106 thoughts on “Letter to a World Vision Child”

1. could it be?

2. Okay, now for the comment: I just posted a blog article about this on my FB along with the following comment:
   “This is true. People say, “I support World Vision” or “I don’t support World Vision.” But we’re not supporting an organization! We are supporting CHILDREN through World Vision. If I chose WV to help me sponsor a CHILD, then a policy change in their hiring practices has not affected their ability to continue to effectively help these kids. To be honest, I don’t really care if it’s a divorced father or an unwed mother or a lesbian working at WV who deposits my support check to sponsor my child. I’m pretty sure we don’t ask to see a “Biblical marriage” certificate from our accountant, server, or cashier at Target, yet we give them our money.”
   I have checked the number of FB friends I have, and now I’m waiting for church to get out in the States so all my friends and family can see it and start deleting me 🙂

   1. +1

3. Third!

   1. second 🙂 I posted twice

      1. fifteenth!

4. This is so spot on to a lot of Fundigelicals’ attitudes right now. When the news initially broke, I actually saw several people say they’d write to their sponsored kid to explain why they were getting dropped. And those people were serious!! I can’t even fathom the level of gross immorality that would cause someone to think that’s a good idea.

   1. I wonder how many would feel differently if they had grown up in the places where we grew up.

      I would hope at least a few.

      1. I grew up in the same kind of place you did and I hold World Vision solely responsible for this mess. They are the ones who decided that the redefining of marriage was something they wanted to affirm.

         1. How are they “redefining marriage”? All they did was say that gay people can work there. Do you shop at Target? McDonalds? Shell gas? Unless you know for a fact that your money will not go to the salaries of a gay employee at these companies, then you’re a hypocrite.

         2. While I support everyone’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their disposable income – and reject the notion that it is unethical to stop sponsoring a child for any reason at all – I think you are mischaracterizing the situation. World Vision has had a consistent and thoughtful approach to ethical issues based upon their ecclesiology and status as a para-church organization. Their latest choice was 100% in line with their practices up to this point. In fact, I would argue that their reversal is illogical, because the arguments they made regarding divorcees etc. are still valid. What they really did was redefine their ecclesiology.

         3. redhot wrote: “How are they “redefining marriage”? All they did was say that gay people can work there.”

            I never said that WV was redefining marriage. I did say they were affirming the redefining of marriage.

            You are also incorrect in the 2nd sentence. The issue is not that they were saying that gay people can work for them. It is that they were going to hire those who are engaged in the profanation of marriage and in doing so were affirming the redefining of marriage.

            I’m quite sure that I do business with companies that hire lesbians and homosexuals but that is not the issue here. This is an organization that claims to be Christian, and said they were not going to get into the gay marriage debate, then promptly took a position in the debate!

         4. Dr. Fundystan wrote: “What they really did was redefine their ecclesiology.”

            They certainly have the right to do that. Those who disagree with their ecclesiology have the right to give their money to another organization. Since WV’s operation relies on folks giving to them, did they really think there wasn’t going to be some negative feedback.

         5. The thing is, even those who disagree with the initial decision of World Vision’s leadership would have to admit that withdrawing financial support primarily hurts children who are in desperate need. A person still has the option of letting World Vision know that he or she will be giving to different charities in the future while continuing to help support currently sponsored children.

            On a slightly different note, God used a raven (an unclean bird) to deliver food to Elijah. Isn’t it possible to separate World Vision’s position on homosexuality from the work they are and were doing? Is it really worth allowing children to go without food, clothing, clean water, and education to make the point that homosexual activity is sinful?

         6. Well said!

            The road to hell is paved with good intentions. God is very clear in His word about the sinfulness of homosexuality!

            World Vision made an egregious error!

   2. Thank you Hannah!

      It isn’t difficult to see who failed a basic morality test in this episode. I can’t fathom the heartlessness it takes to dump a child’s support because you don’t like a decision the charity made.

5. Thank you! Thank you!

   My heart is so heavy about these sponsorships being dropped. Glad I’m not the only one.

   I was actually told this was all World Vision’s fault. “They should have known this would happen. They know who their base is.”

   Sigh…

   Thank you, Darrell. Thank you for saying what do many of us feel.

6. Sadly, this kind of non-thinking is pervasive among IFBs. The only people that are really being hurt in this situation are the children. This attitude only serves to reinforce that many (if not most) Fundies are much more concerned with following the letter of the law (however misapplied it may be) than having compassion on people.

   Before my exodus from behind the Iron (modest length) Curtain, I would probably have done the same thing. The only thing those children will know of the situation is that life will be even harder for them now. WWJD anyone!?

   1. This is off-topic but I had to share it. I found out today that I have a genuine, certified Fundy sermon about me now!

      I left my former Fundy church a few weeks ago. I talked with the pastor for a while on the phone within the last two weeks and he told me my name would be removed from the members list during the first Wednesday April business meeting.

      The Sunday before THAT business meeting, the pastor preached a sermon entitled, “The Danger of Departure” in which he recounted the dismal tale of “Demas!”

      During this message he was sure to scare the crap out of people if they would even consider leaving the “safety” of the church. I’m not sure how I should feel, but to tell the truth I kind of feel honored… :-/

      1. You know, I can cheerfully say that the Lord did not strike me down for leaving the IFB church I attended. In fact, I seem to have gotten *more* blessings along the way.

