One response to the troubles of World Vision

World Vision Tony Campolo

Red Letter Christians believe that what defines a person as a Christian is having a personal transforming relationship with the resurrected Christ. We talk about being spiritually invaded by the Holy Spirit who cleanses us gradually from sin and empowers us to become progressively more and more Christlike.

Our doctrines are embodied in the Apostles’ Creed. We also have a very high view of scripture, believing that those who wrote the books of the Bible were imbued by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to keep them from making errors that could lead us astray. When it comes to hermeneutics, however, we acknowledge that different Christians and Christian groups interpret some passages in the Bible in different ways.

My wife and I, over the years, have interpreted Saint Paul’s words in Romans, chapter one, concerning same gender erotic behavior differently, but I never once doubted her Christian commitment, nor do I think that she ever doubted mine. As Red Letter Christians, Peggy and I, despite our differences, are agreed as to the core of our beliefs as embodied in the Apostles’ Creed.

Related: World Vision Changed My Life. Now What?

The Board of Directors of World Vision USA tried to make room within their organization for Christians who do not believe that scripture condemns same-sex marriage, even though the board members themselves believe that it does. They simply were saying that their beliefs on this issue, as important as they might be, do not define whether a person is a Christian and, therefore, a possible employee within World Vision USA.

I am a Baptist and, as such, I believe I can make a strong Biblical case for believer’s baptism by immersion. However, I do not consider this to be a defining doctrine. I do not for a moment consider those who interpret differently than I do what scripture teaches concerning baptism to be any less Christian. Beliefs about baptism for most Evangelicals are not a defining issue. I must remember, however, that there was a time when they were. Wars were fought and persons were willing to be martyred because of differences on how and when people should be baptized.

My Mennonite friends read the Bible in such a way as to make a strong case for non-violent resistance to evil. This leads them to their opposition to participating in the military as combatants. Yet those Christians who claim that the Sermon on the Mount supports their commitment to being what they call “A Peace Church” are not likely to write off as “non-Christian” those who hold to “just war” theories. As important as their beliefs about non violent resistance to evil may be, they do not make those beliefs the basis for saying who is and who is not a Christian.

Episcopalians (i.e. Anglicans) and Lutherans believe that in Holy Communion there is a real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine. They tell Red Letter Christians who claim to take the words of Jesus seriously, that Jesus did say that the bread is my body, and the wine is my blood. Episcopalians and Lutherans, nevertheless, do not regard as non-Christian those of us who say that the bread and wine only symbolize the body and blood of Christ. What they believe about the Eucharist is basic to their denominational identity, but is not a defining criteria as to who is and who is not part of Christ’s Church.

Also by Tony: Is Evangelicalism Headed for a Split?

What disturbs me about those Christians who responded so ferociously to the decision by the World Vision USA Board to be inclusive of those in same-sex marriages, is that they are making their interpretation of Romans 1, and a few other passages of scripture that they believe deal with same gender eroticism to be a defining criteria as to what is Christian and what is not. They have made same gender marriage a defining issue. I believe that it is not.

What upsets me even more is that, within 24 hours of World Vision USA’s initial decision, there were more than 4,000 cancellations by those who had been sponsoring children in Third World Countries through the auspices of World Vision USA. It is hard for me to understand how being opposed to the hiring policy stated by World Vision USA should lead these fellow Christians to withdraw support from desperately needy children. To make innocent children suffer because of outrage over what the Board of World Vision USA decided does not seem to me to fit with the requisites of Jesus as he outlined in Matthew 18 the way to handle differences between Christian brothers and sisters. But then, that’s my belief – and I could be wrong.




Print Friendly

About the Author

Tony Campolo

Tony CampoloTony Campolo is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University. Look for Tony in your area and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.View all posts by Tony Campolo →

  • Anne Vyn

    Amen, Tony!! I agree completely.

  • Don L

    Yes Tony I agree with you that no one should have abandoned World Vision kids over a change in their hiring. On the issue of same sex marriage/intercourse I would probably be considered theologically (though not politically) conservative. Here is the problem why this issue doesn’t fall in the same category as views on baptism or the Eucharist (or even other theological differences)… It is because the conservative side believes that the very action of same sex intercourse is a sin. And a sin that can separate one from intimate fellowship with God if unrepentant. You may not agree with this view point but that is why this is different.

    • melaniespringermock

      Mr. Campolo also uses the example of Mennonites and pacifism. As a Mennonite, I find any kind of violence abhorrent, the perpetuator of a violent act to be acting in sin (Heck, I even find playing games like Call of Duty a sin, as it enacts and celebrates and makes into a game the very act of killing a sacred Other). Still, I don’t doubt the Christian faith of my sisters and brothers who embrace a Just War theology; indeed, even though I attend a traditional peace church, I know that others in my congregation believe in a just war ideology, and I worship alongside them knowing the church can hold these differences. Why then is it so much more difficult for churches to accept that people will, and do, have different understandings of what the Bible says about LGTB folks? In my mind, Mr. Campolo made an apt comparison.

      • JT

        There are places in which violence is employed with the author’s approval. The canonical voices are univocally negative, however, when speaking of homosexual intercourse. Big difference.

        …and I’m also a pacifist.

        • Don L

          Exactly.

          • JT

            I knew you’d see the light, Don!

      • Don L

        That is a pretty good counter argument Melanie.

      • Sharon Jennings Bowler

        Melanie, I agree with you and Tony 100%.

    • JT

      That’s a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.

      • Don L

        How so?

        • JT

          You’re inferring categorical necessity from group opinion. The logic doesn’t follow.

      • 22044

        Occasionally I’m able to spot non sequiturs. Perhaps if an argument is directed at me. Can you clarify this one? Is your point similar to the one about truth not being confirmed by a consensus?

    • DW

      You are quite mistaken if you think believers who have differed over baptism or eucharist have viewed these differences as not affecting intimacy with God.

  • Lloyd Braswell

    tony – actually one of my first thoughts about this is a quote I heard from someone you may know “Every day 40,000 children died of starvation and you don’t give a damn. The worse thing is you are more concerned about the 4 letter word I just used then what Jesus would have been concerned about.” I think it applies here.

    • Actually that person said, “shit” not “damn” … at least in our church when he gave that sermon.

      • It was “damn” in Pasadena in 1990.
        I applauded then.

        In this context, the line is superfluous & at least 75% off target.

        • Frank

          And actually its silly. The bible says caring for the poor matters and the words that come out of our mouth matter. We should be concerned about both.

          But you are right it, the principle does not apply in this situation.

          • jonathan starkey

            Looking at the 4000 children just highlights, seeing Christianity primarily as a means to an end, which exposes the secular blindness of how we view God and the Church today. Sad.

          • Jonathan, that sounds like the voice of Jesus – I’d like to hear more of what you’re thinking.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            Excerpt: In his lectures, Christology, Dietrich Boenhoeffer made the plea that in theology we give the priority of the question of WHO over the question of HOW, and that we always seek answers of the question of the HOW in termes of the WHO. Our dogmatic starting point in theology should be: Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? – “Who do men say that I am?” – Who is the Holy Spirit? In our pragmatic Western Society in this technological age, our starting point is so often the problems of the world, of church and society – problems of race, poverty, violence, injustice. These are issues of such urgent importance that we give primacy to the question of HOW to solve them. We can too readily assume that Christianity is meaningful, useful, relevant, even true, only if it is seen to offer solutions to these practical problems. We can to readily subsume theology (as Ritschl did in the 19th century) under the category of means and ends. This is the weaknes of the so-called culture Protestantism. It sees religion as the means to realize the ends of culture – partly the legacy of older Ritshlism (as Boenhoeffer saw) and widespread in our churches today.

            James Torrance – Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace

          • WONDERFUL text Jonathan! Thank you for sharing this – AND sharing the focus inside your heart. I couldn’t agree more! Who Jesus is; His identity – is the very root itself of all social justice and evangelical endeavor. I have a good friend who has written a book entitled “False Justice” that succinctly parses this issue; intimating that the question of WHO JESUS IS is central (not ancillary) to works of justice. He would go so far as to say, from heaven’s perspective the works of justice are incomplete without the persons grappling with the reality of Who Jesus is, and His ultimate claim on their lives.
            BTW – While I was in graduate school, I spent a glorious hour driving James Torrance to LAX. What a gentle, fierce champion of God’s heart…
            Blessings to you, brother.

    • Mike Ward

      So the “worse thing is you are more concerned about the 4 letter word I just used then what Jesus would have been concerned about”, is it?

      I thought the worse thing was that 40,000 children starved to death today.

  • Frank

    The issue of sexuality and marriage is woven into the very fabric of Gods design for creation, anatomy, family, reproduction, intimacy and love. This is what sets it apart from other issues like baptism and pacifism.

    No children will suffer if 4000 actually withdrew their sponsorship over this issue. World Visions support does NOT go directly to the child and its World Vision policy to continue to invest in the local areas where the children live independent of sponsorship. Plus anecdotal evidence shows that most people who withdrew their sponsorship or threatened to would be diverting their funds to similar oragnizations with similar missions.

    I agree that homosexual behavior is not necessarily a salvation issue but it’s far from benign at best. Tony is free to have an opinion as are others but at least get the facts straight.

    • While I understand that it is true that support does not go “directly to the child” as you suggest, I cannot understand how a loss of 4,000 donors could do anything OTHER than result in children losing support. The amount of money available to those children, whether directly or indirectly, has just been reduced by a HUGE amount. How can that NOT end up meaning that those kids get less support at the end of the day?

      I have no doubt that World Vision has some resources to deal with volatility, but such a huge loss threatened the existence of the organization itself. The money to deal with those losses will have to come from somewhere….

      Likewise, even if it’s true that ALL lost donations were diverted to another organization (a stretch, but possible), it cannot be reasonably assumed that the children supported by World Vision will get the support provided by the other organization. Perhaps some other child would, but not those same kids. People are not interchangeable. Just because a different child’s suffering may be lessened, it hardly justifies the increased suffering of the child left behind.

