This review is presented as an effort to help inform the reader of the dispute going on over the issue of Homosexuality being accepted by the Christian Church. And since Matthew Vines seems to be one of the main people pushing to get a certain kind of homosexuality to be accepted by the Christian church as a biblically accepted idea, I feel that any efforts to expose him, good or not so good, should be examined for the benefit of helping true Christians to better articulate and present our defense against such false teaching.
This review is not meant to offend or disrespect anyone, and certainly it is not intended as a rebuke towards Tim Keller although I do here in express some concerns about his work and ideas. In fact, I am grateful to Tim Keller for his efforts in addressing the Matthew Vines issue, because his and other Christian efforts to expose the false teaching of Matthew Vines has help me and others to get a better understanding about the efforts being made to infiltrate the Christian Church with false ideas about homosexuality.
It is therefore my hope that my review will aid in this discussion rather than be taken as an effort to discredit.
Please note also that I have published a review of Matthew Vines’ reply to Tim Keller, and that review is available on this site.
Danzil Monk Sr.
“The relationship of homosexuality to Christianity is one of the main topics of discussion in our culture today. In the fall of last year I wrote a review of books by Wesley Hill and Sam Allberry that take the historic Christian view, in Hill’s words: “that homosexuality was not God’s original creative intention for humanity ... and therefore that homosexual practice goes against God’s express will for all human beings, especially those who trust in Christ.
There are a number of other books that take the opposite view, namely that the Bible either allows for or supports same sex relationships. Over the last year or so I (and other pastors at Redeemer) have been regularly asked for responses to their arguments. The two most read volumes taking this position seem to be those by Matthew Vines and Ken Wilson. The review of these two books will be longer than usual because the topic is so contested today and, while I disagree with the authors’ theses, a too-brief review can’t avoid appearing cursory and dismissive. Hence the length.
I see six basic arguments that these books and others like them make.”
From here Keller responds to Matthew and Wilson under the six basic arguments that he thinks they and others who share their convictions about Homosexuality and the Bible make.
Under the section: “Knowing gay people personally” he states:
“Vines and Wilson relate stories of people who were sure that the Bible condemned homosexuality. However, they were brought to a change of mind through getting to know gay people personally. It is certainly important for Christians who are not gay to hear the hearts and stories of people who are attracted to the same sex.
And when I see people discarding their older beliefs that homosexuality is sinful after engaging with loving, wise, gay people, I’m inclined to agree that those earlier views were likely defective. In fact, they must have been essentially a form of bigotry. They could not have been based on theological or ethical principles, or on an understanding of historical biblical teaching. They must have been grounded instead on a stereotype of gay people as worse sinners than others (which is itself a shallow theology of sin.) So I say good riddance to bigotry. However, the reality of bigotry cannot itself prove that the Bible never forbids homosexuality. We have to look to the text to determine that.”
DM- Note that while I agree with him here, there is another possibility, but Keller and some others will not even consider it, I’m not sure why, and that is that it is quite possible that such people were never truly Christians to begin with. Why that is not considered should be questioned. If true, that would certainly explain the sudden change of heart and theology.
Under the section titled “Consulting historical scholarship” he states:
“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. 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.
These arguments were first asserted in the 1980s by John Boswell and Robin Scroggs. Vines, Wilson and others are essentially repopularizing them. However, they do not seem to be aware that the great preponderance of the best historical scholarship since the 1980s — by the full spectrum of secular, liberal and conservative researchers — has rejected that assertion. Here are two examples.
Bernadette Brooten and William Loader have presented strong evidence that homosexual orientation was known in antiquity.”
DM-Considering the fact that just about every Christian who deals with this issue tends to cite Brooten and Loader, it would have been prudent for Keller to include some of the other “great [preponderances] of the best historical scholarship since the 1980s that has rejected that assertion”.
By using the two examples that everyone else seem to be using, he gives the impression that he has cut corners to prepare this response, and is just copying what others have already argued about this.
While that is certainly permissible, there is a danger of unintentionally including any errors that others who have copied references may have made.
He continues:
“Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium, for example, tells a story about how 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. Whether Aristophanes believed this myth literally is not the point. It was an explanation of a phenomenon the ancients could definitely see — that some people are inherently attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex.
