If they really did
care about the Bible’s authority, how did they come to their conclusion in the
first place? Such a basic understanding of sexuality and life is understood by
the most immature of Christians…or so we thought.
First Lesson Learned: Conviction Is Needed Because Conviction Is Steadfast
If any one person does not have an unwavering commitment to
the inspired, inerrant and sufficient Word of God, the conviction of almost
anything will be subject to decay and evolution, if not entirely sucked out of
you over time. This cannot be understated.
When speaking of the one faith in the one true and living
God, Isaiah said, “If you are not firm in
faith, you will not be firm at all” (7:9).
Or in Psalm 119 we read, “The
sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures
forever” (160). The eternality of the Word of God must be so if God Himself
is eternal. If we really believe that God is eternal and immutable
(unchangeable) then we have to concede that so are His instructions and laws.
A conviction of these truths will not wax and wane with the
shifting sands of cultural trends because they are founded and grounded on the
solid rock of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel. They are steadfast. The
consistency of Scripture shines brighter as the world moves away from biblical
morality.
The Apostle Paul told his beloved son in the faith, Timothy,
“This charge I entrust to you, Timothy,
my child […] wage the good warfare, holding
faith and a good conscience. By
rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith” (1 Tim.
1:17-19).
Paul also wrote to the faithful church in Thessalonica, “We know, brothers loved by God, that he
has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in
power and in the Holy Spirit and with
full conviction” (1 Thess. 1:4-5).
As my pastor once said, “A belief is something you hold; a
conviction is something that holds you.”
When you truly have a conviction from the Word of God, you
will not so easily be swayed by popular opinion and you will say with the
Psalmist, “I shall have an answer for him
who taunts me, for I trust in your Word”
(119:42) and “I will also speak of your
testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame, for I find my delight
in your commandments, which I love”
(119:46-47).
Second Lesson Learned: Christian Theology Cannot Be
Separated From Christian Operation
In Christianity Today’s
article, “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages”,
they shared that World Vision decides “to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it
can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor.”
The President,
Richard Stearns, said, “We’re an operational arm of the global church, we're
not a theological arm of the church.”
This is one of
the most pressing lessons we can get from all of this. This has become the
tendency among many evangelicals. It is the hopeful step of neutrality that
many Christians seem to think they can take without compromising their faith. In
reality, it’s a cop out to making up your mind. There tends to be this idea
that since feeding the poor (or other socially helpful ventures) is highly
looked upon in the eyes of the world and of God, that both of these parties
will then be able to overlook any matters of compromise in other areas like, in
this case, biblical sexuality.
Suddenly,
altruism becomes the new evangelism, but with an emphasis on the works of the
altruistic individual, rather than the salvation of the hungry. It is all well
and good to feed the poor, but if you do not share the Gospel with them, then
they could still be heading to Hell with a blanket and a bowl of food. The real
mission of the Christian Church is to provide temporal and eternal needs. The temporal needs help now, but the eternal
need of salvation from sin lasts forever. Lots of people will like us for
giving away free things to needy people, but we can’t consider that as an
approval of the Gospel, as if we are fulfilling the Great Commission.
This may be an
easy temptation to fall into when you are running Christian organizations, but
with a personal conviction on biblical theology comes a proper application of
biblical theology. Think about it from a personal and individual perspective.
Can you merely be an Operational Christian and not a theological one? Of course
not.
When you start
drawing lines in places like these you end up in a precarious situation, which
is exactly what happened with World Vision. In Christianity Today’s
first article, they clearly stated where they were drawing their authority
from: “This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of
churches and denominations on theological issues.”
As Dr. Al Mohler
said in his first response on his blog, “These arguments are pathetically
inadequate.”
He goes on to
say, “The distinction between an “operational arm” of the church and a
“theological arm” is a fatal misreading of reality. World Vision claims a
Christian identity, claims to serve the kingdom of Christ, and claims a
theological rationale for its much-needed ministries to the poor and distressed.
