I am no fan of Matthew Vines, in fact, I don’t trust him. And from all of the material that he has put out in print and video, I feel fully justified in my view of him.
Not only do I believe he is not a Christian as he claims to be, but I believe he is an enemy of the Cross of Christ. But he is so pleasant about it that it is difficult to see. To me, he is a good example of a wolf in sheep clothing.
In the near future, I hope to demonstrate this by providing a commentary on some of his messages and the few debates he has done. But for now I will just examine his response to Tim Keller’s review of his teaching.
I will not be responding to every point but just the most important to show his level of credibility when dealing with criticisms of his views.
First I should comment on something that Matthew Vines addresses early in his reply to Keller.
Under the section “Knowing gay people personally” he says:
“I very much appreciate Keller’s rejection of bigotry against gay people at the outset of his review. This is an important area of agreement, and I would like to see more evangelical leaders firmly denounce animus and bigotry against LGBT people, not only in principle but also in practice, whenever LGBT people are harmed based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
DM-I would generally agree with this, but knowing the craftiness of Matthew Vines and many in the homosexual activist community, I would have to ask what he means by “whenever LGBT people are harmed based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.” If he includes rejection of homosexuality and homosexual activities, and speaking against them in his definition of “harm” I would not agree. Homosexual activist often play these word and category games to gain support and sympathy for their bad behaviors and practices by connecting them with justifiable concerns like bigotry and hate. And because kind people are generally careless in their scrutiny of people who are manipulating them, they often don’t notice the manner in which homosexuals are playing on their sympathies.
In the section titled: “Consulting historical scholarship” Mathew states:
“Keller writes that “Vines and Wilson claim that scholarly research into the historical background show that biblical authors were not forbidding all same sex relationships, but only exploitative ones — pederasty, prostitution, and rape.” I do not, in fact, make this claim in my book, and I cite numerous examples of consensual same-sex behavior in ancient literature (cf. chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7).”
DM-This is a confusing statement, he says he does not make the claim in his book “that biblical authors were not forbidding all same sex relationships, but only exploitative ones”, then he proceeds to admit that he sites numerous examples of consensual same-sex behavior in ancient literature, but this statement does not refute what he is objecting to that he claims Keller says about him. That is unless Matthew is claiming that he never addresses the issue of exploitative relationships but only consensual ones. And that Keller is saying he did address it when he did not. But Matthew has gone on record defending the argument that the biblical authors were not forbidding loving monogamous same sex relationships, and that the biblical authors were only dealing with abusive excessive sexual relations. So what is Matthew objecting to here? That Keller specifically uses a different focus even though they amount to the same things?
Then Matthew states that both abusive and consensual same-sex behavior were common in ancient literature. But this also, does not refute what he claims Keller said about what he wrote. So why does Matthew make these redundant statements? Either this is a muddy the water tactic to throw the reader off, or Matthew is not as sharp as he is given credit for being.
I should also point out that Matthew does not here include Keller’s full statement. This is what Keller said that Matthew left out.
“Their argument is that Paul and other biblical writers had no concept of an innate homosexual orientation, that they only knew of exploitative homosexual practices, and therefore they had no concept of mutual, loving, same-sex relationships.”
DM-The argument that “they had no concept of mutual, loving same-sex relationships” is a primary argument of Matthew Vines and others, but it is also one that is false and well documented to be false. That is, unless you are into the word games.
The question is, why did Mathew leave this part out?
While I have not read Matthew’s book, I have watch many of his speeches and he has often made this claim, so I know Keller is correct in that this is Matthew’s argument. Additionally, Matthew admits the same in his examination of Keller here. Note his following comment:
“But as I argue in my book, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of a same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation” (105”
DM-So Keller seems to have correctly represented Matthew here, why then is Matthew saying the Keller misrepresented him?
He continues:
“Pederasty and rape were common forms of same-sex behavior, to be sure, but consensual same-sex behavior between adults was common in antiquity as well.”
DM- this is not in dispute so why state it? Then to split hairs and make it seem like Tim has misrepresented him he says:
“Consequently, I ground my historical argument not in the exploitative nature of ancient same-sex behavior, but rather in the excessive nature of such behavior.”
DM-This is a strange attempt at rebuttal. Matthew is playing with words here and trying to act as if he is correcting Tim on this point when in fact he is not. This is the statement:
“Vines and Wilson claim that scholarly research into the historical background show that biblical authors were not forbidding all same sex relationships, but only exploitative ones — pederasty, prostitution, and rape.”