      • Frank

        We don’t know what would happen longer term but we do know its shameful that the language of “hurting children” be introduced at all at this early stage. Its hyperbole used to support a political or social bias while trying to shame others. I expect it from the selfish and immature but certainly not from someone of Tonys stature.

      • Celeste Wyatt Lee

        Frank, I am amazed at your response that no children would suffer and Mark I appreciate your response that it can not be reasonably assumed that these children would be supported by another organization. I have been involved for over 16 years with an organization in Kenya working with the Maasai. I can assure you that we struggle when even a few sponsorships are dropped about what to do with the children that have had sponsors. There are not other organizations on the ground ready to take on children that we no longer have sponsors for. Yes, there are other organizations, but if we lose sponsorship of a child on Monday or even during a particular month, the other organization is necessarily available to pick that same child up Tuesday or the next month. The “at risk” girls that we get sponsorship for are can not wait a week, a month or two for someone else to sponsor them. We are actually talking about children’s lives, yes them being alive, not just an inconvenience. It is not in any way shameful to use the language of “hurting children” at any stage as that is the reality of it. Often the at risk children we sponsor — their very life is at stake in these situations and having seen and been a part of this first hand I must respond to your comments.

        • Frank

          Comparing your smaller struggling organization to World Vision is misguided. WV has a large enough donor base and support structure that they can absorb quite a bit before their is any real danger of anyone suffering.

          • Celeste Wyatt Lee

            Even if it is a larger organization the amount of sponsorships they were loosing would have had a very negative effect. And small or large the principles still apply.

          • Frank

            No they didn’t. It would depend on ultimately what the net loss of sponsorships were which we will never know. They added sponsorships after the first announcement and I suspect have even more sponsorships now that they came to their senses.

            The on,y thing we need to be concerned with is the leadership at WV.

          • Robert

            Interesting thoughts, Frank. I work for a large child-sponsorship organization with the same funding model as WV. The amount of funds sent to a child’s community is based on the number of assigned/paid children in that community. If 10 sponsors from that community withdraw their sponsorship, that community is at a loss each month… it doesn’t affect any other communities.

            When sponsors cancel, it reduces the overall funds that can be sent to their community, and therefore, they have a reduced ability to achieve the results they have planned for.

          • Frank

            The point is no kids were harmed. Unless you have evidence otherwise?

          • jneely77

            Do you have evidence that no children were harmed? I can’t imagine that would be true. But if I’m wrong, I’d rather be wrong on the side that assumes the kids need every dime, not the position that $40,000/month has no effect.

          • Frank

            If you make a claim that kids are harmed you have to back up your assertion with facts. The onus is on the accuser.

            Its tragic and pitiful that kids were used to further a political and social and selfish agenda.

          • John

            Where is the evidence that no kids are harmed? You are actually making the claim which is less logical. There is no accuser. Both of you have opposing views of what the economic outcome will be. Jneely is suggesting that less money coming in will mean less money going out. You are suggesting that less money coming in will result in no change to outgoings.

            I don’t know who’s right, but the idea that only one of you has to present evidence is fairly silly.

            I suspect that at this point, things have only just changed, and no evidence is available, But that evidence, in whatever form it takes, will present itself in the coming months.

          • Frank

            What I am saying is that no children were harmed in this episode and it was hyperbole and reactionary to use that language for a political or social bias.

            And if children were actually harmed all I ask for is proof not some hypothetical, imaginary, future possibility.

          • jneely77

            Sounds to me like you are sidestepping the question.

          • Frank

            Look in the mirror.

            You want em to prove a negative? Really?

            I didn’t bring up kids were hurt because of this incident. Whoever did has the onus to prove it.

          • JER

            Then perhaps it’d behoove WV to carefully consider the weight of the responsibility they’re being entrusted with before they flip their theology like a weather-vane.

          • DrewTwoFish

            I’m sorry Celeste but Frank understands how these things play out in the field better than the people who actually work in these ministries. He’s quite firm about that. I’m sorry that you’re so misguided.

          • Joe

            Careful, some might not catch your sarcasm 😛

          • DrewTwoFish

            : > )

          • DrewTwoFish

            Why do I do it, Joe? Why do I rise to the bait? I think I need an intervention.

          • Joe

            Same reason John and I do so regularly – because the bait is (intentionally or not) perfectly tailored to bring you in, by giving just the slightest hint of a possibility that you can convince him.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Hmm. I guess that must be it. I wonder what his and others’ motivation is? The same? Imagined brownie points for being the orthodoxy police?

          • Frank

            My motivations are to make sure the truth of God is expressed not the truth of culture and to do what I can to make sure people are not deceived.

          • DrewTwoFish

            But aren’t we (broadly speaking) just having the same conversations over and over? Could it be that we’re both kidding ourselves about our motives?

          • Frank

            We only have the same conversations over and over because people refuse to accept the truth if God. They are constantly trying to rewrite it or justify it away.

            I have said many times: homosexual behavior is a sin. lets move on.

          • JER

            “Other’s” would be a reference to???

          • DrewTwoFish

            Well, I’m not here to pick off A, B and C as people. I’d like address specific statements rather than pigeon hole certain individuals, as tempting as that is (and I’m sure I yield to temptation sometimes). Perhaps I’ll list a few characteristics and let you be the judge. Must cogitate for a bit…

          • JER

            Eager to see if I’d make your cut

          • JER

            Hey OneFish TwoFish: While I’m waiting for “the list” – wantcha to know how safe I feel on this board knowing there are vigilant do-gooders like you keeping boards like this free & clear for progressives to compliment each other without fear of interference from “others”.

            Stalinists everywhere salute you.

          • Joe

            Well, that certainly escalated rather quickly. And I also have to say that, if you truly believe that RLC is “free & clear for progressives to compliment each other without fear of interference,” then you and I haven’t been reading the same comment threads. In fact as far as the comments go, the exact opposite seems to be the case most often – anyone deemed “progressive” is shouted down until there’s no “progressive” voice to be heard.

          • Frank

            If by “shouted down” you mean “dismantling arguments and exposing deceptions” then yes that’s what happens.

          • Mike Ward

            Joe, basically I agree with Frank. By “shouted down” you seem to mean disagreed with by maybe half of the commentors while reaffirmed by the rest as well as reaffirmed by nearly every article posted.

            Now I will grant you that some of the conservative responses you will see are merely rude and unhelpful, but the majority try to make some reasonable point, and there are just as many rude and pointless comments from the left.

          • Joe

            No, by “shouted down” I meant misinterpreted and maligned. And I readily admit that not everyone is like that, but depending on the day and the article, there are definitely times when the majority are only interested in patting one another’s back without interference from people who disagree. And yes, I worded it that way because that sort of self-congratulation can be seen on all sides, though RLC’s commenters as a whole appear to skew more conservative, so when it comes down to a dissenting opinion being mistreated, it’s more likely to be as I said simply by virtue of the statistics.

            I could have corrected Frank, and perhaps in so doing have clarified for you as well before you responded, but Frank so rarely bothers to read out of my comments anything besides what he wants to see there, and I’ve had enough of that for today.

          • Mike Ward

            I don’t see how you get the RLC commenters skew conservative. And Frank is far from the worst poster here, but the worst don’t attack you because they agree with what you say.

          • Joe

            I think there’s a natural inclination for all of us to more easily see opposition when it’s directed at us. I recognize that in myself, as well. However, I’m mostly basing my assertion on RLC’s commenters being more conservative on something a contributor said a while back (if I could remember who/when, I’d gladly direct you, but I’ve forgotten, so I guess take it with a grain of salt). Said contributor submitted to RLC an article that was simultaneously uploaded to his blog, and in a follow-up noted the difference in responses – noting that commenters on his blog tended to be liberal, and commenters here tended to be conservative.

          • 22044

            Hopefully we can engage without calling each other Stalinists…? Or is there more to your point?

          • DrewTwoFish

            Is that you, Frank? I see 22044 on my screen right now. At any rate, thanks for that.

          • 22044

            22044 here. :)

          • DrewTwoFish

            Greetings 22044, whoever you are. (I feel like I’m in a sci-fi movie.)

          • 22044

            good afternoon :)

          • DrewTwoFish

            LOL. You made me chuckle. I feel my blood pressure falling already.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Wow, what a great way shut down conversation but I suppose most of what goes on here is not really a conversation, just people talking at each other from both sides.

            I was nearly ready to throw out “others” and just ask more broadly what brings anybody (including me) to a site like this to essentially hash out the same things over and over, regardless of their leanings because I don’t see anybody changing their minds or gaining a new understanding. But I’m guessing that you don’t really want to hear what a “Stalinist” like me has in mind. I could be wrong but, really, where do I go with that?

          • DrewTwoFish

            I have managed to have quite civilized discussions with some here who I vehemently disagree with but I don’t think I’m managed to convince them of anything either. Or vice versa.

          • Joe

            Likewise. At this point, I don’t think it’s possible to actually convince somebody in an online comments section. Very few of us come here with open hearts, willing to be challenged.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Ack! I can’t stop myself, Joe. I need to shut down the browser and back slowly away.

          • Joe

            Yeah, go take a walk. Or switch over to Youtube and watch some cat videos or something. I think that’s what I’m going to do.

          • DrewTwoFish

            I think Frank just called me a child. JER basically called me Stalinist. (I think I could have coped with socialist or even communist.) Time to do as you suggest.

    • Jennifer

      Frank- you have no clue. The money goes to the community, but when 4,000 donors take their $ away, that $ does not go to critical programs that help children in desperate need. I know- I work at WV and intimately know how development works and exactly where the $ goes. There is a HUGE hit to children and the impact we have overseas.

      Plus, now 4,000 children have a severed relationship with their sponsor. I hope every one of those cancelled donors writes their sponsor child to tell them why they cancelled. However, my bet is they all would be too ashamed.

      • Frank

        Oh please. More hyperbolic histrionics.

        • DrewTwoFish

          Yes, what does Jennifer know? She only works there.

