say in order for them to acknowledge his claim to be God. "Before Abraham was, I AM", maybe? Matthew Vines ought to be asked what the Bible would have to say in order for him to accept that it rejects homosexuality. There's a rare secularist who for some reason wants to do Gumby-exegesis with Scripture and find it endorsing sodomy, but apart from that lonely soul the only other people striving for this position liberal Christians who really, really want to be religious (in an organized way, you know) and homosexual. It's a tortured position and one that needs to be met with mercy, compassion and integrity, the kind that Paul had when he wanted the fallen brother to be saved in the day of Christ.
• 
  Annie Rose

  This book presents what are probably the strongest arguments that one could make to attempt to support same-sex relationships from Scripture. Unfortunately, I found Vines' methodology for handling the various texts as well as his theological starting point to be flawed, so I didn't find the arguments convincing. I did appreciate having a glimpse into what it is like for many to be in the church and dealing with same-sex attraction: the fear, the rejection, the deep self-doubt, and alienation.
• 
  Mitch Vanyo

  I didn't want to read this book. After being raised in a progressive church, I spent a good chunk of my Christian life wrestling with this topic, slowly landing on a traditional sexual ethic. So, when I first heard about this book, I swept it under the rug as describing a view I had already been raised in, considered, and rejected—specifically, a view that saw the Old Testament as archaic, and one that emphasized the love of Christ and removed his call to renewal and holiness and self-sacrifice. Later, after being lovingly recommended this book, I was surprised to find that it wasn't quite what I had assumed it was. He doesn't neglect or diminish scripture; he interprets it differently than I do.
  
  But despite being impressed with his thoughtfulness and logic, I didn't find his arguments to be convincing. Specifically, I don't think he adequately addressed the presentation of marriage in Genesis 2. While the few "clobber passages" throughout the Bible might be reasonably explained away on their own, in my eyes the whole scriptural narrative—from the very beginning all the way through Jesus and the apostles—upholds male and female as a defining part of marriage. The fact that life can flow out of the love and union between a husband and wife doesn't seem arbitrary or even just necessary, but rather a key component of how marriages image the life-producing love within the trinity, as well as love between Christ and the church.
  
  I also seriously disagree with his assertion that celibacy must be chosen. It's a view probably motivated by compassion, but it seems to reflect a modern idolization of romance more than it does a biblical view of marriage and singleness or the broad category of unchosen thorns. To me, LGB Christians remaining single seems to blend Jesus' categories of "eunuchs who have been so from birth" and "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Instead of denying the call to a difficult path, we all ought to walk alongside and help bear the unique burdens of those who find themselves without a spouse, whether chosen or unchosen.
  
  Still, it would be good for me to read this again, taking more time to process his arguments and locate specifically where I disagree, if for nothing else than to develop and articulate my own understanding.
• 
  Meredith McCaskey

  I really admire that Matthew Vines attempts to bridge the gap (chasm?) between being accepting and affirming of gay marriage, and conservative evangelical Christian theology. He is humble, respectful, and I could see him practically bending over backward in his writing to try to please the evangelical theologians and leaders who would view his book with a critical eye. He does a really thorough job in exploring the original languages and cultures around all the passages in the Bible that have been used to declare all homosexual relations a sin, and show how logical and reasonable it is to re-interpret them in light of scriptural and cultural context.
  
  But therein lies the problem, and this is why I think Vines is doomed to fail in his attempts to reconcile the mass of evangelical Christianity (at least for the Boomer generation and probably a good portion of the younger generations). There is no one "clear" "true" interpretation of the Bible, about... anything. People can and have been bringing their own cultural contexts, histories, and biases into their reading of the Bible ever since the Bible began, and that has resulted in thousands of different interpretations, and everyone claims that their interpretation is the right one– and can point to the Bible verses to back it up. It's like Rachel Held Evans has said– you will find in the Bible what you want to find. If you want justification for oppression, you'll find it. If you want liberation of the oppressed, you'll find it.
  
  And that's the rub. By and large, conservative evangelicals don't want to find an interpretation of the Bible that allows them to affirm gay relationships– even monogamous, life-long marriage. The cultural context and history gives them an overwhelming prejudice against the LGBTQ community, and it is this prejudice that allows them to confidently proclaim that their interpretation is the correct one and that the affirming community is just "reading into the Scriptures what they want to see." Of course they (the Evangelicals) are completely blinded to the fact that they are doing the exact same thing.
  