DM-Now notice Matthew’s complaint:
“I do not, in fact, make this claim in my book… Consequently, I ground my historical argument not in the exploitative nature of ancient same-sex behavior, but rather in the excessive nature of such behavior."
DM-Matthew seems to be nitpicking here with Tim Keller’s use of the word “claim”. Tim seems to be using the word “claim” as a generality while Matthew chooses to address it as if it was specific. While Matthew may not have specifically made the claim Keller attributes to him here, he certainly did and does make the claim by what he says in his book and in public talks he has made. So Matthew here seems to be making and issue out of a non-issue.
Also, how does Matthew differentiate between “exploitative” and “Excessive”? He does not say. How does he extract the “excessive’ from the “exploitative”? Each of these can be defined as exploitative and excessive and so his use of these different words is to confuse the issue and it is I believe intentional. They do this every time they are cornered. Pederasty and rape are clearly excessive as well as exploitative and prostitution can be defined as excessive since it is pursuing money for sex, this can and has happened many times in a single day. So anyone arguing that prostitution is not excessive is just playing with words. We should not allow them to get away with word games to avoid the issue. I am curious as to why Matthew has to play such word games if the truth is on his side.
He continues:
"Keller makes much of the fact that Paul’s language in Romans 1 “could not represent rape, nor prostitution, nor pederasty,” but I do not argue that Paul’s language is limited to those forms of same-sex behavior. (That said, there is no reason why prostitution could not involve “men burning with passion ‘for one another,’” and Keller does not substantiate his claim that prostitution could not be at least part of what is in view in Romans 1:27.)"
DM-This is not true; Keller does substantiate his claim by pointing out that there were words that identified each of those specific words that Paul could have used if his goal was to indicate them.
But again, Matthew selectively leaves out the fuller comment by Keller to give a false impression that he did not substantiate his point, and to avoid Keller’s actual concern. Note what Matthew left out of Keller’s statement.
“Contra Vines, et al, the ancients also knew about mutual, non-exploitative same sex relationships. In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexuality as men burning with passion “for one another” (verse 27). That is mutuality. Such a term could not represent rape, nor prostitution, nor pederasty (man/boy relationships). Paul could have used terms in Romans 1 that specifically designated those practices, but he did not. He categorically condemns all sexual relations between people of the same sex, both men and women. Paul knew about mutual same-sex relationships, and the ancients knew of homosexual orientation.”
DM-Matthew avoided Keller’s point that Paul could have used terms that SPECIFICALLY designated those practices but he did not. Keller did not just reject the possibility of them being referred to with no clarity. So the question is, why did Matthew leave that part out and made it seem like Keller was denying a connection with no logical cause?
You see, while he accuses Keller of misrepresenting him, he misrepresents Keller.
Matthew was clearly trying to distract from Keller’s point that “Paul describes homosexuality as men burning with passion “for one another” (verse 27” He wanted to shift Paul’s focus away from Male homosexuality to a more general abusive sex theme. This is crafty and dishonest.
He continued:
"I argue instead that “same-sex relations in the first century…were widely understood to be the product of excessive sexual desire in general” (103-04), and I adduce dozens of texts throughout my book to support this assertion."
DM-My reply to Matthew would be, “Why does the general understanding of the same-sex relations of the first century, trump what Paul is discussing? Why must it be applied to what Paul is saying? Paul is not discussing first century understanding of same-sex relations, he is discussing God’s judgment on all sexual perversions. For you to inject the culture into Paul’s theology to muddy the water is deceptive.
Matthew’s next argument is what I call over kill to take up space and waste time. What he addresses here could have been stated much briefer, but it was not, because it is meant to distract from the real issue. He says:
"Keller, by contrast, cites only one ancient text in order to argue that same-sex orientation “was known in antiquity:” Aristophanes’ speech in Plato’s Symposium. According to Keller’s reading of Plato, “Zeus split the original human beings in half, creating both heterosexual and homosexual humans, each of which were seeking to be reunited to their ‘lost halves’ — heterosexuals seeking the opposite sex and homosexuals the same sex.”
I discuss this specific text in detail in my book, which Keller does not acknowledge."
DM-While I agree that Keller should have engaged what Matthew said on this topic since he claimed to be responding to Matthew’s book, I also believe that the subject is a non-issue in the homosexuality debate. Since the Bible states that homosexual acts of sex between the same-sex is sin, what was believed to be understood about orientation in that time is not the issue. The issue is what did God say about homosexual sex activity. You see, unless you stay focused on the actual issue, you play into their games to avoid what the real issue is.