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. Nonetheless “Nothing indicates that Paul is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable.” (Loader, Making Sense of Sex, p.137).
I urge readers to familiarize themselves with this research. A good place to start is the Kindle book by William Loader Sexuality in the New Testament (2010) or his much larger The New Testament on Sexuality (2012). Loader is the most prominent expert on ancient and biblical views of sexuality, having written five large and two small volumes in his lifetime. It is worth noting that Loader himself does not personally see anything wrong with homosexual relationships; he just — rightly and definitively — proves that you can’t get the Bible itself to give them any support.”
DM-Matthew Vines seems to take issue with how Keller represents his book in this section. But since in my opinion, the issue is not New Testament sexuality vs Modern understanding of sexuality, but rather, what God through the Apostle Paul has to say about sinful sexual activity, this whole section is useless.
I do however address Matthew’s objections to Keller in this section in my review of Matthew’s reply to Keller.
In the section titled “Re-categorizing same sex relations” Keller states:
“A third line of reasoning in these volumes and others like them involves recategorization. In the past, homosexuality was categorized by all Christian churches and theology as sin.”
DM-I think it is unwise to use the term “all” churches since there is ample reason the believe that some church somewhere could have broke from biblical truth and sided with homosexuals. If one such example can be found it could make his claim seem dishonest and his other points seem unworthy of trust.
When dealing with such groups as atheist and homosexuals and other anti-Christians it is very important not to give them any reason to think we are dishonest in our arguments and claims.
He continues:
“However, many argue that homosexuality should be put in the same category as slavery and segregation. 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. Therefore, just as Christians interpreted the Bible to support segregation and slavery until times changed, so Christians should change their interpretations about homosexuality as history moves forward.
But historians such as Mark Noll (America’s God, 2005 and The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, 2006) have shown the 19th century position some people took that the Bible condoned race-based chattel slavery was highly controversial and never a consensus. Most Protestants in Canada and Britain (and many in the northern U.S. states) condemned it as being wholly against the Scripture. Rodney Stark (For the Glory of God, 2003) points out that the Catholic church also came out early against the African slave trade. David L. Chappell in his history of the Civil Rights Movement (A Stone of Hope, 2003) went further. He proves that even before the Supreme Court decisions of the mid-50s, almost no one was promoting the slender and forced biblical justifications for racial superiority and segregation. Even otherwise racist theologians and ministers could not find a basis for white supremacy in the Bible.
So we see the analogy between the church’s view of slavery and its view of homosexuality breaks down. Up until very recently, all Christian churches and theologians unanimously read the Bible as condemning homosexuality.”
DM-Again, if he is going to use such language, he should have qualified it by explaining what he means by “Christian Churches” and “Theologians”. Because there were no doubt professing Christian and Actual theologians back then that were not biblical Christians and who were rebellious and even non-Christian who were none the less theologians. And if any of them can be sited, it would be perceived as proof that Tim has lied.
He continues:
“By contrast, there was never any consensus or even a majority of churches that thought slavery and segregation were supported by the Bible. David Chappell shows that even within the segregationist South, efforts to support racial separation from the Bible collapsed within a few years. Does anyone really think that within a few years from now there will be no one willing to defend the traditional view of sexuality from biblical texts? The answer is surely no. This negates the claim that the number, strength, and clarity of those biblical texts supposedly supporting slavery and those texts condemning homosexuality are equal, and equally open to changed interpretations.
Wilson puts forward a different form of the recategorization argument when he says the issue of same-sex relations in the church is like issues of divorce and remarriage, Christian participation in war, or the use of in vitro fertilization. We can extend that list to include matters such as women’s roles in ministry and society, as well as views of baptism, charismatic gifts, and so on. These are “issues where good Christians differ.” We may believe that another Christian with a different view of divorce is seriously wrong, but we don’t say this means his or her view undermines orthodox Christian faith. Wilson, Vines, and many others argue that same-sex relations must now be put into this category. Since we see that there are sincere Christians who disagree over this, it is said, we should “agree to disagree” on this.
However history shows that same-sex relations do not belong in this category, either. Around each of the other items on Wilson’s list there are long-standing and historical divisions within the church. There have always been substantial parts of the church that came to different positions on these issues. But until very, very recently, there had been complete unanimity about homosexuality in the church across all centuries, cultures, and even across major divisions of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions.”