          • Frank

            How many kids were harmed?

            This is hyperbolic language meant to bring an emotional response to support someone’s social and political bias.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Gosh, Frank, not only are you more knowledgeable about the inner workings of these sorts of ministries than those who actually work there but you’re also able to discern their motives.

          • Frank

            So where is evidence that children were hurt? As of today is there a net positive or net negative of sponsorships?

            I am quite familiar with the inner working of world vision.

          • DrewTwoFish

            …as well as the inner workings of Jennifer?

          • Frank

            The inner workings of Jennifer is not relevant.

            So how many kids were actually harmed again?

          • DrewTwoFish

            You made them relevant by deciding what her motives were.

          • Frank

            Where did I ascribe motive to Jennifer?

            Continuing to ignore my question see…. very telling!

          • DrewTwoFish

            Is that you Frank? I’m not ignoring your question. I was about to answer it, and answer it with “I don’t know” so there’s nothing “telling” about it except that you have rushed to make assumptions about my motives too.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Ooops. I missed another question. I guess that’s telling too. Or maybe I just missed it.

            “This is hyperbolic language meant to bring an emotional response to support someone’s social and political bias.”

          • Frank

            Sounds right to me. Thanks!

          • DrewTwoFish

            My head hurts.

          • DrewTwoFish

            BTW, why do you keep popping up as 2204 (or whatever)? And why Disqus show 1 reply waiting when I’ve viewed them all? Odd.

          • Joe

            Two different glitches that both manifest when you watch the comments stream in rather than leaving and coming back. Both kind of weird.

          • John

            Frank, have you worked for World Vision? Sincere question.

          • Frank

            No but I know several people who do and I have been involved with them for years.

      • 22044

        Jennifer, you should probably be aware that Frank sponsors one or more kids through WV. So his donations help with the work you’re doing, and keep you employed as well.

        • Mark Munger

          Why does Frank continue to give his money to an organization that bills itself as one which supports children an yet Frank by his own admission says the money doesn’t go to support the children?

          • 22044

            Frank will have to answer that.

          • Frank

            I said the money does not go directly to the child. Which is true. I didn’t say the children do not benefit from the sponsorship. I give to WV because I support their mission.

    • Jason

      “…at least get the facts straight.” –The facts can’t be gay? 😉

    • SuperLogic

      Also interesting is that what was reported was 2000 over 48 hours, now it suddenly became 4000 over 24 hours?!? Also, while that would be regretful, when taken in perspective, that is 2000 out of 1.2 million, which amounts to .17%, which would most likely be transferred to other similar charities.

  • Guest

    The only argument that can be advanced for Homosexual marriage not being sinful is if the partners agree to live celibately — which I don’t believe can be supported by God’s Holy Library; but that in and of itself would be in opposition to one of the sacred purposes/blessings of Holy Matrimony: the joys of sex within a sanctified heterosexual relationship, and would be against the clear teachings of Scripture that Godly marriage is not supposed to be lived “triumphantly” or according to an “over-realized eschatology” (1 Cor 7) by celibate partners. It is the sacrament within which a man and woman need not burn — in this life nor in hell. IF sodomy is a sin, and all sexual immorality is a sin whether heterosexual or homosexual, and the exchange by women of Adam for another Eve is a sin, how do we escape concluding a non-celibate homosexual marriage is not sinful and a profanation of what God the Father taught, Jesus echoed, and one or more apostles repeated and expounded upon?

    Why doesn’t World Vision just say they’re going to hire non-Christians? Instead of trying to qualify “Christian” with the use of LGBTQ as an adjective, which doesn’t appear to work well for “Raping Christian,” “Murdering Christian,” “Thieving Christian,” “Lying Christian,” etc., why not just say they’re going to hire some people who are not Christians? While serving in Bangladesh volunteering with MCC we hired Muslims, HIndus, and Buddhists. We didn’t refer to them as “Muslim Christians” or “Hindu Christians” or “Buddhist Christians.” WE just called them staff, co-workers, servants of the poor. There was no confusion and financially and prayerfully supportive Christians back home could either get on board or not without having to debate who’s a Christian and who’s not.

    But I trust it is a bridge too far to make the argument that because baptism has not been settled once and for all among all sects by either a universal commitment to dunk or sprinkle, and for consubstantiation over transubstantiation or vice-versa, and whether someone decides to live as a pacifist and conscientious objector when it comes to the draft — fleeing to Canada if need be — versus volunteering for the military to safeguard Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for civilians within the Homeland under threat of terror, we must leave something as Holy, precious, fundamental, and sacramentally instituted by God in Genesis between the first man and woman for all subsequent men and women up in the air, throwing our hands up in the air and declaring in exasperation, “God just never made this clear in Scripture and finally, after thousands of years, we’re just now seeing for the first time that we can’t in Truth see through the glass darkly, and so we must not say with conviction we believe God’s original Truth about Holy Matrimony. C’est la vie.”

    Sometimes I’d really, really like to be a Murdering Christian. My occasional compulsion to kill some people may not be as strong as the lustful compulsions of one man for another, or one woman for another, but they’re sometimes pretty intense.

    • Don L

      Great point! They might have avoided this whole mess if they announced they’d open up the hiring to non-Christians who they find qualified. Then they could hire whomever they want.

  • wjgreen314

    Has it occurred to anyone that . . .

    The only argument that can be advanced for Homosexual marriage not being sinful is if the partners agree to live celibately — which I don’t believe can be supported by God’s Holy Library; but that in and of itself would be in opposition to one of the sacred purposes/blessings of Holy Matrimony: the joys of sex within a sanctified heterosexual relationship, and would be against the clear teachings of Scripture that Godly marriage is not supposed to be lived “triumphantly” or according to an “over-realized eschatology” (1 Cor 7) by celibate partners. It is the sacrament within which a man and woman need not burn — in this life nor in hell. IF sodomy is a sin, and all sexual immorality is a sin whether heterosexual or homosexual, and the exchange by women of Adam for another Eve is a sin, how do we escape concluding a non-celibate homosexual marriage is not sinful and a profanation of what God the Father taught, Jesus echoed, and one or more apostles repeated and expounded upon?

    Why doesn’t World Vision just say they’re going to hire non-Christians? Instead of trying to qualify “Christian” with the use of LGBTQ as an adjective, which doesn’t appear to work well for “Raping Christian,” “Murdering Christian,” “Thieving Christian,” “Lying Christian,” etc., why not just say they’re going to hire some people who are not Christians? While serving in Bangladesh volunteering with MCC we hired Muslims, HIndus, and Buddhists. We didn’t refer to them as “Muslim Christians” or “Hindu Christians” or “Buddhist Christians.” WE just called them staff, co-workers, servants of the poor. There was no confusion and financially and prayerfully supportive Christians back home could either get on board or not without having to debate who’s a Christian and who’s not.

    But I trust it is a bridge too far to make the argument that because baptism has not been settled once and for all among all sects by either a universal commitment to dunk or sprinkle, and for consubstantiation over transubstantiation or vice-versa, and whether someone decides to live as a pacifist and conscientious objector when it comes to the draft — fleeing to Canada if need be — versus volunteering for the military to safeguard Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for civilians within the Homeland under threat of terror, we must leave something Holy, precious, fundamental, and sacramentally instituted by God in Genesis between the first man and woman for all subsequent men and women up in the air, throwing our hands up in the air and declaring in exasperation, “God just never made this clear in Scripture and finally, after thousands of years, we’re just now seeing for the first time that we can’t in Truth see through the glass darkly, and so we must not say with conviction we believe God’s original Truth about Holy Matrimony. C’est la vie.”

    Sometimes I’d really, really like to be a Murdering Christian. My occasional compulsion to kill some people may not be as strong as the lustful compulsions of one man for another, or one woman for another, but they’re sometimes pretty intense.

  • Don L

    Frank I agree that the child would still be supported if a sponsor dropped them. But there is a very personal connection between sponsor and child that is lost.

    • Frank

      It some cases maybe but not all. I suspect a small percentage have an actual relationship with their child.

      I sponsor several children through WV and even though they made a decision (reversed thankfully) that is in direct opposition to their belief, I never considered dropping those sponsorships. Some decided they would. Others decided they would increase their support with the initial decision and I am sure others withdrew their support with the reversal.

  • Tony, respectfully – jeopardizing World Vision’s work with poor children isn’t what’s setting the blogosphere on fire. It’s the apposition of the ambush d’jour; hooking evangelicals on the horns of the issue of same-sex-marriage that’s fueling this debacle. This episode AT LEAST displays an equally twisted willingness of the LGBT/progressive community to use the plight of hungry children to further their primary SSM agenda.Who wouldn’t say (and rightfully so) that if WV was vociferously discriminating against blacks we’d all be reconsidering how our dollars were “endorsing” injustice and anti-Biblical, anti-Kingdom values?

    • Digger

      What? You would take food from starving children just because an organization discriminates against black people?

      • SuperLogic

        Most likely all, or the vast majority moved their funds to other charitable organizations that help feed starving children as well.

  • Mike

    I mean no harm, or to start any sort of an argument. But I disagree with this article.

    There is only one translation for Romans 1. I encourage you to re-read it. No matter which way you spin it, wrong is wrong, and right is right. There is no grey.

    That being said, read Romans 16:17, which states you should keep away from those that are contrary to the teaching. And fail to repent. Could this be the beginning of a corrupt World Vision?

    I don’t think so. To be honest I think it already is. The board of directors at world vision make a half million dollars each. A true non-profit charity does not dwell in their tax free wealth, no matter where it lands percentage-wise.

    You have no right to be upset about where others decide they should donate there money, red letter Christians.

    Thanks.

  • Dan

    Tony, I appreciate your heart, but the bible has not changed, even if our culture has. Homosexuality is a sin, and calling it as such not hate speech.When people talk about someone who claims to be a “gay christian” the presumption is that the person is saying “I am a Christian, but God accepts me in my sin.” Yes, he does accepts us in our sin, but he calls us to change – not to continue and live a life that contradicts his word. As you said it, it is a “personal transforming relationship.” Or should we start being ok with the lifestyle of fornicator christians, idolater christians, and adulturer christians?