Matthew concludes his response to this section by saying:
“Keller is correct that Brooten argues in her book Love Between Women that same-sex orientation was known in antiquity, but he fails to mention that leading classicists such as David Halperin have rejected her claims as “anachronistic,” “bizarre,” and “tendentious.” Halperin comprehensively refutes her claims on this question in his essay “The First Homosexuality?” (published in Martha Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola’s The Sleep of Reason, pp. 229-68), and Mark D. Smith concludes that “none” of Brooten’s sources “adequately parallels the modern concept of sexual orientation” (quoted by Loader, p. 324, n. 129). (To be clear: Brooten is a capable scholar and I respect and appreciate her work, but I agree with Halperin, Smith, and others that she is wrong on this point.)”
DM-Notice here again, Matthew splits hairs by trying to make a complaint about Tim misrepresenting authors on the issue of ancient knowledge of same-sex orientation. But I am curious as to how he separates what he calls Same-sex orientation, from what he earlier referred to as “consensual same-sex behavior between adults [that] was common in antiquity as well.” Is not this evidence of the actions of people with same-sex orientation? Just how does he define “orientation?”
[The Cambridge Dictionary:
“the particular beliefs, opinions, or ways of behaving that a person has”]
DM-Matthew cites David Halperin, Kirk Ormand, Marilyn Skinner, and Jeffrey Carnes works on the topic of ancient same-sex orientation but he does not explain what they said about it that separates it from consensual same sex relations. He doesn’t even explain what an “adequately paralleled modern concept of sexual orientation” would be. And without that information, his whole argument here is a tautology, it is meaningless.
With all the excessive and consensual sex going on between and among homosexuals back then, how can he or anyone argue that their “orientations” were not like those of homosexuals today? And if that is not what he is attempting to defend, what is his point?
He continues:
"In God and the Gay Christian, I contend that “the overwhelming majority of visible same-sex behavior (in antiquity) fit easily into a paradigm of excess” (104). Rather than undermine this claim, Keller’s preferred scholar on this issue actually supports it."
DM-So what? What does the percentage of same sex behavior in antiquity have to do with What the Bible says about homosexuality or sodomy? Since the act itself is what is sin, it does not matter how “loving” it is claimed to be or how consensual it is. And this point should be where we sink our intellectual feet in.
Matthew continues:
“Loader himself writes, “Much of the same-sex activity reported in both Jewish and Greek and Roman sources was in any case engaged in by men who were also behaving immorally with women. Philo regularly depicts such mixed promiscuity, from his depiction of the men of Sodom to his portrait of wild drunken parties” (324).
I agree with both Keller and Loader that Paul condemns same-sex relations in a sweeping manner in Romans 1:26-27. But as I argue in my book, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of a same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation” (105). Keller seeks to blur the distinctions between ancient and modern understandings of same-sex relations, but he offers no solid evidence of ancient understandings of same-sex orientation, nor does he provide any examples of lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships between social equals in ancient literature. My point here is not that Paul was anything other than negative toward same-sex relations, but that lifelong, monogamous same-sex marriages today are substantially different from the lustful same-sex behavior Paul had in view in Romans 1:26-27. Keller presents no evidence to counter that claim.”
DM- My question is, why should he when that was not Paul’s focus? Again, Paul is addressing the sinfulness of all sexual deviance, including homosexuality of any kind.
This whole section on both their parts is a monumental waste of space and time. Since the real issue is not weather or not there were loving committed same sex relationships back then, (there were) but weather same-sex relations of any kind is acceptable by God. The answer is no, and so since commitment and love has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, it should not be allowed to enter the discussion. We make a serious mistake when we entertain arguments that are not a part of the issue.
This error is again committed in the next section that addresses the issue of slavery.
In the section titled “Re-categorizing same-sex relations” he says:
“In the next section, Keller states, “Vines writes, for example, that the Bible supported slavery and that most Christians used to believe that some form of slavery was condoned by the Bible, but we have now come to see that all slavery is wrong.” Nowhere do I write that the Bible supported slavery. In fact, I argue in chapter 8 that, understood through the lens of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic, the Bible opposes slavery.
I do argue, however, that most Christians throughout church history believed that at least some forms of slavery were morally acceptable. Keller counters this assertion, writing that “there was never any consensus or even a majority of churches that thought slavery and segregation were supported by the Bible.” But Keller restricts his analysis almost exclusively to the modern West, which represents only a fraction of church history on the issue of slavery.”
