Matthew Vines, the author of God and the Gay Christian, Convergent Books, 2014, is about to release an updated version with additional research regarding usury. See:
Vines is a very able researcher who studies homosexuality from a biblical perspective. He is likely the intellectual source who has tipped the scales of the recent UMC kerfuffle that has divided that historic denomination.
He argues that contemporary homosexual relationships that reflect traditional marriage commitments are not the kind of homosexual relationships that are condemned in the Bible. What is new in his updated version of the book is his research on usury.
Usury is universally condemned in the Bible, New Testament and Old, and it was universally condemned by the Christian Church until the Reformation, when Calvin reassessed the issue in the light of the development of Capitalism and modern banking policies. Vines argues that just as the theology of usury (lending money with interest) has changed to meet the demands of the modern world, so the theology of homosexuality, which was also universally condemned, has also changed. His research is spot on, and will prove to be helpful toward the recovery of the truth of the Bible regarding these issues. However, the biblical wisdom that his research has uncovered is not what he thinks it is.
“for there must be factions (heresies) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Corinthians 11:19).
While his research is outstanding, his assumptions and conclusions are flawed in two significant ways. First, he assumes that present day beliefs and policies regarding usury are compatible with the Kingdom of God. It’s a kind of presentism, where researchers assume the superiority of contemporary values and perspectives over the values and perspectives of the past. In literary and historical analysis, presentism values present-day ideas and perspectives as being more true than historical values, depictions, and interpretations. Presentism is a form of cultural bias or cultural superiority, and it creates a distorted understanding of history. It is a common fallacy when writing about the past, and infects Vines' analysis. His research is good, but his conclusions are fallacious, heretical, and biased toward his own personal proclivity.
Vines assumes that our current understanding and use of capitalism and the business of lending of money with interest is good and right, and is in accord with the teachings of the Bible. It is as if the contemporary world of banking is the leading edge of the Kingdom of God on earth. While I have overstated it to make a point, the point remains that the Kingdom of God will be vastly different than contemporary capitalism. Lord, have mercy.
The second flaw in Vines' ointment arises from the biblical and Christian historical argument against usury. That argument is that only natural things should and can reproduce. The traditional argument was that money is not a natural thing and, therefore, should not reproduce. At the time the argument was made, money was synonymous with gold and silver—metals. And metal cannot reproduce itself. However, usury (lending money with interest) amounted to the reproduction of money. Indeed, banks employing capitalist policies were and are able to increase the money supply. We call it fractional reserve banking. The Bible and the earlier Christian Church forbade the practice because it was “against nature.”
Vines then shows that Paul’s arguments against homosexuality were also built on the idea that homosexual practices were “against nature” (Romans 1:26-28). He then argues that just as the theology of usury has changed for the better, so the theology of sex—because it is of the same character as the theology of usury—also needs to change, and to change in a similar way. That is, because he argues that the previous arguments against usury did not take into consideration various developments of Western Civilization which has allowed for a “beneficial” change regarding usury, our current understanding of homosexuality should follow suit in a similar way.
What he says makes good sense. It’s what he leaves out that poses a problem. The argument against usury is as follows: Only natural things should/can reproduce. Money is not natural, therefore, money should not reproduce. Behind this argument is the acknowledgment that money could reproduce through usury, but should not. And is, therefore, forbidden. That’s the biblical and early church argument.
Vines then says that the argument for contemporary homosexuality qualifies as a similar argument. That argument is: that sex is natural to human beings, therefore sex between human beings is natural. And, besides, science shows that many if not most animals practice some form of homosexual sex. Therefore, because sex is natural to human beings (and it is!) and animals, therefore homosexual sex is natural and, therefore, qualifies to be in the same category as usury. That is, the old ways need to adapt to the contemporary situation.
The fly in the ointment here is that homosexual sex is not reproductive. Same sex sex cannot reproduce, therefore, same sex sex is not natural. Only male/female sex is reproductive. Therefore, only male/female sex is natural. So, Paul is right! And Vines is wrong, same sex sex is unnatural because it is not reproductive.
Great conclusion Pastor Ross!
If only Vines was familiar with what Solomon says in Ecclesiastes 1:9: "What has been will be again,
and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." He would then know his argument for same-sex sex has been done to death and yet our culture continues appeasing the "proud, arrogant, self-satisfying" mentality since Adam, Eve, and the serpent. Yet, it is still a sin Jesus Christ died for and we pray he'll continue to repent us with His Word and deliver us His Sacraments.