  • RainbowGurl44

    Wow! Very well said!

  • Estela

    There are many organizations that care for the needy. There’s nothing wrong with putting that support towards an organization whose views you support.

  • john

    Thanks Dr. Campolo!

  • Rev. Vincent

    A close reading of Leviticus and Romans reveals that the Bible is speaking of heterosexual men engaging in same-gender sexual activity – most likely temple prostitution. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus himself said that some “eunuchs” are born that way. For thousands of years, the term “eunuch” referred to the non-heterosexuals that we now call “LGBT.” In fact, the term was still being used that way a thousand years after the earthly ministry of Christ. It grieves me to see so many people in the church place a disputable interpretation of a handful of verses over the literally thousands of verses that indisputably place love, forgiveness, and taking care of the “least of these” at the top of the Christian “to do list.”

    • Digger

      Does the “Rev.” stand for revisionist?

    • Kesh

      Rev I see you have looked into history and understand the truth. It is a shame rather than debate some people post insults.

    • If what you mean by “a close reading of Leviticus and Romans” is a post 19th century reading that leans on a highly subjective exegetical/hermeneutical interpretation of the scriptures then you’ve won the right to continue with your line of argumentation here Rev. Vincent. Truth is, the pro LGBT textual critics have in their brief, 90 year history, a deep disunity over which eisogesis to land upon. Some assert the issue Paul’s addressing is pedophilia; others pagan fertility practices; others eunuchs – There’s actually more discrepancies among progressive scholars than there is between progressives and the traditional conservative scholarship on these scriptures.

      This self-exalted falsification of scholarship aside: If the logical extension of LGBT eisogesis is to grant divine marriage prerogative, it’s still incumbent on progressive “revisionists” (thank you Digger) to cite the example of same-sex-marriage under the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic covenant; under the covenant of Christ, or within the early church. Where is even one example of marriage being something other than male and female?
      If homosexuality is as endemic and pervasive as the LGBT community asserts then surely the Judeo-Christian community must have had occasion to deal with the issue somewhere in the previous 4000+ years?!
      I won’t bother waiting for a response since the silence of faith-history is deafening in this regard. There is “zero” authority, example or permission by which we might abrogate God’s eternal, trans-generational, trans-cultural, trans-denominational design for marriage.

      • JER

        Surround-sound Amen.

        What’s eisogesis mean?

        • Joe

          Eisegesis is the practice of “interpreting” Scripture by looking for what you want to see there, as opposed to exegesis (lit. “to lead out”) which is interpreting Scripture by discovering what is there, regardless of one’s personal preferences. There are most definitely people who are guilty of eisegesis, on every side of every theological issue. However, often it seems that accusations of eisegesis boil down to “you disagree with me, therefore you’re not really serious about reading the Bible.”

      • wjgreen314

        Excellent. Bravo and well done!

      • stevebrauning

        so based on these arguments, should we then continue to emphasize a topic on which there is a lack of Scripture(as you indicate above), and the handful of texts that there are, “over the literally thousands of verses that indisputably place love, forgiveness, and taking care of the “least of these” at the top of the Christian “to do list.””. In other words, prioritize hate over love.

        • Frank

          There is no love in supporting condoning, affirming, celebrating or remaining silent over sinful behavior.

        • One can ignore the Scriptures. One can say they’re not binding. One can misinterpret them.
          But one simply CAN’T say there’s a “lack of Scripture” re homosexuality.

          Nor can we posit that Scriptures take anything other than a unanimous position on the topic.
          But, it does so, precisely to highlight our need for the One Who has the capacity to save us “from” it!
          Jesus has provided the way out of condemnation for the homosexual, the heterosexual and everyone in-between.

          Die to self – and let the living Lord, Jesus rule your life.

    • Frank

      How embarrassing!

      I hope the rev is just an honorary title and no one actually looks to you for spiritual guidance. The blind leading the blind.

    • jonathan Starkey

      What the Bible doesn’t say on a subject is just as important as what it does say. But what it plainly says, in a few locations is so distorted by those who wish to pick it a part.

      Matthew 19 Jesus (who is our God) goes all the way back to THE BEGINNING (meaning the garden Adam and Eve; man and woman). This should be enough for all, who say there aren’t that many passages in scripture on the subject. Maybe there aren’t that many, but this passage cuts right to the quick.

      Then Rev, to go on an focus on some distortion, about Eunuchs. A passage that clearly the topic is, that if you can’t stay faithful in marriage, because marriage is difficult, then it is better not to marry. Jesus says, yep.

      Earlier Jesus elevates the woman in marriage, the MAN shall leave his father and mother. To protect men from exploiting women. Do you know, men will come up with all sorts of twisted thinking when they want to leave there wife.

      Just like homosexuals will come up with alls sorts of reasons to do what they want to go do.

      And idolatry, is saying and making scripture, and Jesus, line up with the immorality you are committing.

      Moses said, it’s ok for you to get a divorce, because their hearts were so hardened, BUT Jesus comes and straightens the whole thing out.

      That should be enough for you and us.

      We should look at this passage and think, look at how seriously, how God really values marriage, and the high calling he places on the man to love His wife.

  • Canbuhay

    It is simply dishonest to read the Bible and say it has nothing to say about same-sex sexual relationships when Jesus clearly spoke about how sex is only acceptable between a husband and wife. Period.

    Romans 1 is also clear. When Paul refers to the biological functions of men and women, it’s clear he’s talking about our physical functions. There is no room for alternative interpretations.

    The problem with biblical revisionists is that there is also no positive support or instruction for how a same-sex married couple are to live. The Bible gives clear instructions for how single people, husbands and wives are to use their sexuality in a godly way. There are no such instructions for same-sex sexual behaviour. The same goes with adultery or polygamous relationships.

    The fact that you treat these differences in the same way as we treat disagreements on baptism actually explains why this debate is such a big deal. Human sexuality hasn’t changed since the Fall. But neither has God’s commands for how it should be dealt with. As soon as we abandon that, we are no longer preaching the gospel of Christ but our own.

    • Digger

      Testify!

    • DrewTwoFish

      I’d have to say that on the face of it, the Bible does seem to condemn same sex sexual relationships. However, it also appears to endorse or at least fail to condemn things like slavery. If a whole lot of learned people got that one wrong the what are we to make of the Bible or how should it approach it? Why have so many generations failed to think critically about the Bible? Let’s be honest. Most people have accepted it as God’s word from beginning to end simply because that’s how they were brought up. And what do you do with gay people, intersexed people and so on? What message of hope have you got for them beyond promises of reward in some metaphysical future unknown? I’m dead serious. I get why people try to make the Bible say what it doesn’t appear to say because sometimes it says some very ugly things (along with some very beautiful things).

      • Jim Decke

        The message of hope for gay people and intersexed people, etc. is the same message of hope for everyone else: Repent and a loving God will forgive you and give you an amazing life. The Bible does not say that homosexual attractions or temptations are sin, it says that the behavior is. I am a celibate, gay Christian and live in that message of hope.

        • Frank

          Your faithfulness is inspiring!

        • DrewTwoFish

          Well, I’m glad that it has worked for you. Truly. However, I still come back to my original question because it is not only concerned with sexual expression.

          What do you do with the adherence to some Biblical dogma when it has done harm or continues to do harm? It is possible to hang on to some core tenets of the faith while looking critically at other portions? Error on the side of love*, while wrestling some the other stuff. The church has argued about and continues to argue about and changed its mind about a number of practices.

          *Love as defined, at least in part, by the recipient.

          • Frank

            Leading people away from sin never brings harm. Leaving them in sin however brings great harm.

            Love is defined by God not us.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Well, the next time some well intentioned person is booting me in the head I’ll check in with the Bible to see if it rates as harm.

          • Frank

            If you feel convicted that’s a good thing. You should pay attention to that.

            No one likes to hear about their sin.

          • Joe

            And once again, when it’s someone else, they’re convicted, but when it’s you, you’re being faithful in adversity. Your double-standard is awe-inspiring, Frank.

          • Frank

            Joe I get convicted all the time. What hubris to think that’s not true just because its nit from you.

          • Joe

            I wasn’t talking about me, but thanks for the assumption. You yourself have said that you’ve never been convinced to change your mind in the RLC comments.

          • Frank

            That’s true.What does that have to so with your assumption that I am never convicted?

          • Joe

            Because this is the internet, Frank, and so the only things we can take as true are the things that we can check for ourselves. Even though you say that you’ve been convicted in the past, no such evidence exists anywhere that we can see. You haven’t even named any examples, come to think of it.

          • Frank

            Am I required to inform you? Is your acknowledgment required?

            Get over yourself.

          • Joe

            You’re the one who regularly demands proof before you’re even willing to consider changing your mind, Frank. I’m just applying that logic evenly.

          • Frank

            You claimed I was never convicted. Don’t throw the focus back on me for your error. The right response would have been an apology.

          • Joe

            I’ll gladly apologize once I’ve been shown to be in error. That’s another one of your lines, isn’t it?

          • Frank

            You are in error if you claim I have never been convicted. Your stubbornness has blinded you.

          • Joe

            Frustrating, isn’t it? Now you know how the rest of us feel when we talk to you.

          • Frank

            Joe I am not frustrated at your stubbornness and ignorance. That reflects and affects you, not me. You might want to put some effort in that.

          • Joe

            Well, you did say I’d be disappointed if I tried to make you my project. Can’t say I wasn’t warned.

          • Frank

            Too bad you didn’t take the warning to heart and focus on yourself. Next time listen to me.

          • John

            Joe, I want you to think about this:

            Is Frank leading you into sin? Is his treatment of you leading you to reflect that sinful behaviour back? Because when I feel down about conversations with Frank, the conclusion I tend to come to, is that my behaviour has become worse. I am sinking to the lower common denominator.