DM-Both Keller and Vines are again wasting time and space on the non-issue of slavery as somehow being relevant to the question of homosexuality. Since the disagreements around slavery has nothing to do with the moral status of homosexuality. For Christians to allow homosexuals and their supporters to inject slavery into the discussion is to allow themselves to be tricked. So I will not bother dealing with their dispute here.
He continued:
“Keller closes this section by arguing that I “largely assume” what he calls the “cultural narratives” that “‘you have to be yourself,’ that sexual desires are crucial to personal identity, that any curbing of strong sexual desires leads to psychological damage, and that individuals should be free to live as they alone see fit.” Yet he produces no evidence—not a single quote, citation, or reference—to support his claim that I believe or assume any of these narratives. I do argue that what we today call sexual orientation is core to who we are as human beings made in God’s image, but sexual orientation is a far broader category than “sexual desires,” a distinction that Keller elides. Further, I have spoken repeatedly against the notion that “be yourself” is a sufficient Christian ethic; I have never suggested that “any curbing of strong sexual desires leads to psychological damage;” and I do not make any theological arguments based on the assumption that “individuals should be free to live as they alone see fit.” Keller seems to assume that I must hold those beliefs, but I do not.”
DM-If what Matthew argues here is true, it is a major error on Keller’s part and it allows Matthew to seem better than he is. I have always argued that we must be accurate and precise in our attack, and never give our opponents justification to accuse us of misrepresenting what they say. If we are not going to carefully and fully read or listen to our opponents, we should not comment on what we are not able to document.
I would however like to know what Matthew means by:
“I do argue that what we today call sexual orientation is core to who we are as human beings made in God’s image, but sexual orientation is a far broader category than “sexual desires,”.
DM-Just how is sexual orientation “far” broader than sexual desires? I am interested in knowing how he defines both terms and what makes them so distant from each other. What is orientation without the sexual desire? This is why Matthew and others who hold his views often do not define their words. It is much easier to keep the game going when they can slither around words and not be nailed as to their meaning.
Under the title “Revising biblical authority” He says:
“In the next section, Keller misrepresents my argument about the Leviticus prohibitions. He writes, “Vines argues that while the Levitical code forbids homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) it also forbids eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). Yet, he says, Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong — so why can’t we change our minds on homosexuality?”
I mention Leviticus’ prohibition of shellfish in chapter 1 of my book only as an example of “some of what I learned” early on that “seemed to undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages” (11). My actual argument for why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 should not be understood as binding on Christians today is far more thorough than what Keller suggests. I devote an entire chapter to this issue (chapter 5), yet Keller argues against my reading of Leviticus without making a single mention of that chapter or of any of the arguments I make in it. Reading this section of his review, I couldn’t help but wonder whether Keller actually read my entire book. If so, he doesn’t demonstrate any awareness of my actual argument about Leviticus.”
DM-Again, if true Keller has given an unfortunate excuse for Matthew to shift focus away from the real issue. If true that Keller did not mention Matthew’s address of the material, it would “seem” that Keller did not read Matthews whole book, and if not, he should have made that clear in his article. But none of this helps Matthew’s case for protecting his brand of homosexuality as a non-sin. The levitical prohibitions that are no longer binding on Christians has nothing at all to do with the sinfulness of homosexuality. Because homosexuality is as sinful today as it was when defined by Leviticus back then. And as Dr. Robert Gagnon, Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown and many others have totally refuted Matthew’s Leviticus arguments, I think it is deceptive to act as if Keller’s failure to address them is some kind of evidence that they are true or correct.
In the section titled “Being on the wrong side of history” he states:
“Keller next argues against “the common argument that history is moving toward greater freedom and equality for individuals, and so refusing to accept same-sex relationships is a futile attempt to stop inevitable historical development.” To his credit, he acknowledges that this argument is not as “explicit” in my book, but in fact, I do not make any form of this argument at all. I do not believe in “inevitable historical progress,” nor do I find commonly repeated assertions that opponents of same-sex marriage are on “the wrong side of history” to be an illuminating form of moral discourse. So Keller is simply wrong when he claims that “Enlightenment optimism about human nature and reason” is one of the “background understandings” of my book. This sounds very much like a response Keller and others have grown used to offering to LGBT advocates in general, but it is not a fair response to anything I write in my book. In fact, I forthrightly accept the doctrine of original sin, which is not easily reconcilable with naïve assumptions of inevitable historical progress.”