  In the end, probably nobody in the conservative Evangelical community is going to be convinced to change their minds about gay relationships based on reasoning from the Bible. Even though Matthew Vines portrays his dad as doing just that once Matthew himself came out– talking about how his dad began studying all those Bible passages in depth– what he overlooks it that Mr. Vines had a very compelling reason to change his mind about gay relationships– his relationship with his son. I don't doubt Mr. Vines' or Matthew's sincerity in their belief that the Bible truly does allow committed same-sex relationships– but nobody reads the Bible in a vacuum. The people who have changed their minds and moved from non-affirming to affirming are overwhelmingly doing it in the context of relationships that they don't want to lose, whether that's a child, a sibling, a friend, a student. They are doing it in the context of seeing the emotional devastation and other harm that comes from telling someone that their entire sexuality is innately evil. They are doing it in the context of learning for themselves that gay people are not these icky, nasty "others" which the Evangelical church has taught them to fear– that instead they are ordinary, every day people, with strengths and weaknesses and histories and dreams. They are realizing the innate injustice of treating gay people as those who can never be more than second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.
  
  That is why people change their minds about gay relationships. And so that is why, though I admire Matthew's efforts and I will give his book a high rating, I hope that he's concentrating his current efforts in something other than trying to get the conservative Evangelical elite and their followers to listen to him. Because they don’t want to listen.
• 
  Katharine Rudzitis

  I can't speak to all of the arguments listed, but as a Classics major I support the translations of Ancient Greek and the views of sexual orientation (or lack thereof!) in the ancient world. I don't know much gender theory, so I can't endorse those arguments.
  
  This is an easy read, since the author writes passionately and did plenty of research. I don't think the book will have much impact, just because no one ever wants to question what they've been told to think. I wish more people were intellectually curious about their beliefs, and this is an interesting place to start.
  
  Aside: some of the rebuttals to this book (cf. SBTS version) are reasonable and thought-provoking. Others tear down this argument on the basis that men and women have been equally valued through history, undercutting the premise of this book that gender hierarchy played an enormous role in the Bible. These rebuttals are absolutely ridiculous. Men and women aren't treated equally now, and they certainly weren't in ancient times.
• 
  Veronica Foley

  This is so important. I am bisexual and I am a Christian. I had researched enough of these items to know that my perception of what the Bible said about homosexuality was wrong. This answered every question I had and doubt in my mind. I think all Christians need to read this. I think all homosexuals need to read this. I think everyone who thinks they know the Bible's stance on gay marriage or gay relationships need to read this book. Matthew Vines did his research. I can't stress this enough: read this book.
• 
  Kazoobooks

  Matthew Vines hermeneutic has more holes than swiss cheese. This is a great book if you are looking for a reason to validate homosexual practices and you don't really care about careful exegesis.
• 
  Josh G.

  I appreciate a couple of things about this book:
  
  First, Vines has done his homework. At numerous points, he makes numerous citations of interesting Graeco-Roman sources. Second, Vines addresses traditional arguments and scholarship (eg. Robert Gagnon). Third, I share and sympathize with his concern for people in the LGBTQ+ world to feel the love and acceptance of Jesus—both in the gospel and in the church.
  
  Sadly, I believe Vines makes some critical errors that will keep people from understanding the true gospel and the emotional, relational, and communal realities it creates.
  
  Criticisms
  
  1. Vines has a very low vow of Gender Complementarity. His exegesis of Genesis 1-2 fails to recognize the ANE background clues that signal a God-ordained hierarchy of love, protection, and relational care between Adam and Eve. Lacking this necessary theological framework, Vines proceeds to flatten out the significance of sexual-difference. This is especially the case in the chapter on Marriage when Vines emphasizes the covenant-keeping nature of marriage whilst rejecting the necessary complementarity between man and woman.
  
  2. Vines interprets Paul without situating him within either his historical context as an ancient Jew or his canonical context as an inspired writer. Much of the Graeco-Roman background material Vines cites in his discussion of Romans 1:26-27 is interesting, but in many ways irrelevant. Vines uses this information to put words and concepts into Paul’s mouth that explicitly contradict what Paul actually says. In the end, Paul sounds like any other Graeco-Roman thinker instead of a first century Jew with a unique worldview about Gods creative decree and the natural of sexual ethics.
  
  3. Again on Romans 1:26-27, Vines’ interpretation of Paul’s use of “contrary to nature” is very shallow and lacking necessary historical and exegetical support. He attempts to minimize the significance of this phrase by quoting other ways the Greek construction is used by ancient authors in different contexts, but once again he ignores the specific way Paul uses the phrase and the broader Jewish context — especially the allusions of Genesis 1 inherent within Romans 1:18ff. In the process Vines ignores and minimizes the natural law ethic inherent within Paul’s argument. As a result, Vines removes the inherently teleological nature of the biblical sexual ethic.
  
  4. Vines seems to follow a trajectory hermeneutic that reads oppressive patriarchy into every section of scripture that speaks about household relationships. Once again, this rips the biblical authors out of their canonical context as inspired writers and ignores how Genesis 1:27 formed the bedrock for their concept of human dignity and worth. That’s not to say patriarchy didn’t exist or that it wasn’t oppressive in the ancient world. But when inspired passages (eg. Eph. 5; 1 Pet. 2) are interpreted as expressions of a patriarchal context that will eventually pass away, the lasting moral authority of these passages pass away as well. In effect, Vines utilizes a hermeneutic that mutes the moral authority of those passages for the present day.
  