            There are people who teach falsely about the WHAT of theology. And there are people who teach falsely about the HOW of theology.

            For Jesus, how we teach people is part of what we teach them. I would encourage you to focus on your how, and the ways in which it is being affected by the sins of another.

            I say all of this, because honestly you are better than me at not falling into this sort of thing, and it’s hard to watch someone else making the mistakes I’m so good at.

            Peace be with you.

          • Joe

            I was thinking many of the same things you’re asking me. I appreciate the gentle rebuke.

          • John

            It’s a splinter I know all too well. 😉

          • DrewTwoFish

            The HOW. Indeed. Touches on my response to Frank re the definition of harm.

          • Joe

            For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’m any better at “not falling into this sort of thing” than you are, at least on the inside. The only reason it looks that way on the outside is that often I’ll either realize in a discouraged sort of way that I’m not doing any good, or I’ll overthink the whole potential conversation and then realize that it couldn’t possibly go so well in real life as it did in my head. I appreciate the way that you seem to respond with grace and patience in times when I have to excuse myself or risk exploding in anger.

          • Mike Ward

            I guess I’m sort of glad that I’m not the only one discouraged though I can’t truly be happy with someone else’s discouragement. Honestly, I see very little point to these discussions. I used to love to discuss, debate, and argue theology and then a few years ago I just kind of was struck by the pointlessness of it all. I’ve tried to get into discussion off and on in different online forums from time to time since then, but I never last long. I’m here now because whenever I go a long time without talking about these things I start to feel like I kind of need to talk about them, but in end I just drift away again. I’m trying to talk a little bit more in church, but that’s become difficult for me now too. I usually do better in life group than in Sunday school.

          • Joe

            Well, you know, misery loves company 😛

            I suppose we could try just avoiding the comments when we know it’s going to be pointless flamewars; that’s something that I’ve said before that I try to do, but it’s just so easy to get sucked back in…

          • Mike Ward

            I really don’t know what the answer is. At least I can always talk to wife. God gave me that much.

          • DrewTwoFish

            ? Huh?

            What I meant was, in this earthly realm, outside an agreed on understanding of what constitutes love/harm or sin should generally be defined by the recipient. At the very least I think that person is the one who defines the lovingness or harmfulness of the delivery. (I’m talking adult to adult here. It’s a different dynamic for parents and children to some degree.) I dare say that the quality of delivery can completely undo or cancel out the intended good.

          • Frank

            And what I mean is that God defines what love is not us. Love does not always feel like love but that doesn’t mean its not love It means we have a limited understanding of love or we have defined love and rejected Gods definition. Your bringing up parent -child is a good example and that is a closer model of real love than two adults deciding for themselves what love is.

          • DrewTwoFish

            OK, but the participants in this discussion who do believe in God aren’t in total agreement about God’s definition of harm and love and none of us here is God. So doesn’t that HOW that truth is delivered pretty important? If the method of delivery has someone putting up a wall then don’t we end up just throwing seeds, treasures (searching for a metaphor) at that wall to no avail? These discussions are taking place between adults, not parents and children, or God and humans.

          • Frank

            I am not so sure this is a conversation happening between adults. Yes the how matters but the what matters more.

            And we go to scripture for answers because we are not God.

          • Jim Decke

            If Biblical interpretations are doing harm they need to be reviewed and reconsidered. Personally, I have no problem with holding onto the core tenets while looking critically at others; in fact, I think the entire Bible should be looked at critically by anyone claiming to be a Christian. Our faith must be our own and cannot be hinged on our parents, friends or our Church’s beliefs. I don’t follow “the Church”, I follow what I read in the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s conviction.

            I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and I have had to adjust my life to that belief. I can’t be honest with myself and at the same time try to adjust what the Bible says to make it fit my experience. Regarding my homosexual attractions, I come back to Jesus telling his followers in Luke 9:23-24 “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.”
            It has been difficult but ultimately rewarding, and the difficulty has greatly lessened with time. I have been hurt by some people through this process (including well-intentioned Christians) but I don’t let that stop me from pursuing a life that I believe is pleasing to God. Aren’t we all hurt from time to time by others, sometimes severely? Why allow those people to determine the course of our lives?

          • Joe

            That seems like a very healthy attitude to have. And an incredibly difficult one to maintain. Blessings, brother.

          • Jim Decke

            Thanks Joe :) It has been a difficult journey but well worth it. The maintenance pretty much takes care of itself as I stay close to God.

  • Terri Knoll

    Spot on! And when they reversed their decision, these “Christians” called to ask if they could have “their” children back. As if poor children are a commodity to be mucked about every time they get their panties in a wad.

    • Digger

      Now it is really getting hard to keep up with what you enlightened christians say is the right thing to do. FIRST, you criticize conservatives for dropping the sponsorship of the children, “how can you take food away from starving chidren? Oh the humanity!” And NOW, according to you, some have done EXACTLY what the liberals have been saying should be done and resumed their sponsorship, and you are critisizing them for that!

      • Terri Knoll

        it should have never happened in the first place. they OWN their criticism.

  • Digger

    There is a new IPCC report on climate change out. The shrill cries contained in this one are even more frantic than the last. I can’t wait to read the articles from Red Letter christians telling me how I’m not a good follower of Christ because I don’t believe the report. (Off topic, I know.)

  • Kesh

    I think it is really sad when some Christians put ideologies and religious practice as more important than helping poor children. This is why Jesus criticised the church/temple in his time.
    This is what Micah preached about in the Old Testament.
    I am so glad RLC preach Gods love rather than “Gods” docrtines.

  • Karen McIntosh

    I keep remembering the woman at the well…when Jesus showed her compassion and grace. WoW!! pretty amazing stuff…. she was a prostitute. I believe that my sin is no better that those who are believing same sex is correct.. or acceptable. Since when are we here to judge and condemn? I thought that was God’s job. Did you know that you could be the only “Jesus” people see… he was compassionate and kind.. full of mercy. What would he do? Point a finger? or embrace them?

    Pulling funds from organizations “Christian” ones that do good on this earth is ridiculous Who in the end do you hurt but those that need it the most. That is not Christian like at all.. it is mean and hateful.

    Grow up.. God has a much bigger plan. All Christian are doing is pushing away the sinners of this world and not drawing them to Christ. IT IS NOT OUR PLAN.. It’s GOD”S PLAN.

    • Mike Ward

      What does it mean to “judge”? I want to know how to define “judge” in such a way that calling homosexuality a sin is judging but describing some Christians as “ridiculous”, “not Christian”, “mean”, “hateful”, and needing to “grow up” is not.

      • Karen McIntosh

        Whatever! You be the judge.

  • 4thegloryofgod

    I agree with Tony that it is a shame and scandalous that 4000 children are now paying the price. I wish it had not happened. I wish those who supported those children would not have made the decision that they did. My hope is that many of those decisions will be revaluated. It was not the appropriate response to the WV decision. There were other ways to make their theological point clear.

    That being said, I think Tony and many others believe that there are some issues that should be decisive or defining. Jesus said, “unless you believe that I am He, you shall surely die in your sins.” It take it that the deity of Christ is a defining issue. The resurrection is a defining issue. Repentance and faith in Christ are defining issues. There are things that must be believed, the apostles creed is an attempt to define some of them.

    All of us believe that the other fellow has some abberant theology. But there must be a core that all of us believe and hold in common with other believers through time and the first followers of Christ else we could not (theologically) call one another “brother and sisters’ in Christ. (Yes, I know, we are all brothers and sister human beings, part of the great plan and design of creation, but that is different, theologically different and the difference is important.)

    There are some issues that are black and white, some that are grey, and some of the things that were once felt to be black and white are now moving into grey arenas. The question is, is the interpretation of Romans and other passages related to same sex practice (not attraction, that is a different issue), a grey area discussion? Is that discussion driven by good or bad hermeneutics? Is that discussion driven by the spirit of the age or a biblical and historical understanding of the texts?

    Is same-sex-marriage to be sanctioned, tolerated, or prophetically resisted? Without declaring my own position, because such a declaration would prejudice one side or the other to write me off, these are the questions that both sides need to deal with honestly.

    My prayer and hope is that the body of Christ might learn something that will bring great honor and glory to Christ, which ought to be the supreme motivation of both camps.

  • Micki Findlay

    I have been reading everyone’s comments and I have read the word ‘sin’ over and over. Jesus said, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone…” Have you ever wondered what Jesus wrote in the sand that made everyone drop their stones and walk away? Could it be that he wrote each of their names and a sin of which they had been guilty? That would certainly shut them up, wouldn’t it? You bet it would! And, do you ever wonder why Jesus had so
    little patience for the Pharisees? They certainly upheld the law… to the letter, in fact. Could it be that Jesus could not stomach the fact that they were much more interested in moral issues that the people themselves? Jesus did not have much patience for legalism, especially when it was devoid of compassion. Didn’t Jesus say that the letter of the law kills? He also said “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” Romans 2:1

    So my point is? Every one of you who argue vehemently about the morals and laws written in the bible, spouting off about this sin and that sin are, you yourselves, guilty of sin. For instance I, myself, believed sex should only take place in the confines of marriage. Oops… I blew it there. (Guilty) At one time I thought divorce should not take place in a Christian’s life. Oops… I blew it again. (Guilty) I used to inwardly judge Christians with addiction issues. Oops again. (Guilty) All
    of you who spend more time spouting off legalism than showing compassion are, more often than not, the ones who are simply better at hiding your own shortcomings. (Guilty) And worse, you try to cover them up with an air of piousness and an attitude of religiosity. Pharisees are still very much alive today… they may not take the same form as days of old, but they are still very real within our Christian communities. I am a sinner who is very aware of my sin, and sometimes I am thankful for that because it causes me to lean on God more fiercely and helps keep me a little more humble.

