World Vision, A Survey:

I have not had any close alliance with World Vision, so there is a lot I don't know about them.  I see their ads and, from time to time, read reports of their work around the world, and was glad they were relieving suffering, and providing opportunities for those in our world who are in great need.  That they do this work in the name of Christ is commendable.

The announcement that World Vision in the United States is open to employing those who profess faith in Christ, who agree to WV's basic statement of faith, and who are also legally in a homosexual marriage, hit the Christian--especially--the Evangelical community like a plane-load of sacked up rice.

Maybe Richard Stearns simply wanted to get his message out before everyone else did it for him, but if he thought that his news release announcing WV's policy change would control the spin, he certainly misjudged.  Pretty much everybody that is anybody in the Evangelical world, and beyond, has weighed in on the subject.  My purpose here is not to rehash the matter in my own words.  More capable, not to mention quicker, writers and commentators have already explored WV's announcement.  I figure it is worth the time it takes to think through the issues involved, because it is likely that there will be other similar announcements from other ministries.  Those of who labor in relative obscurity have to make up our minds.  This is the issue of the day.  What follows is a brief list of some online comments and reactions, with brief descriptions and comments from me.  Hopefully what this will do is pull some material together so you can make better use of your time.
You are welcome.  :)

Richard Stearns's announcement:
Stearns's apologetic is that he and WV are seeking unity.  There is much I could say, I'll leave it at, "He didn't convince me."

Here is a brief critique of the WV decision, by Jim Denison.

John Piper makes the point that WV's decision "trivializes perdition — and therefore, the cross — and  . . . sets a trajectory for the demise of true compassion for the poor."
A friend of mine, who doesn't have national prominence, but who should, Norm Dietsch, commented on Piper's piece:  "As to the World Vision pres. argument that the issue divides churches and families, I wonder if he has heard that even the humble Jesus had a word to say about division.. Luke 12: 49-53.  We, too, care about the homosexual community-enough to stand for the truth of Scripture and to bring the good news of redemption and reconciliation for all sinners, and we recognize we are no better, but in need of the same redemption and reconciliation."

Al Mohler makes the same point John Piper makes and also warns about the slippery slope on which WV, and any other organizations who adopt similar policies now find themselves. ". . . moral revolutions are marked by events that signal major turning points in social transformation. Yesterday, [the day of the WV announcement], will be remembered as one of those days."
Warning: In spite of what some would tell us, some slopes truly are slippery, and some slick spots really are slanted.

Mark Tooley sees the bottom of the hill.  He simply declares "WORLD VISION GOES LIBERAL.  And of course it doesn't think it has.  Tooley's prediction or statement of fait accompli is not without evidence.  He refers to fairly recent history and quotes from some other conservative Evangelicals who agree.

Maybe I'm being too harsh.  I really like the man.  But I found Franklin Graham's announcement a bit self-serving.  I don't disagree with what he says, it just kinda sounded like he was saying "OK all you righteous people who are rightly offended at what World Vision did, the line to give money through a good organization forms right here."  As I say, maybe I'm being judgmental, and I continue to support Samaritan's Purse efforts but read on . . .

Matthew Lee Anderson helps us wrestle with some practical issues.  What happens when organizational problems intersect with human needs?  I'm not one of them, but thousands of Christians are involved in supporting a child through WV.  Should they just stop.  In a well-reasoned article, MLA offers some alternatives.

My list is clearly lacking a defense, other than Stearns's own, of WV's action.  If I find one, or if you point one out to me, I'll include it in the next post.


Before we go, let's make sure we remember, all over the world there are people, most of them children, in desperate need.  Whatever we conclude about WV's new HR policy, let's not forget them.

The principles in God's word give freedom:

I'm sorry that it has taken me longer than expected to get back to this.

If you remember I have been talking about living with integrity based on the standards we glean from the Bible..

An unfortunate syndrome that I observe in some people my age is the "Yeah, but . . ." response to the curves that life seems to throw us. (I say people my age, because by the time one gets up around the half-century mark she/he has accumulated enough experience, baggage, dependents, and complications that life becomes exceedingly complicated. Fleshed out the Yeah-but response goes something like, "Yes, I know that is what the Bible teaches, but (here the speaker fills in the complicated real life situation) so I am going to do. . . ."