  5. Finally, Vines’ case rests on a sexual ethic that rejects the human body as an interpretative guide for human sexual behavior. This follows logically from his low view of sexual difference and gender complementarity. In this view, the inner self with all its desires and attractions (orientation) becomes determinative and authoritative. This is an ethic that disintegrates (literally: dis-integrates) the human person from its inherently integrated and wholistic nature in favor of a reductionistic position that places a heavy moral burden on the subjective and existential elements of our nature. Such a burden inevitably leads to living out a moral vision that seeks to fulfill the internal, psychological aspects of our being while ignoring the external, biological aspects of our being. This fragments the human person, making the quest for wholeness inherently absurd and impossible.
  
  As I read Vines’ book, I couldn’t help but think of Paul and Peters warning about false teachers. No doubt, Vines believes he has good intentions and I have no desire to name-call. At the same time, the inspired words about deviant doctrines and false teachers are just so relevant to such a book as this.
  
  “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” — 2 Timothy‬ ‭4:3-4‬ ‭
  
  “And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
  
  These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.” — 2 Peter‬ ‭2:2-3, 17-19‬ ‭
• 
  Bolu Akindele

  This is my second read of this book. I suspect it'll be my last.
  
  The very first time I read it, I was in utter confusion. I was distressed, confused about my life, my Faith, and the way forward for an experience I was yet to name. I needed answers.
  
  This time, however, I could engage with the material more critically, to see it with a new lens, to enjoy it, to dance with it, to interrogate it. It's very clear why this book is incredibly popular—the writing is simple, so simple, and utterly accessible. It doesn't use all the—sometimes confusing—theological language, even though it uses the experience of it.
  
  Matthew discovers he is gay in college—Harvard University. But that is not the problem, he tells us in the book. The problem is back in Kansas, Bible belt of the US—his conservative church, his conservative family, the whole structure that had held his life up until that time. So he takes a break from studying at Harvard to study the Bible, alongside his supportive Christian parents, and the result of that journey is this book. It's a book that's partly theological, and partly a memoir.
  
  His argument in the book is based majorly on the idea that ancient writers of the bible did not have an understanding, a detailed understanding of sexual orientation as we know it today; that the fruit of the church’s current teaching on sexuality has harmed the lives of LGBT Christians, the immutable nature of sexual orientation, and of course, biblical writers lived in societies that were deeply patriarchal hence, their understanding of society. It is from there that he dives into the heart of the book. He examines what people have referred to as the clobber passages—the six (or seven) passages that are used in arguments against LGBT persons, issues and marriage. Then he goes further, addressing the concept of marriage, gay marriage, making a Christian case for Gay Marriage. He doesn't particularly write about transgender, intersex, asexual, or GNC persons, and understandably so. This is not the book for it; although he mentions it a few times and recommends resources that might help.
  
  Here's why it's important that Matthew writes a book of this nature, that's this simple, that’s this accessible. First, Matthew is a conservative Christian. He still is. And although he is affirming of same-sex relationships, his theology of everything is still conservative. I doubt that this book would be as popular and as successful as it is if the person behind it was a super progressive Christian. His conservativeness makes his position worth listening to (both by progressives and conservatives).
  
  Conservatives say they hold the authority of the Bible in high regard. Matthew is their guy. Conservatives have a specific approach to the way they study the Bible. Matthew uses that approach to arrive at his conclusion.
  
  Second, Matthew is—as already stated—gay. Not only is he making a theological argument, but he is also making a personal one. The issue is personal to him, he knows it as deeply as he knows himself. Hence, he knows the technicality of discussing the issue, because it is his issue.
  
  While Matthew’s arguments were good, and humbly presented, they began to loosen towards the middle point. He starts with a certain fierceness, toughness, tightness, thoroughness in his theological arguments that makes his claim hard to refute. But by the middle of the book, he begins to lose his hold on that. Towards the end, his arguments begin to feel really loose, tired. It's not that he makes bad arguments. The problem is that they aren’t as tight as they were from the beginning. And for any critical reader, like I was on my second read, it'll be easy to poke one or two holes in his logic as it goes forward.
  
  By the way, I agree with all of Matthews theological leanings.
  
  I love the book, and I love Matthew even more.
  
  And I'll recommend the book to people who are just finding their footing in LGBT affirming theology, to young Christians who are not yet familiar with theological language (and might be bored by it, and to all conservatives. I would argue in fact, that this book was written specifically for Matthews immediate community—conservative Christians.
  
  Vines dedicates this book to "all those who have suffered in silence for so long". By God! I agree.
• 
  Micah Mitchell

  Important. 4 stars only because the writing sometimes was giving high school English project.