DM-Again, I think that Keller here is over stating his case when he uses, words like “complete unanimity”. I doubt that he could document or prove such “complete” unanimity on this issue, and so it is not prudent for him to make such a wide sweeping claim.
He continues:
“So homosexuality is categorically different. One has to ask, then, why is it the case that literally no church, theologian, or Christian thinker or movement ever thought that any kind of same sex relationships was allowable until now?”
DM-This is the third time he has used this all-encompassing statement and I believe it is an unwise thing to do. If one such church, theologian or Christian thinker can be found that did, he would lose credibility and his views though correct could be undermined by the evidence if it could be documented.
Additionally, it detracts from the fact that such evidence would not support in any way the legitimacy of biblical support for any kind of same sex, sexual relationships.
He continues:
“One answer to the question is an ironic one. During the Civil War, British Presbyterian biblical scholars told their southern American colleagues who supported slavery that they were reading the Scriptural texts through cultural blinders. They wanted to find evidence for their views in the Bible and voila — they found it. If no Christian reading the Bible — across diverse cultures and times — ever previously discovered support for same-sex relationships in the Bible until today, it is hard not to wonder if many now have new cultural spectacles on, having a strong predisposition to find in these texts evidence for the views they already hold.
What are those cultural spectacles? The reason that homosexual relationships make so much more sense to people today than in previous times is because they have absorbed late modern western culture’s narratives about the human life. Our society presses its members to believe “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.
These narratives have been well analyzed by scholars such as Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor. They are beliefs about the nature of reality that are not self-evident to most societies and they carry no more empirical proof than any other religious beliefs. They are also filled with inconsistencies and problems. Both Vines and Wilson largely assume these cultural narratives. It is these faith assumptions about identity and freedom that make the straightforward reading of the biblical texts seem so wrong to them. They are the underlying reason for their views, but they are never identified or discussed.”
DM: Matthew Vines in his response to Keller, takes issue with Keller’s including him with others who may hold this view that Keller is discussing. He claims that he has never believed or defended this idea. If true, this would indeed be a problem for Keller. It would at least indicate, as Matthew seems to suggest, that Keller is at least on some points in his comments, relying on assumption and or simply parroting what others are convinced of who share Matthew’s defense of homosexuality.
Again, this would demonstrate that Keller was cutting corners and not doing careful research, or, as Mathew suggest, he has not really even read Matthew’s entire book.
If so, this would be bad, and it would bring into question Keller’s integrity as a Christian thinker on the fine details of matters that he addresses.
Tim Keller is correct however, about the cultural influence on the thinking of many concerning homosexuality. But he fails to include a crucial aspect of this that is behind this change of thinking, namely, the homosexual activist initiated agendas to convert society by using education, the media, Hollywood, politics and also lies and deceptions. Their tactics of misinformation, misrepresentation, intimidation and violence, has played a major role in accomplishing “late modern western culture’s narratives about the human life”.
This would have been the perfect place for Keller to briefly describe the homosexual agenda that has been in full force for the past 20 or so years, their use of TV and their control of the networks and productions that have been used to influence viewers to favor homosexuals, their infiltration of the public education system and injection of pro-homosexual material in public schools and colleges and so on. Leaving out this critical information was a major flop.
He continues:
In his section titled “Revising biblical authority” he says:
“Vines and Wilson claim that they continue to hold to a high view of biblical authority, and that they believe the Bible is completely true, but that they don’t think it teaches all same-sex relations are wrong.”
DM- Again Keller misses an opportunity to state the obvious and important fact that their claims of holding a high view of biblical authority cannot be possible given their teaching and efforts to corrupt sound biblical interpretation and application. I believe that this must be constantly stressed by us when we are addressing the tactics of those who misinterpret the Bible as those in the Reformed Project and others do.
He continues:
“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? Here Vines is rejecting the New Testament understanding that the ceremonial laws of Moses around the sacrificial system and ritual purity were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, but that the moral law of the Old Testament is still in force. Hebrews 10:16, for example, tells us that the Holy Spirit writes “God’s laws” on Christians’ hearts (so they are obviously still in force), even though that same book of the Bible tells us that some of those Mosaic laws — the ceremonial — are no longer in binding on us. This view has been accepted by all branches of the church since New Testament times.
