Matthew Vines Reformation Project trainee: male on male sex romps okay as long as they are “Christ honoring”
Interesting point raised by Stasis Online about how followers of Matthew Vines’ gay christian Reformation Project regurgitate silly religious context memes as justification for homosexuality. Basically, they contend that same sex relationships are okay as long as they are “loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring”. Please don’t laugh, they are serious. Cultural context is very important to the reformers. This group of reformers all born in within the last 50 years or so have concluded that the preceding 2,000 years of church doctrines, leaders who personally walked with or were called by Christ (Paul, Peter, Jude, etc) and even social norms ALL got it wrong. Even Peter, Paul, Jude and the apostolic fathers who shed their blood for the church actually lived in the culture they wrote about, the RPers say they got it wrong. As one wrote on a Charisma comment section: “One has only to do the work and learn for themselves to understand cultural context and original language to see the Bible was never speaking about loving, monogamous Christ honoring same sex relationships.”
The revelation of arrogance and ignorance of the arrogance encased in such words are stunning. But such are the enlightened beliefs of the reformers.
As Stasis pointed out there’s some serious intellectual thuggery going on with Matthew Vines and his Reformation Project. How can you assert cultural context is important to the textual revelation but ignore the implications of your own textual gymnastics? We decided to give the cultural context theory a whirl and see if its legitimacy is adaptable to the other sexual prohibitions located in close proximity to the homosexual prohibition.
The assertion is that homosexuality is exempted because in context a “loving, monogamous Christ-honoring” man on man sex romp is acceptable. The Reformation Project’s thesis reads like this:
Sex between two men or two women is okay as long as its loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring. But does it work with the other perversions? Let’s see if they work.
Sex with your mother is okay as long as its loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring.
Sex with animals is okay as long as its loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring.
Sex with your blood brother or sister is okay as long as its loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring.
Sex with your grandchildren is okay as long as its loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring.
Sex with your neighbor’s wife is okay as long as its loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring.
All of these sexual relationships are banned along with homosexual relationships in the same passage and provides no distinctions between any of them. There are no astericks on the homosexual prohibition (vs22). If the context is really about loving, monogamous and Christ-honoring relationship why doesn’t it work with all the other prohibitions?
Can someone inform the Reformers that what they are trying to reform cant be reformed because the original author wont allow it? Even scarier?: Matthew Vines may be the new Charles Manson of the gay religious world. His followers seem ready to kill the truth on command for him.