A Lack of Vision from World Vision

As the Hollywood American Indian Stereotype would say, World Vision's U.S. President Richard Stearns "speaks with a forked tongue."

From one side of his mouth, Stearns insists

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support."

From the other side he says

"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage."

How does this decision "affirm and support" traditional marriage? By making this decision, what World Vision has done is exactly what Stearns claims not to have done: They have inserted themselves into the debate.

Stearns goes on to say that World Vision is simply "deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues."So World Vision is an organization that does Christian work, that claims to adhere to Christian principles, but those principles are in a fluid state, dependent upon the views of denominations?

The Bible says sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. If World Vision says it adheres to the biblical definition of marriage, then this decision is saying to the world that homosexual sex is the only sex acceptable outside of marriage.

World Vision says it is deferring to denominations. Where World Vision should be deferring to is biblical authority.





http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html

Show me your commitment to Church Doctrine

In the classic Humphrey Bogart Film, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Bogart is confronted by men on horseback who claim to be Mexican officers.

     “If you’re Federales, where are your badges?” He asks.

The reply is the memorable line, 

     “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!”

A few months ago, Rev. Frank Schaefer, a Methodist minister in Pennsylvania was defrocked by his denomination for officiating at a wedding of two homosexuals. His removal from the teaching ministry followed proscribed rules and guidelines set forth by his denomination for violating church doctrine and practice, doctrine which he no doubt pledged to adhere to as an ordained official of the Methodist church. His removal instigated volleys of condemnation from liberals within and without the church body.

The same thing was about to happen in the New York City area, when Rev. Thomas Ogletree officiated at such a ceremony. Same rules, same doctrine-Different outcome.*

Bishop Martin McLee declined to prosecute. Bishop Peggy Johnson from the Philadelphia area, said she was filled with "jubilation" over the decision.

     “If you’re the church authorities, show me your commitment to church doctrine.”

     “Doctrine? We don’t need no stinkin’ doctrine!”

The Methodist Church risks schism over the issue. There area many within the denomination who were outraged by the Pennsylvania ouster. There were many outraged over the Bishop’s refusal to adhere to Church ordnances and doctrine.

Other trials are pending. Several Ministers have refused to stop violating the 40 year old rules set forth in the Methodist Book of Discipline.

Rev. Steve Heiss (Binghamton, NY) refuses to submit to church discipline as he waits for his own trial. Following the decision to defrock Frank Schaefer, he told Religion News Service, 

     “The ambiguity of it was so awful and so painful.”

Heiss is right, though not for the reason I suspect he says this. The ambiguity is on the part of the denomination’s willingness to stand its ground on the biblical principals originally set forth as their standards of practice. At the heart of this is doctrine. In particular, the doctrine of inerrancy.

R. Dale Tedder, Jr. writing for the Florida Confessing Association regarding United Methodist Authority and the Question of Inerrancy wrote,

“Scripture is ultimately authoritative because it is inerrant. Authority has to do with the right to impose obligations. God, as the "author" of the universe, has the right to impose any obligation he desires. Any ultimate authority less than God is an idol. However, humanity could not know God and what he required were he to have remained silent. However, the Christian faith has always believed that God has revealed himself to his creation. To say that God has revealed himself to his creation is to confess that his revelation was successfully given and received. Though the recipients of such a revelation are by no means inerrant, surely the Revealer is. Therefore, United Methodism must claim that Scripture alone is the Church's final authority. To affirm this is to do more than declare allegiance to an amorphous doctrine of inspiration. Instead, the authority of Scripture can only be truly sustained if is grounded in the sovereign hand of the Lord who continues to exercise his authority over his Church through his inerrant Word.”

There really should be no ambiguity here. But the fact that Tedder felt it necessary to write in support of scriptural authority indicates that there is within the Methodist ranks.

*12 Mar 2014 The Philadelphia Inquirer

By Tricia L. Nadolny INQUIRER STAFF WRITER tnadolny@phillynews.com 610-313-8205 TriciaNadolny

No trial for cleric who led gay wedding Bishop overseeing Methodists in N.Y.C. area also suspends any future actions.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/41858-united-methodist-church-pastor-s-trial-shines-spotlight-on-denomination-s-ambivalence

http://ucmpage.org/fa_cm/cmfa_3.htm

Love the Sinner

There are those who believe that homosexuality is not a sin. They may listen politely to arguments that the Bible insists that it is indeed sin, but then respond with “Oh, those references are to cultural norms of the times the books of the bible were written in. Those verses don’t apply anymore."

There are those who see homosexuality as a sin, and rail against those who practice it, and condemn them publicly. Their revulsion to homosexual behavior overwhelms them to the point that they elevate the sin so much that it seems worse to them than so many other sins.

I would suggest a third option.

Homosexual activity is sinful in the eyes of God. We cannot pretend that parts of the Bible do not apply anymore, or claim that anything we disagree with falls into the category of ceremonial law when it obviously doesn’t. But neither is it more sinful than adultery, fornication, or any other sin.  Sin separates us from God. In its bondage we are all equal.

I would not tell the homosexual community their activities are acceptable, but I would not tell them they are any less worthy of Christ’s love either.

And while its not our place to condemn the sinner, its not our place to accept the sin either.