    The saddest thing about all this is, when I see this kind of attitude within my Christian community, I am only too aware of why so many people reject our faith. All they see is a bunch of judgmental, pompous hypocrites who are more interested in pointing out sin than loving their neighbor. Yuck! Who wants that? Sometimes it makes me feel ashamed to be a Christian… not because I am ashamed of Christ, but because I am ashamed of how Christians often act. And the fact that more
    than 4,000 people decided to pull their sponsorship because World Vision decided that same-sex married people have as much right to work there as anyone, astonishes and saddens me to no end. It makes me wonder what these people do when same-sex couples comes into their churches. Do they turn them away? Do they tell them that they are sinners and have no right to be there? Do they tell them that they have no right to the same Jesus they have? I would hope
    not. So do they not have just as much right to work at World Vision as to sit in our church pews? Are we not to come to Jesus as we are… sinners? Or are we so filled with a false sense of purity that we have forgotten what our mission is… to reach out to others with God’s love so that they may be saved? Who wants to be identified with 4,000 evangelicals who would rather take food and medicine away from needy children than allow someone to work at World Vision whom they deem unworthy? Not me, that’s for sure. And shouldn’t the criteria for working there be whether they are good at their jobs and, because it is a Christian organization, be willing to be respectful and supportive of Christian beliefs?

    Thank you Tony for writing this letter. You are right on the money. Our Christian community should be ashamed for this display of stupidity. We have succeeded to, in one fell swoop, only prove to the world once again that Christianity is a religion to be avoided. A terrific Christian witness this has turned out to be. So sad. To the children in poverty who have been the fallout due to these pious actions, I apologize on behalf of Christians everywhere. To the gay community who have been wounded by the shrapnel of legalism, I apologize on behalf of Christians everywhere. God loves you and please don’t let the actions and comments of legalistic Christians keep you from the very One who loved you enough to die in your place. Jesus preached love, not hate or judgment. On the cross, as He was dying in agony said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” God bless you all. Micki Findlay

    • Vince

      “So my point is? Every one of you who argue vehemently about the morals and laws written in the bible, spouting off about this sin and that sin are, you yourselves, guilty of sin.”

      Exacty. I remind unrepentant sinners of their sin because I know I am a terrible sinner. I have broken every one of Gods laws. But the law is good, it shows us our need for a savior. Gal 3:24 says the law points us to Christ. The Pharisees thought they could please God by obeying the law which is impossible.

      Jesus said in Luke 17:3 “…If your brother sins, rebuke him…” How can we obey Christ if no sinner can talk to others about sin? He also said forgive them if they repent. Jesus said “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment”. (Jn 7). Sometimes because we are sinners we get self righteous, when we do we need to repent and ask forgiveness. But we cannot stop telling people about sin and why they need Jesus.

  • D Carlson

    Not too impressed- unstated assumption made by the author: 4,000 cancellations at World Vision = a net lost of support for needy children. We don’t know that; there are many ministries that serve needy children and dollars removed from WV may be directed to like ministries.

    • Eric Thurman

      So Richard Stearns was lying, I guess. Unbelievable. As if that 4,000 just represented 4,000 bank accounts. Not, you know, actually human beings. Human beings to whom WV sponsors made a commitment. Human beings now abandoned by people they counted on. But “we don’t know that.” Sure.

  • Peter

    If you are the Samaritan helping the man who was beat up on the roadside and then find out he is gay, do you withhold your giving? You are the Samaritan and the innkeeper is gay do you still pay him to look after the assaulted man and return later to repay any additional debts? Do you really believe that is what Jesus was saying in the parable? If you are currently giving to desperate children in other parts of the world and then withdraw your help because gay people at World Vision are helping you give. Does that make any sense for Christians?

  • Peter Stainton

    If you are the Samaritan helping the man who was beat up on the roadside and then find out he is gay, do you withhold your giving? You are the Samaritan and the innkeeper is gay do you still pay him to look after the assaulted man and return later to repay any additional debts? Do you really believe that is what Jesus was saying in the parable? If you are currently giving to desperate children in other parts of the world and then withdraw your help because gay people at World Vision are helping you give. Does that make any sense for Christians? When religious dogma hurts the innocent that is called hate- not Christianity. The evangelical church needs new wine skins.

    • Frank

      You do understand this whole issue isn’t about whether to care for gay people or not right?

  • RichYork

    The Bible is very clear that love keeps no record of wrongs, and yet many Christians seem to interpret the Bible in such a way as to believe that they are some kind of anti-sin police force.

    I trust that they can find the humility to look again at what the covenant, which is by faith from first to last, really means.

    • Frank

      Yes the bible keeps no record of wrongs repented of.

      • RichYork

        So you say, fortunately that isn’t what the apostle said.

        • RichYork

          By the way, that’s why its called the good news.

          • RichYork

            I don’t believe in eternal damnation either, I’m pretty sure that Jesus didn’t.

          • Frank

            Then you reject the belief that Jesus had. No wonder you are so off on things.

          • RichYork

            I John, if you read more than your selected verse is actually about loving your brother, which is very pertinent in respect of the original post try reading on a bit, the other two verses you give do not tie redemption to repentence, although I agree that repentence is good I do not think it is the thing which absolves sin. .
            For your information, the Jews had no belief in eternal damnation,when Jesus spoke to them about hell it was not perceived as eternal.

          • Frank

            The Jews missed quite a bit about what Jesus was saying.

            So you believe we can keep sinning and not repent and God does not care?

          • Kesh

            Frank if you read the original translations of the scriptures he never used the word Hell. I thought you knew your Bible.

          • Luke

            So . . . you’re saying all the Biblical scholars have messed up then and all our current translations are incorrect? All the while when we know what the original scriptures actually said? Wow, either we have a bunch of morons translating our scriptures, or a bunch of dishonest folk.

          • Joe

            Sometimes tradition seeps in where it shouldn’t (as in, “it’s always been translated this way, if your new translation does it differently then I’m not going to trust your translation”), sometimes it’s a problem inherent in translation – when English only has one word for four different Greek or Hebrew concepts, you’re going to run into issues. Likewise when the Greek or Hebrew has one word that carried two or three different meanings that all have different English words. I’d say “hell” falls more into that latter category; there are several different Greek and Hebrew words, each with subtle differences, but in many English translations they’re all rendered as Hell. And that’s where the former category starts to play in, because some of the newer translations will simply transliterate Gehenna or Hades, but readers interpret all of them as “Hell” rather than appreciating the differences.

          • Frank

            Make the case that Jesus didn’t believe in what we refer to as hell with scripture. Surely you should be able to do that.

            I won’t hold my breath.

          • Joe

            While I don’t intend to weigh in on the issue of Hell, I would like to point out that the question of what Jesus thought of Hell is one that can’t be answered by Scripture alone, regardless of the stance you take. There are three words (that I know of) in the New Testament that might be translated as “Hell.” And in order to determine what is meant by Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus, one has to look beyond Scripture, because none of the three are defined within the pages of the Bible. Though if I am wrong in this, I would appreciate being shown my error – with Scripture, of course.

          • Mike Ward

            Our understanding of all the words in the Bible come from external sources. Even if a word is definined in the bible, it’s defined in terms of others words whose meaning we only know because scholars understand Greek from other sources.

            Also, what about Matthew 18:8, 9? I don’t know the Greek here, but the English is fire. Is the meaning of fire in doubt?

            Finally, Revelation refers to a lake of fire. I know you are talking about the words of Jesus, but if it is permissible to assume that the John’s understanding of damnation differed from Christ’s then the accuracy of the entire New Testament is in doubt, and at that point, the most straighforward argument that Jesus might not have believed in hell is that the bible is simply not reliable.

          • Joe

            Fair call on Matthew 18 – 18:8 says “eternal fire” (even in Greek), and 18:9 has “Gehenna of fire.” Revelation refers to the lake “burning with fire and brimstone” (best translation of the Greek I can manage) which is the second death. So I guess the next question would have to be, what exactly do we and/or did Frank mean by “what we refer to as hell”? And is that picture consistent with the varied imagery found through the uses of Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, “Gehenna of Fire,” and “Lake of Fire”? For that matter, is it actually possible to have a singular notion of Hell that is consistent with all of those? And that’s before adding in Old Testament words like Sheol.

            And what do we make of Revelation 20:14, where Hades is thrown into the lake of fire?

          • Mike Ward

            Kesh, What do you mean by “original translations”?

        • Frank

          A believer receives God’s forgiveness when he repents of sin and places his

          faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

          “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” (Ephesians 1:7).

          However, when we stumble, we are called to confess our sins.

          “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

          “Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, who sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord doesn’t count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit” (Psalm 32:1-2)

  • I love Dr. Campolo’s work, and have been ministered to by his teaching over many years. After interviewing him at a local event, I discovered he and I disagree on a few things, mostly in the arenas where govt. has pushed it’s intrusive agenda into sacred practice. I agree with him, that Christians often make mountains out of molehills, picking to divide with their brothers over issues of baptismal sprinkles or dips, clothing and music style, etc. However, as Christians we are called to stand for a life and lifestyle that is counter to the world, and to live in holiness in our relationships. The OT and New says clearly that our sexual behavior and sexual fidelity is at the core of a holy lifestyle.

    I applaud World Vision for reversing their decision, and choosing not to accept the world’s standards and definition of what is OK in an intimate relationship. While I appreciate Dr. Campolo’s body of work, because of 1 Cor 6, Romans 1, and the smoldering crater that used to be Sodom and Gomorrah, we will have to agree to disagree

  • Scott Petersen

    World Vision is not the only organization that feeds starving children! I am guessing that if the 4000 people that were supporting children before WV decision, they are still supporting children with other organizations that are aligned with their same Biblical views. I do not support Planned Parenthood even though I do agree with parenthood. So, it is a straw man argument to have outrage at 4000 cancellations over their decision, as I will guess that Compassion and other organizations will see a sharp increase in sponsorships.

  • jonathan starkey

    Red Letter Christians believe that what defines a person as a Christian is having a personal transforming relationship with the resurrected Christ. We talk about being spiritually invaded by the Holy Spirit who cleanses us gradually from sin and empowers us to become progressively more and more Christlike.

