I don’t have any grand ideas of ending this debate here today. My only hope is to further the discussion in a positive and practical way. While I don’t pretend that I am not convinced of my position, I nonetheless encourage civil discourse about critical issues facing our society.

One such issue is that of homosexuality, or more properly, homosexual behavior. The question at hand is whether or not it is possible to be a practicing and proud homosexual and simultaneously be a Christian.

Now, on the surface is the short, simple answer from both sides of the debate. Homosexual activists would quickly say “of course it’s possible” and cite several examples, perhaps Matthew Vines, Jennifer Knapp or friends and family they know. Christians by a large majority would quickly say “no, this is not possible” and cite scripture calling homosexual behavior a sin.

At issue then is whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin. Because if homosexual behavior is not a sin then it is entirely possible to be a proud, practicing homosexual and at the same time be a Christian. If homosexual behavior is a sin then to live in sin and be proud of it while claiming to be a Christian is contrary to biblical teaching on several levels.

The plain text understanding of the Bible is that homosexual behavior is a sin. There is not a single incident of homosexual behavior being praised, supported, or affirmed in the entire Bible. From Old Testament to New Testament every mention of homosexual behavior is condemned.

Matthew Vines, the controversial “evangelical” author of “God and the Gay Christian” says that biblical authors had no example of loving, committed homosexual relationships and therefore condemned it as sin. Vines contends that if first century writers would have witnessed loving, committed homosexual relationships that they would have affirmed them.

This is a tenuous position at best. Vines is essentially arguing that god made a mistake in His inspiration of the biblical authors and allowed them to write into Scripture principles that are mistaken and wrong. If homosexual behavior is acceptable, as Vines contends, then why isn’t polygamy? Weren’t there plenty of “loving” examples of polygamous relationships in the Bible?

Dr. Michael Brown is a scholar of near-eastern language and literature and the author of “Can You Be a Gay Christian.” Brown says that Vines is completely wrong about his assumptions regarding the first century and has, in essence, nailed the coffin shut on his own beliefs.

Recently, Vines and Brown took part in a radio debate about the topic. Vines challenged Brown to produce one single first century document that spoke about loving, committed homosexual relationships rather than the pederastic, abusive relationships well-documented from the first century. Brown assured Vines that both biblical authors and people in general were accustomed to committed homosexual relationships even in the first century.

Brown told Vines that his book “Can You Be a Gay Christian” is full of examples of such texts giving evidence to he fact that first century Bible writers and society at large were very familiar with homosexuality. But Brown also noted that Vines, seeking to speak from an evangelical voice, is not able to use the Bible to support his claims. That is obviously problematic for someone seeking to create a biblical foundation for his beliefs. It would be like me trying to convince you that adultery was biblically acceptable without ever using the Bible.

Vines’ entire argument seems to be that historical evidence outside the Bible supports his claim that the Bible actually does support homosexual behavior. That is, at best, an odd claim, at worst its heresy. To try and use extra-biblical sources to support what the bible plainly condemns is strange. No doubt there is plenty of extra-biblical sources to support a litany of sin (gambling, no-fault divorce, slavery) and yet we are not clamoring to change our doctrine on those issues.

So Vines is on shaky, teetering ground with his initial supposition. But, Brown, responded to this query after the debate by citing five reasons to reject any claim to biblical support for homosexual behavior:

“First…Paul rejected homosexual practice, not because he was unaware of long-term male-male relationships but because it was contrary to God’s design for men and women, two same-but-different individuals who come together as one. (See Romans 1:24-27, which borrows language from Genesis 1.)

“Second, you can’t create a doctrine that violates the plain teaching of the Bible based on the alleged non-existence of contrary sources outside of the Bible. (In this case there are sources; I’m simply making a point.)

“Third, classical scholars have supplied numerous ancient texts that speak of long-term homosexual (and even lesbian relationships), from a few hundred years before the time of Jesus and from a few hundred years after the time of Jesus. This begs the question: If these relationships existed before and after the first century, why not during the first century?

“Fourth, there are ancient texts that speak of concepts similar to today’s ‘sexual orientation,’ including texts which claimed that certain people were biologically inclined to same-sex attractions or that some people were exclusively attracted to the same sex. As New Testament scholar Preston Sprinkle wrote, ‘There’s no reason – no good historical reason – to believe that Paul was unaware of same-sex orientation.’ (See this article for some examples.)

“Fifth, and most importantly, there are texts that are roughly contemporaneous with the New Testament writings that speak of two men ‘marrying’ each other or of two (adult) men being in love with each other. In fact, scholars have emailed me since the debate with further documentation, and some of it is so powerful that it absolutely and totally sinks the entire historical argument Matthew Vines sought to make on behalf of ‘gay Christianity.’”

I don’t know what kind of war is going on inside of Matthew Vines. I don’t know if he is desperately seeking a justification for his lifestyle or if he is truly convinced that the Bible supports homosexual behavior. Either way he is wrong. But I, like many others, know what it’s like to have an internal conflict raging so my heart goes out to him. Maybe he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing being used by others to push an agenda and he is a willing conspirator in this campaign. If that’s the case then God, not me, will judge him.

For anyone unsure of what the Bible really says about marriage and sexuality I would suggest the following verses: Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15-25; 3:1-20; Ex. 20:12; Deut. 6:4-9; Josh. 24:15; 1 Sam. 1:26-28; Psa. 51:5; 78:1-8; 127; 128; 139:13-16; Prov. 1:8; 5:15-20; 6:20-22; 12:4; 13:24; 14:1; 17:6; 18:22; 22:6,15; 23:13-14; 24:3; 29:15,17; 31:10-31; Ecc. 9:9; Mal. 2:14-16; Matt. 5:31-32; 18:2-5; 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 7:1-16; Eph. 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col. 3:18-21; 1 Tim. 5:8,14; 2 Tim. 1:3-5; Titus 2:3-5; Heb. 13:4; 1 Pet. 3:1-7.

Suffice it to say the very clear message of Scripture is that God created and ordained marriage to be a lifelong union of one man and one woman. Human sexuality is fixed at birth and based on biology and nothing can change that. The Bible further teaches that any sexual activity outside of God’s ordained and defined idea of marriage is sinful and wrong. From Old Testament through New this is the simple, clearly presented message of the Bible regarding sexuality and marriage.

Prayerfully Matthew Vines will see the clear teaching of the Bible and abandon his quest to twist God’s words and idea of sexuality and marriage. The reality is that when sexuality is the primary focus rather than God’s glory and the truth of Scripture, errors will abound. That is obvious in Vines’ position. But nothing is so freeing, so liberating as living in the truth of God’s Word and seeking His glory first and foremost