EXCERPT

ONLY
God and the Gay Christian Analysis
Submitted to David Kopp of Waterbrook/Multnomah ..by Mia Mauss - 8/16/13
Assignment: Read and assess the structure and claims of the manuscript. Note where the work is
strongest, and where it could be tightened. Provide your feedback about how it could be
perceived by target audiences.
Overview
Vines is a clear writer, who introduces some new ideas that need to be part of the
homosexual conversation. He is articulate, well read, and compelling.
However, there are some fallacies in his work that better thinkers than I will find easy to dismiss.
The largest problems can be summed up in these major categories:
1. He conflates the abominable treatment of homosexuals by Christians with the issue of
whether homosexuality is a sin. These need to be separate arguments. (In fact, if he wanted to
take it, Vines has a chance for an argument that is far more likely to be persuasive to mainstream
Christianity: Just as we no longer demonize people who have gotten divorces or slept together
before marriageat the very least, Christians can decide not to demonize homosexuals as well.)
2. He takes as a given that since homosexuality is not a choice, it is therefore a healthy
sexual desire. However, contrary to his argument, none of the sinful desires of humanity are
chosen. This does not make them healthy or acceptable. For example, an alcoholic does
not choose to be one; it is still healthy for Christians to encourage him to abstain from
alcohol. A kleptomaniac has a natural urge to steal; Christians still encourage that person to
control his natural impulses. We are not called to a life of comfort and satisfaction; we are
called to a life of sacriEice. He makes the mistake of elevating his personal suffering above
the suffering of others. Its hard for me to die to my sin, especially when I feel its justiEied. I
may never see the day when Im free of my sinful nature, but I can trust that it honors God
when I devote my life to trying to emulate Christ.

3. This brings me to what I perceive as the biggest Elaw of the text. On p. 96: He writes,
Same-sex attraction as we understand it is not just a natural tendency in a fallen world. It
is an immutable characteristic, as resistant to change as skin color. Vines and I disagree on
this point, and I think many Christians will, as well. For starters, I think theres a reasonable
argument to be made that our sexual orientation is always 1luid and open to change.
Vines argues that changing our sexual orientation is going against our naturally instilled
sexuality, and that is the sin Paul talks about when he says God gave them over to
unnatural ways. But I think thats a distorted reading of the text, and an example of how he
redeEines words like natural and unnatural to suit his needs.

Picture the man who is Eirst married and Einds his spouse completely satisfying
sexually. Later, he is introduced to pornography, and his tastes begin to change