When Vines refuses to accept this ancient distinction between the ceremonial and moral law, he is doing much more than simply giving us an alternative interpretation of the Old Testament — he is radically revising what biblical authority means.”
DM- Again Tim uses mild words that do not efficiently state the case. “Radically revising” is an understatement to say the least. The truth is that Vines is rejecting truth and promoting false doctrine. Why Tim seems to be reluctant to use such language even though it is more accurate is perhaps due to his view of what constitutes being non combative as he expresses in other terms in the conclusion of this piece where he credits these guys for their “maintaining respectful and gracious tone”, and not being a part of the angry caustic flow”. Because Tim says, “civility and love in these discussions is fast going away” and was trying to match their “civility”. But in trying to do so, he has in my opinion played into their hand. They often use niceness to cushion their opponent’s rebuttal and to disarm their opponents. This is done also to prevent their opponents from describing them as they truly are for the sake of “seeming” to be nice and loving. But doing so to such an extent, robs us of our responsibility to speak clear truth and make sure that the listener understand how dangerous such false teachings and teachers are to Christianity and the efforts of the church to reach souls with the true gospel.
I submit to you that Jude and 2 peter incorporates the agenda and mind sets of the wicked and not all their actions are apparently openly wicked, but some are devious and deceptive and even alluring. This is what I see the Reformed Project people doing. They are attempting to lure us into their web of false doctrine with the tools of niceness. Tim should know this and point it out. In return, we can be nice but brutally honest and clear. We must be if we are going to help those in these groups that are sincerely deceived.
Keller continues:
“When he says “Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong,” and then applies this to homosexuality (though assuming that Leviticus 19:18 — the Golden Rule — is still in force), he is assuming that it is Christians themselves, not the Bible, who have the right to decide which parts of the Bible are essentially now out of date. That decisively shifts the ultimate authority to define right and wrong onto the individual Christian and away from the biblical text.
The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.
Vines asserts that he maintains a belief in biblical authority, but with arguments like this one he is actually undermining it. This represents a massive shift in historic Christian theology and life.”
DM: Notice here that Keller acknowledges that Matthew Vines “undermines” the Bible’s authority by suggesting that it is Christians who determine what does and does not still apply to us in the Bible. But he does not go that extra mile and state that Matthew Vines is a false prophet, and intentional deceiver, based on the manner in which he approaches the key Bible texts that clearly define why homosexuality/Sodomy, the act of same sex activity is sin.
Keller continues:
In the section titled “Being on the wrong side of history” he states:
“More explicit in Wilson’s volume than Vines' is 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. Wilson says that the “complex forces” of history showed Christians that they were wrong about slavery and something like that is happening now with homosexuality.”
DM- Again Matthew Vines objects to Keller’s including him in this statement since according to Matthew, he never held or expressed this view. Keller does indeed seem to connect Matthew with this view by his use of the words “More explicit-then Vines”, suggesting that Vines did too but only not as explicit as Wilson. If it can be shown that Matthew has not expressed such a view, Keller is once again shown to be guilty of misrepresenting Matthew due to assumptions or trusting other author’s material carelessly.
Keller continues:
“Charles Taylor, however, explains how this idea of inevitable historical progress developed out of the Enlightenment optimism about human nature and reason. It is another place where these writers seem to uncritically adopt background understandings that are foreign to the Bible. If we believe in the Bible’s authority, then shifts in public opinion should not matter. The Christian faith will always be offensive to every culture at some points.
And besides, if you read Eric Kaufmann’s Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? (2010) and follow the latest demographic research, you will know that the world is not inevitably becoming more secular. The percentage of the world’s population that are non-religious, and that put emphasis on individuals determining their own moral values, is shrinking. The more conservative religious faiths are growing very fast. No one studying these trends believes that history is moving in the direction of more secular societies.”
DM-If what Keller says here about Wilson is true, then what he says here does have some useful relevance if for nothing more than to refute Wilson on this point.
But since I have only reviewed these exchanges between Keller and Vines concerning Matthew Vines’ book, what Wilson did or did not believe or say is beyond my focus here. Wilson will have to respond for himself.
