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

Breaking for tradition, denying reality

Rowan Williams, Arch Bishop of Canterbury, has announced his resignation from the leadership of the Anglican Church and is to be Master at Magdalene College in Cambridge. Since the announcement, he has received praise from many of those who approved of his administration and even many of those who disapproved.
Rowan worked feverishly during his tenure as head of the Church of England to keep the body together. But his high-mindedness obscured his theology. What did he stand for? Many who know him personally say he is a champion of homosexual inclusion in the hierarchy of the church. Yet he spoke publicly of working with both sides of the issue to reach an amicable solution. That's like saying you intend to cheer for both sides in a football match. Either you are secretly favoring one side or the other, or you really don't care who wins. And it really is a case of win or lose.
Centuries of church teaching supports the exclusion of anyone willfully disobedient to the will of God from holding office. In doing so, the church agrees with scripture. But wait, you say, scripture can be interpreted to deny teaching and authoritative positions to women as well yet the church has no problem with that.
And there's the crux.
Church teaching is tradition, and tradition is human and therefore mutable and malleable. It can change with the times. The Bible isn't rewritten. It is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. As long as you consider it to be the authoritative Word of God.
And there's the second crux.
Williams does not accept the authority of scripture. He is part of a brood of teachers and thinkers that began molding the teachings of the Church of England to conform to societal demands over the last few decades. As the church has become more and more secular, it has become more and more irrelevant. Trying to be inclusive, it has ignored the exclusivity of Christ's authority.
In seeking to make the teachings of Christ palatable to those whose lifestyle is in direct opposition to biblical precepts, the church has divorced itself from the deity of Christ.
Let me make this clear. Homosexuality is not the real issue here. Sin is sin regardless of the nature. Sexual immorality is not acceptable by biblical standards, be it between two of the same sex or of different sexes. While Christ emphatically stated His love of everyone, He never displayed love for their sin. The body of believers welcomes (or should) anyone with a desire to learn of God's redemptive plan. No one should be stopped at the door. But just as assuredly, there are biblical standards for leadership with the body.
Living in England in the late nineties, I saw first hand the destruction of biblical authority in the ranks of of the C of E. Visiting a small church in the village of Ripley, I listened to a Priest who calmly and warmly told his congregants that the miracles in the bible were simply teaching tools. "No one seriously believes the world was created in seven days, or that Noah built an ark, he told them, "no more than water was turned into wine, or that Lazarus was raised from the dead."
As for the growing schism that Williams worked so hard to prevent, the seeds of dissent were sprouting before the millennial celebrations had begun. Although the church had long ago removed the necessity of acknowledging biblical authority in its ordination vows, many priests were graduating from seminary and challenging the "orthodoxy" of the current establishment. The turn towards scripture was so pronounced that church leaders were writing articles about what could be done to stop it.
Schisms are not entirely bad. It means that not everyone has forgotten why they wanted the bible as the church's authority in the first place. It's why there are so many Protestant denominations. There always seems to be a remnant willing to stand and fight for the Gospel regardless of attendance numbers or popularity polls.