    More important than my experience with Christ is the Christ of my experience. – James Torrance

    Tony’s above statement is kind of unitarian, meaning it places an emphasis of having an experience with Christ as the definer of the Christian experience. So the meter becomes those who have or had an experience with Christ, is your path to the Father. So experience reigns. It becomes unitarian when you say, now anyone who is having an experience with Christ has a gateway to the Father. So whether your hetero sexual or homosexual it doesn’t matter.

    Then you could make the sermon on the mount or loving your neighbor as a way to gain access to the Father (instead of Christ). So it becomes a shocker. I can’t believe 4000 people began to withdraw funds.

    When you remove Christ as the High Priest and Mediator?

    Christ had experiences with the Father and transformed, Paul had experiences and was transformed, I had experiences and was transformed, everyone who has experiences that is transformed.

    Christ needs to have His proper place. No one gets to the Father except through me. And the fact is He did it all.

    If you have died and Christ is in you, and you have an adulterous affair. Don’t you bring Christ with you into that?

    If you have died and Christ is in you, and you have an homosexual affair. Don’t you bring Christ with you into that?

    Then to kind of justify and say well I’m a Christian because I’ve had transforming experiences, and I don’t believe your interpretation of scripture?

    More important than my experience with Christ is the Christ of my experience. – James Torrance

  • Jonathan starkey

    Looking at the 4000 children just highlights seeing Christianity as a means to an end, which exposes the secular blindness of how we view God and the Church. Sad.

  • Jason

    So….what about “Christians” who don’t believe the Bible condemns adultery, theft, lying or murder? I guess we can’t say they aren’t Christians either, right? Tony, with all due respect, you need to read 1 John. Someone who lives in continuous sin is not a Christian. I’m not saying a Christian won’t struggle with same-sex attraction, but someone who proudly lives a homosexual lifestyle is not a Christian.

    • Eric Thurman

      Bwahuh? Who on earth are you talking about? Who doesn’t believe that adultery, theft, lying, and murder are condemned in the Bible? Who would even think to make such claims, and why? You can only be trying to conflate undebatable sins like these with same-sex eroticism in a desperate effort to shut down any dialogue on the subject. And your, rather cliched, comment that “someone who lives in continuous sin is not a Christian” is not just judgmental; it’s painfully bad theology, with a poor understanding of grace, sanctification, and salvation, one that you try to cover up by throwing out 1 John as a weaponized proof text.

    • dman278

      Pride, haughtiness, self-righteousness, gluttony… these are all continual sins, as well. By your measure, no one at church is a christian, either.

  • Kesh

    Tony Campolo is correct. Those Christians who threatened to withdraw support to children due to World Vision employing Gay people is evil in the sight of the Lord. It is no different from the Pharisees who made money from the worshippers in the temple or when they expect people to starve or die on the Sabbath due to “not being allowed to work”. It is sickening especially when some are blaming World Vision who want to give everyone the opportunity to work for them and look after children in desperate need.
    As for for those who say those who live in continous sin are bad. We ALL live in continous sin so according to some we are all screwed!
    People who proudly live a homosexual lifestyle is as Christian as anyone else if they believe. Jesus says don’t judge I suggest we follow his teachings.

  • 22044

    If you love Me, keep My commands. – Jesus

    Scripture has a specific intention and context for having sex.

    We will struggle with sin all our lives and that is OK. What is not OK is giving in to sin, perhaps even celebrating it, and lying to ourselves that this is God’s intention.

    • dman278

      Pretty sure scripture also has a specific intention and context for meeting the needs of the poor. Why is sex given priority?

      • 22044

        I think taking care of the poor should be taken seriously as well. However…

        Sexual sin seems to be a different kind of sin based its consequences; see I Corinthians 6.
        And there seems to be much less clarity and agreement on these forums about the command to flee sexual sin, as much as repenting from other sins.

  • JackK

    You ain’t wrong.

  • ConcernedCharles

    “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”
    And herein lies the problem: we do not agree on what constitutes the essentials of the Christian faith. Within the Church, there have always been issues that were seen as core essentials, and there have always been issues that were seen as non-essentials where we can agree to disagree. Comparing homosexuality to the eucharist & baptism & pacifism is weak – those things have been debated within the Church for centuries! Marriage as one man & one woman has not, and to compare them like this is to ignore all of Church history & teachings on these issues. It is clear from the reaction to WV that most evangelicals see ‘homosexuality-as-sin’ as an essential to the Christian faith. That shouldn’t surprise anyone; it has been that way in the Church for 2000 years. Those who wish to change that need to do a better job to convince the rest of us that they are right, rather than taking this position of being offended when the faithful defend the essentials of the faith. You have to convince the Church that we got it wrong for 2000 years though it all the while was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s no easy task. No one as an individual has the right to suddenly move core views of the faith to the “non-essentials” category and then expect everyone else to just go along with them and accept it. That’s exactly what Tony is doing here. Also, this isn’t just about gay marriage; it also extends to a bigger picture of human sexuality & gender identity that includes polygamy, transgender, & bisexuality. To move the church “forward” in that direction, you have to do a lot more than just guilt trip people about starving children. If people aren’t sending their money to World Vision, they are more than likely still sending it to poor children through other organizations. I know we would in our family, and I bet so would most people who sacrifice every month to send their hard earned dollars to those less fortunate. So the attacks implying that people don’t care about children are baseless & manipulative and need to stop. I’m very disappointed in this article, as I’ve respected Tony for decades. But he is, unfortunately, way off base on this one.

    • Joe

      Forgive me, Charles, but would you be willing to help me out with some solid examples of how “homosexuality-as-sin” was viewed as “an essential to the Christian faith” throughout the history of the Church? Because from what I’ve seen, for the majority of our history it’s been a peripheral issue at best. I can’t think of any church councils from the Roman period where the equivalent of “affirming” churches were declared heretics, nor any Papal decrees condemning same-sex relationships in Medieval times. that could be because no such exists, or it could just be because I’m not aware of them. If I’m unaware, could you kindly inform me, so that I will no longer be lacking in knowledge here?

  • I would not expect any other view coming from you Mr. Campolo. That’s not a criticism per se, just that it is obvious where you have stood on issues in the past. But I have to say that it is still surprising that you would trivialize the discussion by equating decisions on immersion or sprinkling with the seriousness of a lifestyle of homosexuality. Based on the uproar, I would say no one on either side thinks this matter of same-sex marriage and gay Christianity is trivial.(And by the way, for the evangelical church this is not ultimately about marriage, it is about gay Christianity. The sooner we realize that the sooner we will arrive at the obvious conclusion to all of this.) While your view of Scripture is high I don’t think it is high enough if you can wave away Romans 1 as a marginal comment on homosexuality, or as you refer to it, gender erotic behavior (sounds so harmless when you repackage it, but it is still men with men, women with women, forsaking natural relations with the opposite sex, which is hard to misinterpret if one is being intellectually honest. And as for the accusations against people spending their money according to their valid convictions, when World Vision’s reversal came, many gays and supporters of the gay community who had sprung into action to make up for the loss caused by those cruel traditional evangelicals removed their Facebook pleas for support and became apologetic for enlisting people in the gay community to give. Where was their concern for the children? Why hadn’t they already been a part of World Vision? It is a double standard that makes any meaningful discussion with the gay community impossible. Of course meeting the needs among the poorest of the poor is urgently important, but it does not trump commitment to truth. You can’t simply just do whatever you want to do in Jesus’ name.

    • Guest

      Dear Sponsored Child, sorry I have to send you back out in the street, but feeding and educating you has to take a back seat to Standing For The Truth. It’s in the bible. I’ll send you the scripture reference as soon as I can find it. Meanwhile, I leave you with a scripture from James 2:15: “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed.”

      xoxo

      • Dear Sponsored Child, Here’s food and water. Please ignore my sorry example of living out the gospel of Jesus Christ as I demonstrate that human comfort is more important than eternal truth. I could help you temporally and be true to scripture but that would require a sacrifice of my own comfort and choices. Unfortunately, my example wont help you get to heaven so, for now, enjoy the warmth of the social gospel.

  • If I was your wife, I’d be worried that other men might present too great a temptation under such a belief system.

    • Joe

      Wait, so your only response to this is “I bet you’re secretly gay”? Forgive me, but that seems incredibly juvenile.

      • It’s been used against me on this site, so why not?

        • Joe

          Well, Theodore, you tell me: when it was used against you, did you take it as a legitimate critique, or as rudeness just for the sake of being rude? And if you thought it was juvenile and tacky when used against you, why would you want to use it yourself?

          • I take the whole argument opposing heteronormative families as “rude for the sake of being rude”. Once it was proven how the Matthew Shepard incident had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with drug deals gone bad, I realized that there was no point to it other than to make up stories to induce guilt.

            So I started doing the same- making up stories to induce guilt- to make a point.

            Thanks for noticing.

          • 22044

            Hmmm. I’m not sure how your connection justifies a tactic like that.

            But your point about Matthew Shepard’s murder is correct.

  • cleaford

    ‘criteria’ is plural. The singular is ‘criterion’.

  • Barry

    It’s sad that Christianity is so fragmented…I believe the time is coming when all of Spiritual Israel (Real Israel) comes together again. The confusion is clearing as Babylon is falling…The old archaic systems of religion and tradition, no longer have control. Our identity has been lost, but it is now coming full circle. All you have to do is read Romans 9:6. Israel is Spiritual and we are waiting for our Exodus to the heavenly Jerusalem. (Hebrews 12:22-23) In fact in order to get their, you must be registered on earth. How do you register? Believe and Obey Acts 2:38.

  • signal7design

    Tony you are lost. This cannot be compared to the same sex marriage issue.

    A christian organization is supposed to full of actual christians. America is not full of christians.

  • just a guy

    It is so sad to see this reaction from people who say that they follow Jesus and care about what he cares about. Mr. Campolo, this is a different issue than the many you listed. When you change what sin is, you destroy the gospel. How can someone come to Christ and not repent and turn away from their sin? They cannot. And if you say that what they are doing isn’t sin, then they don’t need a savior. To come to Jesus, they don’t have to turn away from their sin. This is wrong and tears apart the gospel.

