The very existence of this book embodies an incomprehensible stance and slippery slope to oblivion for some. To others, this book is a ray of hope in a world that seems unable to reconcile their orientation with a faith they cherish. As far as the discussion around the issue of affirming vs. non-affirming Christians goes, I found this book to take a serious, mature look at the implications of it for Christians at all points on the sexual-orientation spectrum. Whether or not you agree with Matthew Vines's conclusions, this book is important in that it examines the very core of the tenets the Church holds regarding sexuality, and sheds some light on what it may mean for us today.

Rather than do what so many books on this topic have done: either take some broad license to stretch logic and jump to unsupported conclusions or delve into the topic with a preconceived conclusion, having "settled" it in a diatribe dripping with words like "unnatural," and "abomination," this book dives into the six instances where same-sex practice is mentioned in the Bible, and parses out their meaning. Over the course of the book, the idea is developed that, just like "slaves obey masters" and "women keep silent," the verses that speak to this issue may not be as black and white as has been the tradition, held as binding for all eternity.

Matthew Vines, claiming from the get-go to hold a high view of scripture and biblical authority, leaves few stones unturned, if any. I appreciated his ability to rely on the work of historical and biblical scholars in examining the contexts and original Hebrew and Greek of the texts themselves. He calls to light some inaccurate misunderstandings that have shaped many churches' understanding of sexuality in light of our modern context, and explores the contradictions to the nature of God and creation some of our beliefs have fallen prey to (perhaps by chance) over the years.

The greatest asset to Vines's thesis is the fact that the ancient/biblical world had no sense of sexual-orientation in the same way that ours does. The concept of sexual-orientation (or even what has been developed as Queer Theory) didn't exist in the ancient world. This fact is vital to keep in mind while discussing the assumptions and commands regarding sexual behavior in the Bible. This is not used to rubber-stamp voracious immoral sexual appetites or lustful immorality, but to give a much-needed nuance to the consideration of monogamous, committed, self-sacrificing romantic relationships. Vines uses this concept to shed light on the troubling implications couched in several ideas, including:

- The fact that "ex-gay" ministries have very little success, and a high (for lack of a better term) recidivism rate. Not to mention the depression, anxiety, and high suicide rate of those caught in a condition of self-loathing for scripture's sake. This is because—psychologically, emotionally, and sexually speaking—the idea that one can change their sexual orientation is based more on pseudo-science than truth, and any attempts to do so involve the process of effectively hating one's body/self because of an attraction ingrained in one's being. You cannot separate yourself from your sexuality. Vines even gives a troubling example that has been reported as frequent practice in conversion-therapy settings: the manipulation of one's memories/past experiences to attempt to explain same-sex attraction as a result of poor parenting, absent emotional attention from a parent of the same gender, and, even more heinously, abuse where there wasn't any.

- The idea of forced celibacy. While celibacy is a noble calling (emphasis on the call), to suggest that it is the only option for gay Christians does, in fact, pose some troubling realities. If celibacy is truly a calling—a spiritual gift, almost, in the way it is described by Paul and exemplified in Jesus, then it seems counterintuitive to insist that it be mandated by people who often do not take it seriously themselves, or consider it a reality for heterosexual individuals in light of social/cultural pressures to create and fill our churches with the "nuclear family."

- The ruling idea in this discussion for non-affirming Christians is that gender complimentarity (the literal anatomical way a man and woman's body fit together) is the standard to hold all sexual practice to. When, as Vines sees it, the reality is that God created Adam and Eve to give Adam a being that was more like himself than his surroundings, rather than a being unlike himself (the puzzle-piece concept). The idea behind God's image in both men and women here being that procreation was a need for the world and companionship with a similar being was prioritized, rather than the opposite gender-complimentarity being set as the litmus test for all time, considering in the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no "male nor female" among others.

Vines continues to define romantic relationships in terms I believe are healthier: not based solely on sexual need (or uninhibited sexual behavior), but on the self-sacrificing, image-bearer dignifying, committed love that denotes so many relationships built on the foundation of Christ.

There is much more I could analyze from this book, but I suggest you simply read it yourself, whether or not you agree with the premise. At the very least, it will help you navigate the reality we live in more tactfully and sensitively. I found it prescient to conversations that will continue to come up within our churches (as they should) in the near future.

The fact of the matter is this: in my own experience, I've witnessed a special disdain shown for gay people, especially in the church, as if to suggest that they are culpable in committing the worst sin possible. I've watched for too long as heterosexual relationships (often unhealthy ones) have passed along unnoticed and unscrutinized because of their assumed normality. I've felt the sting of being neglected as a single, supposedly eligible Christian in an environment that stresses the husband-wife-children model. The Church has done a poor job of including and integrating LGBT people in their thoughts and communities—where I guarantee someone (who may even surprise you) is sitting quietly in a pew feeling more isolated and alienated than ever because of a secret they could never imagine divulging without accepting a notion that they, intrinsically and by design, are beings caught in the snare of sin by simply existing. Too long have we offered a carrot-stick view of sexuality: where one must choose between faith in God while abandoning themselves seemingly wholesale, or being excommunicated from the Christian family due to the fact that they acknowledge their individual integrity as a human being with needs and feelings. Our churches should reject this dichotomy. Our churches must be a place of redemption, not self-loathing. A place of reliance on a broken community that is there for each other as the body of Christ, loving the Imago Dei in each man, woman, child—of all skin tones, sexual orientations, income levels, and positions in our social contexts. The time for these discussions has long been overdue, and I'm thankful (at the very least) for the perspective Vines brings to this discussion.