DM-Again, Matthew may have a legitimate argument here if what he says here is true. It is unfair and unwise to assume things that are not in any form specifically said or stated. And we must be honest enough to avoid what we can’t document. Failure to up hold a high standard on representation of others, kills our credibility and helps the opposition.
Under “Missing the biblical vision” he states:
“Lastly, Keller claims that “Vines and Wilson concentrated almost wholly on the biblical negatives, the prohibitions against homosexual practice, instead of giving sustained attention to the high, (yes) glorious Scriptural vision of sexuality.” But this isn’t true. I dedicate three entire chapters to a sustained analysis of what Keller calls the “glorious Scriptural vision of sexuality”—chapters 3 (on celibacy), 8 (on marriage), and 9 (on the image of God and its relationship to sexuality and human identity). In fact, I draw on Keller’s own work in The Meaning of Marriage in my discussion of marriage in chapter 8. Keller shows no engagement with any of those chapters in his review.”
DM-Again, if true, this is unfortunately a serious oversight, especially when Matthew has used Keller’s own material in his book. For Keller not to mention it or engage it is very curious.
Having not read Matthew’s book, I do wonder how he can have a high view of sexuality in the Bible while at the same time denying the universal complementarity of the male-female relationship. It seems to me that he and others are engaging in double talk. But that is no reason for Keller to misrepresent Matthew’s efforts, if indeed that is what he has done.
Matthew continues:
“Moreover, Keller’s primary argument against the legitimacy of same-sex relationships in this section is that “male and female have unique, non-interchangeable glories.” But while he writes that male and female represent “pairs of different but complementary things made to work together” and that “they each see and do things that the other cannot,” he remains strikingly vague on the details of divinely-ordained gender complementarity.
It is not enough to say that “male and female have unique, non-interchangeable glories.” In order to make a persuasive argument from Scripture, Keller—and anyone else taking this approach—must define specifically what those “unique, non-interchangeable glories” are, and must then demonstrate that the Bible itself teaches that one or more of those aspects of gender complementarity is exclusively and universally normative. To quote New Testament scholar James Brownson, whose influential work on this exact question Keller does not mention, “What exact aspect of ‘gender complementarity’ is violated by same-sex intimate relationships? And where do you find this particular aspect of gender complementarity taught in Scripture as universally and exclusively normative?”
DM-Now here Matthew shoots himself in the foot while trying to condemn Keller for not being forthcoming with details about biblical complementarity. This argument of Matthew and others against the very clear biblical complementarity between men and women is another dead giveaway that they are not really interested in obeying God, but rather, they want to change God’s natural order to support their sin.
For him and Brownson to even ask for biblical proof of a normative complementarity between men and women, show that they are playing a game of “I don’t see what is clearly there”. Everywhere the male and female relationship is discussed in the Bible, the complementarity is established and affirmed. And Dr. Robert Gagnon, and Dr. James White has fully addressed this fact in their rebuttals of both Matthew and Brownson. So for Matthew to act as if this has not been addressed just because Keller does not do so here is deceptive.
He continues:
“Keller mentions the importance of children to marriage. Does he hold that the capacity for procreation is an essential aspect of marriage, and if so, how does he sustain that argument biblically, especially in light of the fact that the Bible never regards infertile marriages as invalid?”
DM-This is another non-issue that should not be allowed into the debate about homosexuality. It is a distraction tactic. Since infertility, represents a damaged condition existing in some couples, it does not negate the fact that fertility is a major biological norm that separates male/female relationships from same sex relationships, and everyone knows this no matter how deceptively some try to make it an issue of support for homosexuals. He continues:
"He describes male and female as each representing one “half of humanity” who are joined together in the “reunion” of marriage. Does he then believe that biological or anatomical complementarity is an essential aspect of marriage, and if so, how does he square that with Scripture, which never locates marriage’s essence in anything relating to the “fittedness” of male and female anatomies?"
DM-Note the dishonesty, Matthew knows full well that the biological complementarity of the male female make up is an essential aspect of God’s design for marriage. It is so well established in the Bible that there is no need to discuss it as an issue. WE must not allow these deceivers to play these word games with us. We must make them understand that we are not ignorant of their devices. He continues:
“Keller’s statement that “[m]ale and female reshape, learn from, and work together” sounds meaningful on its surface. But in the words of Jim Brownson, without elucidating what the Bible itself teaches authoritatively about male and female, “we leave the door open to each society projecting its own understandings of male and female back onto the will of God, binding people by human convention, rather than by revelation.”
