Throughout the book, Vines declares that he holds a « high view » of the Bible. One of the main weaknesses of God and the Gay Christian is that Vines’s methodology of biblical interpretation clashes with the high view of the Bible he claims to hold. A high view of Scripture is more than just talking about Scripture. It is learning from Scripture. Vines certainly talks about Scripture, but he tends to emphasize his experience and tangential background information, downplaying Scripture and its relevant literary and historical context.
No matter how hard I tried to find biblical justification and no matter whether my same-sex temptations went away or not, God’s word did not change
Experiences do inform our interpretation of Scripture. As a racial minority, biblical texts on sojourners and aliens mean more to me than to someone who is not a racial minority. However, experiences can also hinder the interpretation of Scripture. Although it is impossible to completely distance the interpretive process from one’s experiences, it is important to recognize our biases and do our best to minimize them. A high view of Scripture involves measuring our experience against the Bible, not the other way around.
It appears to me that Vines starts with the conclusion that God blesses same-sex relationships and then moves backwards to find evidence. This is not exegesis, but a classic example of eisegesis (reading our own biases into a text). Like Vines, I also came out as a gay man while I was a student. I was a graduate student pursuing a doctorate in dentistry. Unlike Vines, I was not raised in a Christian home. Interestingly, a chaplain gave me a book from a gay-affirming author, John Boswell, claiming that homosexuality is not a sin. Like Vines, I was looking for biblical justification and wanted to prove that the Bible blesses gay relationships. As I read Boswell’s book, the Bible was open next to it, and his assertions did not line up with Scripture. My years of biblical language study in Bible college and seminary, and doctoral research in sexuality, only strengthened this conclusion. Years later I found out that the gay-affirming chaplain also recognized his error.
In God and the Gay Christian , Vines relies heavily upon other authors, many of whom also began with a strong gay-affirming bias. John Boswell was an openly gay historian. James Brownson, a more recent scholar, reversed his stance on the morality of same-sex relationships after his son came out. Michael Carden, a fringe gay Catholic who dabbles in astrology, has written on the « homo-erotics of atonement » and contributed to the Queer Bible Commentary , which draws upon « feminist, queer, deconstructionist, utopian theories, the social sciences and historical-critical discourses. » Dale Martin, an openly gay man, believes neither that Jesus’ resurrection is a historical fact, nor that the historical Jesus believed he was divine. These views do not represent a « high view » of the Bible.
Eventually, I afroromance realized that I was wrong-that same-sex romantic relationships are a sin
Leaning upon experience rather than biblical context leads Vines to some inaccurate interpretations. For Vines, « bad fruit » in Matthew 7:17 refers to the experience of emotional or physical harm. But this does not line up with the storyline of the Bible. Under Vines’s definition, crucifixion, martyrdom and self-denial would all be considered « bad fruit. » Matthew 7:14 reads, « For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. » Following Jesus is not easy and can result in very difficult trials. Vines also neglects to note that two different Greek words are translated into one word, « bad. » « Bad tree » literally means a rotten or diseased tree, while « bad fruit » is literally wicked or evil fruit. From the context of Matthew 7, « bad fruit » does not mean emotional or physical harm but refers to sin.