Keller concludes:
In the section titled “Missing the biblical vision” he states:
“The saddest thing for me as a reader was how, in books on the Bible and sex, 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. Both authors rightly say that the Bible calls for mutual loving relationships in marriage, but it points to far more than that.”
DM- Here once again Matthew Vines in his response to Keller’s review of his book, accuses Keller of misrepresenting his view. In his response to Keller, Matthew says that Keller is wrong when he states that he concentrated almost wholly on the biblical negatives, the prohibitions against homosexual practice instead of giving sustained attention to the high-glorious scriptural vision of sexuality. And unless Keller and Mathew both have an extremely different idea of what constitutes the high, glorious scriptural vision of sexuality, Matthew seems to be correct here.
Under “Missing the biblical vision” Matthew 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).”
DM- Since I have not read Matthew Vines’ book and do not have a copy to check, I will have to defer to the book’s author here, that is until and unless Keller should publish a reply, or better yet, take Matthew Vines up on his invitation to have a public dialogue on his book.
Until then I will just work with what I have before me now.
If what Matthew Vines says is true, this would be bad enough, but Matthew takes this even deeper by stating next:
“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-All I can say is…Ouch! It would be bad enough to be caught misrepresenting your opponent, but to have your opponent document that what you accused them of is false by pointing out how their addressing arguments in your own material on the issue (that you did not even bother to engage), proves you have misrepresented them, is an even greater embarrassment if true.
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 myself, I do wonder how Matthew 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 who share his view 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.
Keller continued by proceeding to address that high sexuality which he claimed Matthew failed to address, and why homosexuality cannot measure up to or honor that high standard.
Then Keller concludes by saying:
“This review has been too brief to give these authors the credit they are due for maintaining a respectful and gracious tone throughout. We live in a time in which civility and love in these discussions is fast going away, and I am thankful the authors are not part of the angry, caustic flow. In this regard they are being good examples, but because I think their main points are wrong, I have had to concentrate on them as I have in this review. I hope I have done so with equal civility.”
DM- My final thoughts:
While I think Keller has indeed succeeded in addressing their false teaching with civility, it seems that in his effort to do so, he has sacrificed accuracy and efficient representation of those he has sought to address.
My concern for Tim Keller and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ who seek to defend the faith, is that we must better understand and honor the importance of our integrity when addressing what we claim are the errors and false teaching of others.
Whenever we fail to be accurate in our representation of those who are deceivers, we give those same deceivers “apparent” justification for condemning our efforts to expose them.
I do not know Tim Keller, nor am I acquainted with his ministry. I have only briefly spoken to a member of his office staff who was professional and kind.
I have however heard other ministers whom I respect express concerns about Tim Keller’s apparent leanings toward Critical Theory. That, along with the willingness of Matthew Vines to have a public dialogue with him, when he would not willingly do so with Dr. James White or Dr. Robert Gagnon, indicates to me that Matthew sees Tim Keller as an easy target to defeat at the least, and as a potential ally at worst.
It is my prayers that neither are the case, and that Tim Keller will rise to the occasion to make right any wrongs he has committed in his effort to respond to Matthew Vines, and that he will Connect with informed conservative Christians who can help him to be more accurate in his representations of others and in his personal biblical views.
I have watch several of Tim Keller’s videos on Youtube, one where he was interviewed by David Eisenbach,- “What do Christians have against Homosexuality? Tim Keller at Veritas (8 of 11)” in which he clearly blunders in his reply to a simple question about homosexuality.
Additionally, Tim Keller has been invited as a guest on Google Talks, and Google seems to be very selective in who they allow a platform to speak. They are leftist and to my knowledge they do not allow truly conservative Bible teachers on their platform. Dr. Brown, Dr. White and Dr. Gagnon for instance have never been invited to speak for them, and yet both Matthew Vines and Tim Keller have.
And finally, Tim Keller’s public statements “like the son losing the infinite love of the Father” concerns me and other Christians.
I don’t know what is going on with this brother, but being a pastor in a city like New York may be taking its toll on his spiritual insight.
I pray that we do not completely lose him to the insane heresy of false Christianity, and that he will ally himself with better Christian friends who can help him.
God knows we all can improve.