Publisher of Matthew Vines' 'God and the Gay Christian' Resigns From NRB

The Christian Post ^

[Faith Presses On]

WaterBrook Multnomah, which has published numerous evangelical bestsellers, has resigned from the National Religious Broadcasters over Matthew Vines' controversial book God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships.

The move comes after it was learned that Christian staff of WaterBrook Multnomah worked on Vines' book, which was published by its imprint, Convergent Books.

A number of conservative commentators have spoken out strongly against Convergent Books' decision to publish the book.

It "is the first step in a larger effort to fundamentally recast long-held, universally acknowledged norms pertaining to sexual ethics," Andrew Walker, director of Policy Studies for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has said.

Matt Barber, founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com, wrote in an article that Convergent has not only the same head as WaterBrook Multnomah – Stephen W. Cobb – but also apparently the same staffers and "the same everything else. Convergent is simply WaterBrook Multnomah by another name."

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sad... what is needed is more like a “How God can love a Christian out of gayness.”

[struggle]

Now pornography, adultery, and fornication need their apologist studies. </sarcasm>

[milagro]

And don’t forget murder, thievery, and idolatry.

[joethedrummer]

You’re exactly right!

What’s next? - “God and the Christian Porn star”?
- “God and the Christian Embezzler”?
- “God and the Christian Hit man”?
- “God and the Christian Sociopath”?

...you see, ALL these things are A-okay in God’s eyes... that ‘sin’ stuff is SOOOOOOO .... OLD testament and irrelevant to TODAY’S “Christian”... blah, blah, blah....

[Yosemitest]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "Gay Homosexual Christians" !

They refuse to believe that Jesus was also LORD of the Old Testament, that He did NOT do away with the Law, and clearly states how to handle homosexuals.

When will people stop being deceived by Satan ?

Homosexuals have been "MARKED" by God and we have been COMMANDED on how to do justice to them.

We MUST OBEY GOD !

People need to not only read, BUT STUDY this link
I especially agree with its last paragraph.

" The Church NEVER can and NEVER will give satisfaction—
and the homosexualist knows it,
for he knows the words against him are INERADICABLE
—to the declared and impenitent homosexual,
the person who, through an act of the vermiculate will,
has identified his person with a sin,
whether HE DEMANDS ACCEPTANCE OF HIS SIN
through "love,"
or VINDICATION
THROUGH IDENTIFICATION OF HIS PERCEIVED ENEMIES AS BIGOTS.
Whether HE PRESENTS HIMSELF as an object of love or indignation,
what HE DEMANDS in either case IS ACCEPTANCE
not of the person,
but OF THE SIN-bound and SIN-DEFINED person.
HE DEMANDS the declaration of SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY that
THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED about this BINDING OF MAN TO SIN,
and ASSURANCE that THIS MONSTROUS AMALGAM can indeed ENTER the kingdom of heaven.
This can NEVER HAPPEN among Christians UNTIL THEY ABANDON Christianity,
WHICH IS AT WAR WITH EVERY SIN,
and whose indelible constitution
places ALL PERVERSIONS of the perfect man
AT THE MUZZLE of its canons. "

There will be NO HOMOSEXUALS ( NOT ONE ) in the afterlife.
Homosexuals WILL BE ASHES UNDER the soles of your feet ! ! !

[Mrs. Don-o]

I posted this at their site (o tried to: it didn't seem to go through):

---

"The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships."

This is a strangely misleading statement. Of course loving, committed same-sex "relationships" are OK. It describes almost all of the relationships in the Bible: fathers and sons, brothers, cousins, Ruth & Naomi, Mary & Martha of Bethany. These were friend and kinship relationships, and did not imply anything about sexual appetite or gratification.

What the Bible condemns is seeking sexual contact outside of man-woman marriage. It's not the "relationship" (if that means friendship or kinship loyalty) that's a sin --- far from it, friendship is good. It's the misuse of the sexual function.

You can certainly have a deep, committed friendship without going for genital arousal. So this use of the word "relationship" is, in this context, an apparently intentional ambiguity.

Right from the git-go, dishonest argumentation.

[SoFloFreeper]

They should not have had to resign. They should have been removed. See: First Corinthians.

[FourtySeven]

I agree there absolutely won’t be any unrepentant homosexuals in heaven, but those who have repented of the sin of homosexual behavior might get there.

[afsnco]

Roger that. “Homosexual Christian” is oxymoronic. Sort of like saying “dry water” or “cold flames.”

[ConservingFreedom]

“Vines is wholly dependent on scholars and books that are no respecters of biblical authority. He has drawn exclusively from a pool of scholars stalwartly liberal and hostile to evangelical hermeneutics. What Vines has done is put together a piecemeal re-telling of liberal hermeneutics for a lay-level readers.

[...] “Vines’ basic thesis regarding orientation is not derived from the text of Scripture. Rather, the moral force of his argument in favor of legitimizing homosexual desire is used to explain away the text. Which is to say, he’s relying on some other authority for his basic claim—namely, an extra-textual moral authority that neither the history of scriptural interpretation nor church history considers valid.”

- http://www.canonandculture.com/reformation-or-revolution-a-review-of-god-and-the-gay-christian

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not just a denial of the text of Scripture, but of the interpretation of those texts which has been consistent in the Church on all continents, in all centuries, and in all cultures for 2,000 years.

It therefore necessarily denies that the Holy Spirit is teaching and leading the Church. It's saying Jesus' promises concerning the Spirit and the Church were unreliable.

[Yosemitest]

"those who have repented of the sin of homosexual behavior might get there."

Those who have REPENTED,

would NOT be identifying themselves as so-called "GAY"
( read HOMOSEXUAL, which the Bible identifies as REPROBATE ),
which they most certainly ARE NOT.

They're some of the MOST self-hating, MISERABLE people on the face of the Earth.

You need to re-READ comment #6, especially the last part.

[cloudmountain]

We hate the SIN, not the SINNER.

No need to throw stones, either. I will always remember that scene in SON OF GOD where the adulteress was about to be stoned and Jesus told the people there who were "without sin" to cast the first stone at her.

It was one thing to read about it and quite another to see it acted out. It sure brought it home to me.

[AnalogReigns]

Liberal Christians love to quote the “he who is without sin cast the first stone” story.

They almost always forget the last line of the story though, Jesus’ command to the adulterous woman to “Go and sin no more!”

[Yosemitest]

Remember this:

" For I say unto you,
That unto every one which hath
shall be given;
and from him that hath not,
even that he hath
shall be taken away from him.
But those mine enemies,
which would not
that I should reign over them,
bring hither,
and slay them before me. "

[cloudmountain]

Remember this:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

[cloudmountain]

Liberal Christians love to quote the “he who is without sin cast the first stone” story.
They almost always forget the last line of the story though, Jesus’ command to the adulterous woman to “Go and sin no more!”

I didn't forget it. My point was to not throw the first stone. But, maybe you didn't get that. That was my point.

[Blue Collar Christian]

“I posted this at their site (o tried to: it didn’t seem to go through):”

Your comment is there. Good post.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you-— now I see it.