DM-I agree that a better description of the male female relationship would have been helpful, but it is hardly necessary when everyone knows how males and females complement each other biologically, psychologically, socially and morally. This game of show me being played by homosexuals is a distraction tactic and should not be fallen for. He continued:
“Equally important, Dr. Keller did not engage numerous core arguments in my book. Among them: that non-affirming theology has had a devastating impact on LGBT people, which is inconsistent with Jesus’s teaching that good trees will bear good fruit;”
DM-Here Matthew is pushing an argument that has been refuted often, once by Sean McDowell during their debate, and Matthew was not able to defend this argument. So why is he still using it as if it was solid and has not been refuted? Because he knows that others may be influenced by it who have not heard the rebuttals. This demonstrates his lack of honesty and sincerity. Sean even challenged him to stop using it and to remove it from his book. He continued:
“that celibacy is a gift, not a mandate, and that mandatory celibacy as a rejection of gay Christians’ sexuality corrodes the meaning of celibacy as taught by Scripture;”
DM-This is again a crafty non-issue. Homosexuals are not being forced into celibacy, they place themselves under it by insisting on being affirmed and celebrated for having sex with their same sex which is sin. They can marry and have sex with the opposite sex but they don’t want that, that is not our fault or God’s. And we cannot be condemned for upholding God’s word on the matter. So how can we “corrode” the meaning when it simply means to avoid sex? But you see, for homosexuals, it’s all about what they want.
He continued:
“that no Christians prior to the 20th century ever specifically prescribed lifelong celibacy for gay Christians, because same-sex orientation was not acknowledged by Christians until the 20th century;”
DM-This is irrelevant to the debate on homosexuality, what does it matter what “Christians” prescribed or did not concerning celibacy? Sin is to be avoided and that is prescribed by God not Christians, we are obligated to uphold that divine prescription.
He continues:
“that the Bible never teaches that the sin of Sodom was same-sex behavior;”
DM-This is a lie and it is very disrespectful for him to claim this. Since this has been refuted by Conservative Bible scholars and teachers such as Dr. Robert Gagnon, Dr. James White, Dr. Michael Brown and many others, I will just cite Dr. James White's book “The Same Sex Controversy” which he authored with Jeffery D. Niell. On page 28 -42 they give a detailed refutation of this false claim.
I honestly don’t think I need to go any further. I think my point is made that Matthew Vines is not really interested in honest dialogue, he has an ungodly agenda to sanitize homosexuality in the church and we must not allow him to do this.
Matthew begins his conclusion by saying:
“Finally, while I recognize the limitations of space, given that Dr. Keller grounds much of his argument in the notion of gender complementarity, it is a significant oversight that he does not even mention the work of Jim Brownson. Brownson’s 2013 book, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, is easily one of the most important scholarly works from an affirming perspective in recent years. I hope Dr. Keller will read and engage with it soon.”
DM-Matthew knows that Brownson have been challenged by conservative Scholars like Dr. Robert Gagnon, Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White (who also has several Youtube videos in which he examines Brownson and exposes his devious tactics of misinterpreting and misapplying the Bible to support homosexuality. So for him to act as if Keller’s failure to engage Brownson is some how proof that Brownson is reliable when it comes to the Bible, is dishonest. But Brownson is their current champion, and his unwillingness to face conservative scholars in the public arena to defend his false teaching, speaks volumes as to his sincerity and credibility.
He concludes with this statement:
“All that said, while I have offered pointed critiques of Dr. Keller’s review here, I hope he will receive them with the spirit of appreciation and genuine interest in dialogue with which I intend them. Although I have outlined why I believe his review of my book represents an insufficient engagement with my arguments, I would love to meet with him in person to continue the conversation, and perhaps even participate in a public dialogue on the subject. We dearly need both the kind of civil dialogue Dr. Keller has initiated here as well as robust engagement of differing theological viewpoints in order for this conversation to advance both the witness and the mission of the church.”
DM-While I would like to see Keller take Matthew up on this invitation, since Matthew has not been so willing to meet Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. James White or Dr. Robert Gagnon, and has given poor excuses for not doing so, even falsely accusing Dr. White of connecting him with bestiality when White did not do so, I hope however, that Before Keller takes that invitation, that he will consult with Dr. Gagnon, Dr. White and Dr. Brown to prepare, so that he will be able to efficiently handle Matthew and not allow him to wiggle his way out of and around the issues.