    World Vision wants its employees to be Christians. They aren’t saying that you have to believe and live by all of their other rules/standards because they want unbelievers to come and work and live by them–they are talking about Christians. They don’t want “Christians” who are opening walking in sin. We are not supposed to associate with people like this. They defame the name of Christ by living a life in unrepentant sin. To say you can be a Christian and not turn away from your sin does not make sense and is in opposition to what Scripture teaches. That is why this is a big issue. Not because people are against gay marriage between unbelievers, but because you are saying that behavior is completely acceptable for Christians. It is not. There is a difference in struggling against your flesh and openly walking in sin.

  • Dave Grissen

    Is there a difference between moral issues and Christian practice? It seems baptism and the Lord’s supper are practices. Moral issues are defined from the very character of God and revealed to us through the Scripture. Harder to relativize those than practices. And does obedience to the commands of Christ define how we should live? Hard to find justification then for any immoral action especially when Jesus said we should not even lust. Do we change our behavior to accommodate the words of Christ and the Scripture, or do we justify those actions we like or have a hard time dealing with?

  • stabber

    Hi I am Christian and am Gay. I was born Gay to a loving Mother and Father who celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary recently. I have been prayed over, spoke in tongues full of the Holy Spriti. I have had scientific tests and gone to Ex Gay ministeries but am still attracted to other men. I prayed to the Lord and have felt him not condemn me even after I confessed I have a boyfriend and he knows about it. We have not done anything yet. God loves me and has told me what I am doing is not wrong as he created me Gay. So I hope to get married as I have saved myself for my boyfriend. I will want to work in the ministry. I work in a school now. I would love to work for World Vision.
    Plese pray for me guys.
    Thanks

    • Frank

      God may or may not take away your sinful attractions but the every worst thing you can do is surrender to them.. There is a better path. Not an easy path but a better more holy one.

      • stabber

        He had not. I prayed for years dud everything possible because I had the “truth” but years later God revealed it is not a sin just like divorcees from abusive marriages is not a sin. My homosexuality is not a sin I have not had sex but will when I marry my boyfriend.

        You say I am a sinner I suggest you look closer to home before judging other christians.

  • Luke

    Lately, I have been seeing our approach to Christianity as a “rule-book”. Little by little, that rule-book keeps changing. The pro LGBT Christians seem to be claiming some kind of “love as Jesus did” superiority because their rule book no longer includes LGBT behaviour. The non LGBT Christians are claiming a “live as Jesus instructed” superiority because their rule book does include LGBT behaviour.

    These are just slightly different versions of a rule-book though!!! Are we naive enough to think that one side or the other has it completely right??!! NO!!! I’m sure we’re both wrong in many regards.

    Mr. Campolo seems to be introducing a slight variation to the rule-book approach by inserting an extra category: “matter of opinion sins”. So now we have a rulebook that contains things which aren’t sins, things which are sins, and things which could be but are inconsequential. Enough Already!!! This is just a more elaborate approach to what the Pharisees were trying to do.

    How about we take Jesus and the writers of the Bible at their word and simply call sin, sin? And then realize that we all sin, and all live in some continuous state of sin whether we realize it or not? How about we take the 3rd way approach and simply say to people, “I honor your sincere efforts to follow Jesus and I trust that he will mold and shape you as you grow in Him. I also will not judge your state of salvation. BUT, I will also not stop calling sin, sin.”

    There is no bigger insult we can hurl at Jesus than to stop calling sin, sin. It is basically saying he died for nothing on the cross. It undermines what he came to accomplish, and makes it pointless. Throw out your rulebook. It will never be perfect. Accept that in our sinfulness, God will shape us as he will.

  • Mike Alameda

    God is a big God and he will send other Christian organization who meet the needs of those children.

    • Kevin Thomas

      I guess if one is a Calvinist… I tend to believe we all make choices and choices have repercussions…

  • Russ

    There was no comment, nor consideration, in this article that the people may have left the sponsorship of 4000 World Vision children and went on to sponsor even more children through another organization. There are other options. Are you suggesting one go against their conscience? Similarly, I myself cannot support BSA, nor encourage my grandson to join due to their similar decision. There are other options and my understanding of scripture prevents me from supporting a perversion of truth.

  • kesh

    What about the children who suffer. It is disgusting to make children suffer because as a sponsor you dont like whom the charity employ

    • Canbuhay

      This has nothing to do with what or who I don’t like. It has everything to do with whether or not World Vision is sharing Christ to the world or their version of Christ, as defined by post-modern cultural norms.

      If we truly love those children, we need to share the real Jesus, not someone who we can redefine however way we want.

  • kesh

    Another thing I go to a church where most of the leaders dont believe in speaking in tongues to me this is sin against god yet I give regularly to the church. No different to the wv issue

  • This is a genuine question. I’m curious: What would a Red Letter Christian say to Brendan Eich if he showed up at your home group this week…?

    • wjgreen314

      I’m NO fan of Bill Maher but even he posited that there is a Gay Mafia. And as has been pointed out by numerous fans and supporters of Barack Hussein Obama, Brendan gave his gift the same year Obama declared that he believed marriage was between one man and one woman and not between Adam and Steve nor Eve and Yvette.

  • Gary H

    Love is commitment to the good of someone. Good is that which leads to life. If modern-day Christians despise the traditionally held view of homosexuality as being sin — something that leads to death — just ask the CDC what happens to practicing homosexuals. You jokers, behind a façade that shields you from any darts, are “loving” homosexuals to death.
    Christian children were not turning to homosexuality in record numbers before their parents rewrote God’s rules.

  • Xrucianus

    Ruminating on this. I’d like to posit that what should trouble us most about the World Vision episode isn’t whether gay men can hang a picture of their partner in their Federal Way cubicle, or we Americans shift our 0.05% from World Vision to Compassion International or any one of another hundred Christian relief organizations.
    I believe what should trouble us most about our generation (the WV board of directors included) is that we believe we have the right to so arbitrarily alter God’s 6000 year old, transgenerational, transcultural, transdenominational prescription for marriage. If we had any eternal sense about us, we’d see what we’re “adjusting” is more holy than what Uzzah touched on the ox-cart (1 Chronicles 13:8). Beloved, our generation has raised it’s hand to “rectify” “what God has joined together” (Mark 10:9)! This ought to fill us all with a holy terror that shakes us until His Kingdom come.

  • Kay

    The work of World Vision is much needed & I support it, but this is like during the Chick-fil-A anti-gay feud — when the message & example of Christ was getting hidden behind the chicken. And “money talks in Christianity” is the message I hear in these Duck Dynasty & World Vision public displays. This reversal also reminds me of Franklin Graham reversing position on Mormonism on their website for their political party gain during the last presidential election. If this turns me off as a Christian, then I can understand why some want nothing to do with the Christian faith. I agree with your words & points addressed

  • Carl Chamberlain

    When asked about the greatest Commandment Jesus spoke of the Shema, the core identity statement of the Israelites: Hear O Israel, the L++d is one… love the L++d your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. That is our relationship with God (love = agape). As we know, there is a second part where agape/love is the basis – caring for one another. Jesus went on to say that these two encapsulate all the rest of the Law and all the wisdom and guidance of the prophets.

    Tony and all, I can not grasp how caring for one another as the central act of our Christian identity and practice would lead anyone to abandon a child in need, thinking it was an appropriate response to the WV USA issue, regardless which end of the spectrum one resides. Doing so seems closer to a sin of omission (‘…even as you do not do to the least of these..’) than an act of principle grounded in faith and understanding.

    • Canbuhay

      So if World Vision decided that it would employ racists employees who believed the Bible taught only white people will go to heaven, would that bother you? What if they had decided to hire Christians who taught that we no longer had to believe that sex outside of marriage was wrong or that it was okay to steal?

      When you cite scripture to condemn those of us who stopped supporting World Vision during this crisis, aren’t you making a theological claim? Aren’t you stating that your view of God compels you to speak out against others who are “sinning?” But isn’t that exactly what we’ve done when we’ve spoken up for God’s word? Remember, love also clings to truth (2 Corinthians 13).

      When you can throw out the Bible anytime it becomes culturally convenient, then please don’t use that Bible to tell us that what we’re doing is wrong.

  • stabber

    The homophobic people who call themselves Christians have proven they hate their neighbours putting incorrect doctrine instead of people this is an evil. The way I have been treated on this website d shameful people hate what they dont understand homosexuality is as much of a sin as divorce from an abusive relationship women speaking in church incorrect haircuts and blood transfusions. This has been brought up time and time again and the homophobes have no answers

    • Canbuhay

      I’m sorry but calling everyone who disagrees with you “hateful” cheapens any of your arguments as simply name-calling. I’m sorry people were mean to you. That doesn’t give you the right to be just as hateful.

  • jlm0528

    When we accept Christ’s free gift of salvation by his blood sacrifice, we are cleansed immediately from sin! The key component of the gospel message is that our sin is cleansed immediately. No guilt, no shame, no fear from the past – freedom in Christ and HIS righteousness – and joy for the future as we are sanctified daily by the newly indwelling Holy Spirit. As we share the gospel, let us not lead people to hang on to burdens and yokes, but let us show them the power of our risen Savior – it’s what sets His message apart from all other “religions”.

  • Elizabeth

    Is it less correct in God’s eyes to sponsor children through Plan International (a secular organisation) or Compassion (in Jesus’ name)?

    Perhaps you should try not to judge those 4000 Christians so harshly, after all there is much in the Bible that speaks clearly about what constitutes sexual morality to anyone who is objective, and nothing at all about subscribing to World Vision!

Read previous post:
What Caring Looks Like
What Caring Looks Like (and how we got it wrong with World Vision)

MAR 31, 2014 | BY: AUSTIN THOMAS -- I spent last Saturday walking around Anthem, AZ. It’s a strip of...

Close