Matt Barber published an exclusive story on how WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group, via its Convergent Brooks imprint, published a book by Matthew Vines which subverts Christianity through historically inaccurate claims:
WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group is planning to release, through its liberal imprint Convergent Books, a manuscript titled God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships.
Is the Christian world about to suffer through another World Vision moment?
The book’s author, Matthew Vines, is a homosexual activist and Bible revisionist known for manipulating Christian terminology to advance the counter-Christian homosexualist agenda.
Despite his frequent use of a Christian-like lexicon, Vines surprisingly admits to running an apostate enterprise that he calls The Reformation Project. An unabashed denier of Biblical teaching on sexual morality, Vines has publicly acknowledged that his goal is to “reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The book is scheduled to be published on April 22, 2014.
Yet WaterBrook Multnomah has defended its decision to publish Vines’s book, calling the opposition to it a “distraction.”
The WaterBrook Multnomah reaction to God and the Gay Christian, as well as the reaction from so-called American Christian leaders, is much different than how Thomas Nelson and so-called American Christian leaders reacted to The Jefferson Lies.
Professing Christian David Barton wrote a book called The Jefferson Lies, which, among other things, claimed that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. Historians and others rejected Barton’s claims and accused him of poor scholarship. Condemnation of Barton’s work became so intense that other professing Christians, including a group of leaders in Ohio, demanded that Barton’s publisher, Thomas Nelson, drop his book. The leaders in Ohio even threatened a boycott against Thomas Nelson if they did not do so.
Thomas Nelson bowed to this pressure and recalled The Jefferson Lies due to concerns about historical inaccuracy.
So will professing Christian leaders launch a similar campaign against Vines’s book and WaterBrook Multnomah since claiming that sexual immorality is compatible with Christianity clearly is historically inaccurate?
There has been some opposition but as the WaterBrook Multnomah dismissal of that opposition indicates, there seems to be far less in both numbers and passion than there was to Barton’s book. Currently there are no signs that this is about to change.
How modern American Christian leaders ultimately respond to WaterBrook Multnomah and Vines’s historically inaccurate book will provide great insight into their mindset, and the state of the modern American Church.