It cannot surrender theological responsibility when convenient and then claim a
Christian identity and a theological mandate for ministry.”
A Christian is,
by nature, theologically informed. To do anything in the name of Christ while
surrendering some type of personal responsibility to sound doctrine is delusional.
Is this harsh?
Ask the Apostle Paul who directly linked a biblical view of sexuality with
sound doctrine and sexual immorality, including homosexuality, as contrary to
it (1 Tim. 1:9-10). Later in chapter six, Paul says that those who do not teach
sound doctrine “understand nothing” and are “depraved in mind and deprived of
the truth” (6:3-4).
Finally, Paul
stresses to Titus the importance of rebuking those who contradict sound
doctrine, holding firm to the trustworthy word (1:9).
Third Lesson
Learned: Flip-Flopping Reduces Trust
If World Vision
had a firm conviction on representing Christ and upholding the authority of
Scripture rather than the authority of “churches”, then this matter of the
biblical view of sexuality would not have been an issue whatsoever in the first
place. They didn’t hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so they
contradicted sound doctrine by considering committed sexually immoral people as
being right with God:
“Changing the
employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ
to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other
divisive issues […] We are absolutely resolute about every employee being followers of Jesus Christ. We are not wavering
on that” (emphasis mine).
This reveals the
fundamental flaw in their real world-view. This is no accidental slip-up of
semantics, or Biblical interpretation. They are making a theological statement
by saying committed sinners can be Christians. Never mind what the Apostle John
said: “No one who lives in God keeps on sinning. No one
who continues to sin has either seen God or known God” (1 Jn. 3:6).
Again, their deprivation of the truth
shines forth.
Now, as we have
seen, World Vision has recanted of their plan for the new policy change after
threats of support withdrawal and backlash from the Christian community as to
their capitulation from sound doctrine. Is it legitimate?
I don’t believe a
true Christian leader committed to God’s word would ever have made this
mistake. These men are old enough and mature enough to know this simple, basic
truth. It would be like changing their
policy to say that “not all employees must believe in the resurrection of
Christ because whether or not you believe that has no bearing on saving faith”
and then two days later saying, “Oops, we didn’t realize that was usurping
Biblical authority. We’re so thankful people pointed that out to us.”
Can there be true
repentance? Absolutely and I hope so! Unfortunately, the damage has already
been done with their reputation. They have already and legitimately cast doubt
on their whole view of Scripture and the sudden withdrawal does not necessarily
prove any spiritual change of heart has taken place.
This can be
proven from Scripture, for there are two types of grief when confronted with
sin according to 2 Cor. 7:10: 1) Godly grief that produces repentance, and 2)
worldly grief that produces death.
One will feel bad
for dishonoring God with sin, the other will feel bad for getting caught.
This is where we
must continue to pray, in that this company makes it clear who their captain
is, men or Christ? Do I seem skeptical? I admit, I am a little.
The reason is
because of some of the bold statements already outlined, but there are a few
more. How can such clearly articulated statements be said in the first place?
“Our board
felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We've
got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our
diversity."
“This is also not about compromising the authority of
Scripture . . . . People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and
my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree
with that statement.’”
"I hope
it's a statement that says when Christ left, he gave us the Great Commission
[to make disciples] and the Great Commandment [to love others as ourselves],
and we're trying to do just that," said Stearns. "Bridging the
differences we have, and coming together in our unity."
"I'm
hoping this may inspire unity among others as well," he concluded.
"To say how can we come together across some differences and still join
together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building
the kingdom."
"I
think we've got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we're doing this,
and it's my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and
will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us. But we do know
this is an emotional issue in the American church. I'm hoping not to lose
supporters over the change. We're hoping that they understand that what we've
done is focused on church unity and our mission."
The agenda is
clear and it is theological – as much as they deny it. Gay marriage is merely
an “emotional issue” that is “tearing apart the church” and they want to make
the statement that people should unite together “in love” as “brothers and
sisters in Christ”, gay or straight, based on their desire for unity and on the
authority of liberal churches.
