Response to the Michael Brown v Matthew Vines Debate.

There was a radio debate featuring Michael Brown and Matthew Vines over the issue of homosexuality and Christianity a few days ago, hosted by Moody Radio. The debate was informal, and I think Matthew Vines was given fair consideration. Brown for the most part was courteous, but he did on many occasions simply avoid questions and appeal to rhetoric. Toward the end of the debate he made the rather embarrassing confession that having sex during your menstrual cycle was also a sin. This kinda put the nail in his coffin, so to speak. He lost. Vines did come across as badgering on some points, and to be fair it seemed at some point that people were messing with his mic. But at the end, both parties conducted themselves with grace.

What I'd like to do is respond to Brown's argument, because in many ways it sounds very compelling. Brown's argument consistent of three points. Only two of these points really matters as the third is irrelevant, for the most part. Brown's first point is that for Scripture to be inspired we must believe that at no point was the issuing of Scripture made in ignorance and blind luck. Hence, we do not have the privilege to say that God simply did not know what man was really like two thousand years ago and that when he inspired the writing of His Word he simply made his commands in ignorance.

The second argument is like the first, and it says that man does not have the right to define himself and then appeal to God to accept him. We do not look to God for affirmation of who we are. That puts us above God. Thus, if God opposes homosexuality then we have no choice, but to accept this as truth. Since, God opposes homosexuality in the Bible, and since it is opposed through divine inspiration then it matters not how or why people are homosexuals.

I want to commend Brown for making a very good argument that is coherent and consistent. I agree that we cannot claim that God was ignorant at any point in the Biblical canon, and I agree that we do not get to affirm ourselves and then ask for God's approval. However, this is not what is happening. The problem with Brown is that his argument is largely rhetoric and can be applied to just about any belief, or interpretation of the Bible. Brown's insistence that the inspiration of God's word being made in full knowledge does not negate the context in which the Biblical narrative was written.

For instance, one does not have to claim that because the context of the Bible has changed that means that the inspiration of the Bible was ignorant. If it necessarily followed that contextual considerations always amounted to ignorance on some level then Brown's case could be open and shut, but the reality is that an all knowing God could just as easily inspire the Bible with contextual considerations so that the principles embedded in Scripture would be everlasting. Such as the principles of discernment, compassion, and generosity. On this part, Brown's logic fails.

Also, on Brown's second argument he makes a valid point, but fails to recognize how one "surrenders" their identity to God, in a sense. Brown seems to suggest that we have to form our identity through the Bible, and I can grant this, but I think it is sadly an oversimplification. God created us with identities and he created Scripture as well. I can accept that ultimately we have to be willing to put God above ourselves, but at the end of the day, if we are going to make this into a measurable system where we compare our lists together and find out who is truly submitting to God and who is not then we have missed the mark completely. Brown has essentially concluded that since he disagrees with what someone else says about the Bible then this means that they must be affirming themselves first and not God, and I think that is rather sad. It is not a healthy way to discern the Bible together.

I would have been interested to hear Brown analysis of the Bible and how homosexuality in ancient times was similar to our own understanding today. But sadly, Brown did not offer any good information to consider. He had many opportunities to present findings, but did not. Vines on the other hand did make a good point and that is that you do not ever see homosexuals being asked to live celibate lives for their faith before the twentieth century. This shows a marked difference in our understanding of homosexuality from what would have existed before it, and rightly so our discernment in this area as it applies to Scripture should change as well.

As far as debates go, Vines offered tangible information to be considered and responded to questions asked of him without evading them. Brown used various iterations of the same rhetoric like a politician and did not offer any tangible information for his arguments and evaded questions. The debate was informal, so there were various interuptions and Vines was probably given more consideration because his view was "edgier" in a radio setting, but overall he handled the material with more integrity.

My approach is different then Vines, but I respect his argument and think it is a good one. Vines presents his
audience with historical data that is conclusive and important for the Church to be honest about. The fact of the matter is that Christianity changes from time to time, and this is a good thing. I think Vines has offered an important argument to consider for the next change.