A wise friend of mine once told me that he had never been so sure of things as he was when he had just graduated from seminary.

At twenty-five the path through a difficult ethical dilemma was perfectly clear. Over the years real-life situations that I observe and experience are like brush and tall grass growing in and next to the path. When, like me, one starts receiving the AARP magazine, some of those saplings have become huge trees, and the path can be all but obscured.

• Preachers kids, even those of preachers who take a hard-core position on divorce, have marriages that end in court.


• It is interesting to see pastors who maintained a no-hair-on-the-collar standard hanging out with grandsons with 2 heads of hair.


• Sometimes guitars, or even worse drums, represent not only a change in worship style for a church, but the "eating of words" for the older preacher.

You get the idea. You can go on with other examples.

Let me make a couple of observations--I'm still working on this, so I would appreciate your input--then I'll share an experience of my own.

1. We ought to be cautious about making categorical, hard-and-fast, declarations about life issues that we have not yet experienced. Note, I didn't say that we shouldn't. Sometimes we must, &/or should. I said be careful.


2. When we do make pronouncements as described above, we need to be absolutely sure that they are firmly anchored in scripture. I spoke on child-rearing before I had children. I was careful simply teach what the Bible says. Come to think of it, I still try to do that. Somebody famous said something like, "I used to have 5 theories on child-rearing. Now I have children and no theories."


3. When experiences in life seem to conflict with what we conclude the Bible teaches.

• We need to know that the Bible always trumps experience.
• We need to abide by the Bible's teaching even if it causes pain.
• It is appropriate to allow my experience, or that observed in others, to cause me to re-evaluate my conclusions. The Bible is inerrant. My exegesis and teaching are frequently in error.
• God's word was not given for a fictional ideal world, but for the real world in which we live.
  (I hope I am wrong, but I fear that some in my position, in essence, take the position that "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with real life evidence that appears to contradict what I have already decided." Here is an area where the postmodern/emergent types are right. We Fundamentalist or conservative Evangelicals have frequently been too sure.)

4. When we conclude that we were wrong in the past we need to admit it in the present.

My recent experience:

A number of years ago I struggled through the issues of divorce and remarriage.
I grew up spiritually in an environment that basically said there was no such thing as a Biblical divorce. In that day the churches and institutions that made up the constituency of "my kind" were mostly made up of a population that did not include the divorced. In society in general divorce was much less common, and in churches like the one where I grew up, the "D"-word was mostly absent. In a recent conversation a friend my age told me about a divorce that took place in the very traditional town of his youth. The man who divorced his wife had to leave the area because of the public shame his divorce brought him. There are some things we like about that. There are other aspects of that expression of public morality that are horribly toxic.

As a young pastor, I had to figure out what I believed & what I was going to teach. Part of my struggle stemmed from the fact that I was rejecting part of the teaching that my spiritual mentors had handed me. I won't go into details, but I concluded that the Bible made provision for 2 clear grounds for divorce. ( I still struggle in sorting out a third.) I saw that a Biblical divorce without the right to remarry is an animal that doesn't exist in the Bible's menagerie. It is clear to me that people who are divorced, even wrongly divorced, are not married, in the sight of God, or anywhere else. There is clearly an expression of grace in God's standard of the maintenance of marriage, and His graciousness can be seen as well in His provision for its dissolution. I could go on, but you get the idea. As was true with a great many other things I was taught, the gist of what was put before me was that adopting the most restrictive position was always the best decision. I reject that in general, and in particular in relation to this situation. As I say, all of this took place in my thinking decades ago.

Now the present:
Later this month, my son, a divorced man, who has spent the last several years pretty much single-handedly raising his 4 children, will marry a lovely young lady. One of the great honors of my life, is his invitation for me to stand with him as the "Best man." I put that in quotes, since my grandson will also stand with his dad, so I can't really be the best man. : )

On the wedding day, I will put on my tux--and other than regretting how much the rental is--I will stand with my son with great joy and clear conscience.

When you take the time to wrestle issues to the mat the result is a freedom and peace that can come no other way. Often we mistakenly look at Biblical ethics as nothing more than compiling a list of ways that Gods says "No!"

No. God also says "Yes," with no "buts."

I rejoice in that yes.