A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality
Afterword.
In my responses to Vines’ questions with respect to slavery and cosmology, I was a little hasty in calling these questions “red herrings.” In this case, however, I believe Vines was building an argument that can be stated as the following syllogism:
- The Church believed, based on information that was outdated, that the Bible teaches that slavery was acceptable.
- The Church believed, based on information that was outdated, that the Bible teaches the earth revolved around the sun.
- The Church believes, based on outdated information, the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always wrong.
- New discoveries tell us the Church was wrong about slavery and cosmology, and that the Church is probably wrong about homosexuality.
- Therefore, the Church ought to embrace homosexuality.
I realize this is a little oversimplified, but I think his view boils down to this. I already addressed the problem of using the slavery issue as an analogy. With respect to cosmology, it is not a moral issue, so changing one’s interpretation of Biblical texts carries no moral consequences. At the time the Church believed in the geocentric model, (earth as the center) it was based on Ptolemaic cosmology that was never intended to describe the world as it actually is (scientific realism) but simply offered a model for the study of the world. When Copernicus and Galileo showed the sun to be the center of the solar system, they were discovering how the world actually is. Up until that time, there was no reason to question geocentric interpretations of the Bible. This counterexample from Vines is much more vulnerable to the charge of being a red herring.
Another problem for Vines’ method, which seeks to build a case for reinterpreting Scripture on the basis that “the Church has been wrong about…” is that you can apply this to any doctrine. Why not question the command, “Thou shall not murder?” On this view, one could concede that abortion really is murder, but since preserving the mother’s happiness and career opportunities was unknown to the writers of the Bible, and they were sexist anyway, we could argue for allowing abortion even if we admit it is murder. Moreover, these writers were unaware of the expenses involved in caring for the elderly and disabled, therefore killing them would be okay. Make no mistake, I DO NOT BELIEVE VINES HOLDS THESE VIEWS! My point is that once you start down the road of “morality changes because the writers of Scripture didn’t know…” it can be a logical slippery slope. It also illustrates the risks of fallen human beings interpreting Scripture in light of their experience. It seems to me that since most Christians who interpret the Bible in this manner already agree with Vines. (That’s a guess. I could be mistaken.) If Vines wants to convince the rest of us, he needs to persuade us as to why we ought to adopt his method of interpretation.
The Apologetics Minion 
Good post, and a good way to wrap up a solid series. You wrote, “Another problem for Vines’ method, which seeks to build a case for reinterpreting Scripture on the basis that “the Church has been wrong about…” is that you can apply this to any doctrine.”
This is a sharp observation and it also raises a related question regarding the moral life of the church: Once we arrogate to ourselves the right to pitch certain moral boundaries that are consistently and clearly taught throughout the Word (throughout the OT & NT), and the entirety of church history, who in the local church will then function as the source of authority by which we can remain up-to-date on the latest moral constraints no longer apply?
This question is important to the life of the church (and I have only briefly sketched the dilemma), but I think that it’s important to consider. I don’t doubt that the need for such authority has always existed in the church, but I do doubt that giving anyone the “authority” to dismiss the clear moral teaching of the Word can do anything but subvert the witness of local church (Rev. 2:20). Isn’t this functionally what ends up happening…
In those days, there was no authority in the church. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It goes even deeper than that. John Q. Pewsitter needs to first understand that there is such a thing as objective morality, that is, things that are good and evil in and of themselves, and genuine duties and obligations. For authority, we must look to Scripture, and any disagreement must deal with the biblical data, recognizing that we must interpret our intuitions and experiences in light of Scripture, not the other way around.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLiked by 1 person