In a best case
scenario, the leaders of World Vision lack even a moderate understanding of the
implications of the Bible. The most frightening aspect is that they would
consider people who profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to still be
allowed to commit to a sexually immoral lifestyle.
What this means
is that when polygamy is the next hot topic, they will be forced to apply their
same logic based on their perception of “unity in the church”. Perhaps, as long
as a man and his three wives are all professing believers in Jesus Christ and
they are all faithful to each other (yes, all four of them) then they would be
granted employment as a Christian – of course without World Vision actually
endorsing polygamy.
Stearns: “It's
easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he
said. "This is not an endorsement
of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate.
Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and
support."
Though the caveat
in his statement that we may be reading into it too much is included, the very
statements that Christians can live homosexual lifestyles and commit themselves
in marriage as such reveals such a bankrupt understanding of Christianity that
the implications to how wide reaching their world view may be and how that will
affect their future decisions is cause for legitimate concern.
When a spouse
cheats in their marriage, we would be suspect to an apology that included
statements like: “I failed to seek enough counsel before I decided to cheat”,
or, “I am broken hearted over the pain I have caused my spouse who saw this as
a reversal of my strong commitment to my marriage.”
Again, World
Vision believes many things that may be true, however with no conviction the
future is depressingly unreliable.
Fourth and
Final Lesson Learned: This Is Not About Ranking Sin
What tends to happen
in a situation like this is that the sin in question gets so much attention
that people will often banter about how other sins aren’t highlighted as much,
so why bother with homosexuality? Are we ranking sin?
This is not about
ranking sin. It is about Biblical fidelity. If someone is a professing believer
in Christ, or an organization is a professing Christ-centered organization,
then they have just accepted the standard that God has laid out in His Word. If
the sociopolitical topic of the day was drunkenness, or disrespecting parents,
then there would be much more time spent in Biblical exposition around that,
but that’s not the buzz-word of our day. The world is pushing an agenda to
normalize homosexuality, so the Scriptures will shine brighter on these areas
that are being challenged.
It is not as if
the Church started a revolution to prove a point on sexuality that was already
largely accepted as morally agreeable in the world. No, as the demand for
accepting homosexuality as “good”, rather than sinful, was increasing, so did
the witness of Scripture on the subject. It is what it is. What would anyone
expect?
When Paul wrote
what he did in his letters to various churches on the topic, homosexuality was
more rampant then, than it has ever been in America until today. This blows the
cultural argument out of the water for anyone who says that the Bible is
outdated. Only people who don’t know the real contextual and historical scenarios
in the Bible would say that, so it is largely due to ignorance, but this is why
a faithful representation of Scripture is so important. What was written then
is still just as binding for us today.
My prayer for
World Vision is that this rocks them so much that their personal convictions
are awakened by the Holy Spirit to flow through the organizational convictions.
I pray that they aren’t subjecting themselves to churches that have no
conviction. I pray that the Bible is taken more seriously and personally, so
that they will not consider it as separate from their business.
They will no
doubt receive much negativity from the world for almost supporting them and
then not, so this will not be an easy ride for them and may be what the Lord
uses to shine the light brighter on purity in our country.
My prayer is that
the leaders of World Vision don’t just feel a grief that is temporary and leads
to death, but is a Godly grief that produces real repentance to salvation if it
wasn’t there. How can we tell the difference?
“See what earnestness this Godly grief has
produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation,
what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have
proved yourselves innocent in the matter. So although I
wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the
sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but
in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of
God. Therefore we are comforted.” -2 Cor. 7:11-13
Why did Paul write his former corrective
letter (1st Corinthians)?
“Even if I made you grieve
with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that that
letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is,
I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into
repenting. For you felt a godly grief […]” (vvs.
8-9).
May it be so with
World Vision.
In His Sovereign
Grip,
Ben