         IFB churches are “safe” alright — if you feel safe sleeping in a munitions dump with a pyromaniac in charge!

         Of course not all IFB churches are that way. Mine appeared to be tamer than a lot of others. Still, the damage done is considerable.

         If I were you, I would start a blessings blog about how the Lord has blessed you since leaving your IFB nest. Slip the URL to church members and friends now and again, just to show them that God does not beat up on people who think abuse is not right.

7. I don’t think you’ve really deviated from the site’s intent.

   SFL: Punishment. It doesn’t matter who, as long as it’s for reason we can proof-text.

8. I think this post is perfectly in line with SFL. It highlights the absurdity in the fundy-style thinking of the situation, even if the 10K people who dropped their sponsorships aren’t self-indentified as fundy church members.

9. Unfortunately the attitude I have been exposed to is – “thats why we should never support organizations outside of the local church, because we can’t control what they do…..” Which is why our churches sit with bank accounts over flowing and nothing being done to help the needy.

   Well said Darrel and a shame that this has to happen at all.

   1. I asked this of an assistant pastor one time. Why doesn’t our church do anything for the poor except bang on their doors?

      The response I got was disgusting: “Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee!” :-/

      1. The reply ignores the fact that a physical need of the beggar was met in addition to a spiritual need. The reply also ignores the fact that maybe the reason the church had no money to help those in need was that the “silver and gold” had been spent on acquiring property, constructing beautiful buildings, generous compensation packages for the senior pastor, and maybe even a gymnasium, coffee shop, and Bible Institute or Bible “College.” My opinion is that a very large percentage of the money I gave during my time in Fundamentalism was horribly misused.

10. I believe that you are spot on with bringing up this topic here. I question the morality of a person that is ok with letting a child suffer over something inconsequential as who can marry. Really? When I was a teenager in the mid 80’s we had a guest speaker at our youth group. He had a black mowhawk with red tips. He was wearing ripped jeans, combat boots, and a bikers jacket. He had both ears pierced, as well as a nose piercing. He said; “today in Africa; over 1000 children will die of things we could have prevented, but you and your parents don’t give a shit, the only thing you care about is my appearance, and the fact that I just said shit”. He went on to say we get caught up in witch hunts, but lose sight of what was important. Our youth pastor at the end said he was probably going to have to resign, but do not let the impact of this day be lost. This was a dead poet society moment for me. That day, I made a vow not to get caught up in the small stuff that doesn’t matter. Children need help. Give them help. Kind of like when food pantries make people who need food sit through a sermon. BS, give them food. Your message falls on deaf ears when you place conditions. Your witness goes out the window, and you are left looking like an arrogant sanctimonious a–hole.

    1. This^^. +10

    2. For the win.

11. A little more background narrative would be helpful here (missing from original post and comments). I should not have to google “World Vision Controversy” to fully understand the posts.

    1. http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2014/03/world-vision-god-gays-and-giving/

12. OK. Now I get it. (went to ABC news after Christianity Today deluged me with ads). So they had “temporary insanity” by allowing gays to work for them…and now they went back to their original policy…but because of this “misstep”, many “purists” have decided to withhold financial support.

    The only criteria that I apply is what percentage of the donations actually goes to help the needy as opposed to supporting the extravagant lifestyles of the people in charge. Those who support televangelists with their air-conditioned doghouses or organizations which refuse to completely disclose their financial statements do not merit support.

    An excellent source for researching the financial status of charitable organizations is Charity Navigator.

    1. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4768#.U0G-pWcVsic

       17% of their money comes from Govt grants. I wonder if they will lose those if they refuse to hire gays.

       World Vision is between a rock and a hard place.

       1. No, I have it good authority (direct from the CEO) that they will not lose any funding from the government.

          He also told me that it is their board’s policy that if the government made any requirement that would antithetical to historic creeds of Christianity in order to receive funds that they would simply walk away and abandon government support. That has always been their policy.

13. All this has done is affirm my decision for my charitable giving to continue to a general purpose and not an individual sponsorship. My giving is evaluated by an organization’s 990 and how much of my donation goes to the actual need. When you throw an individual sponsorship in the mix, then that person becomes a bargaining chip to hold you hostage to a particular charity.

    I don’t care what one might say in this situation , everyone does draw a line somewhere, whether it be this particular issue or something that may seem more serious to them. A donor should never feel like he or she is obligated to an organization at the risk of the peril of a specific child.

    I do feel like anyone who dropped their sponsorship did so hastily and could have waited to see how it played out. If it were about the child, then perhaps there could be a way to switch that sponsorship to a different intermediary other than WV. (I have never seen that suggestion. And I have no reason to believe that scenario wouldn’t be possible. )

    The reality is that charitable giving has always worked this way, and our government even practices it. We give aid to organizations and countries until it no longer serves our best interests philosophically or geopolitically. People get hurt and there is plenty of blame to share.

    1. Historic creeds? Such as Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian?

       I can’t recall any of them saying anything about sexual orientation.

       1. They didn’t mention television either.

    2. Fair and balanced IMO.

14. Richard Stearns (the head of World Vision) made about 406k. To be fair, one would have to compare that with others with similar responsibilities (though it sounds like a lot of money to this peon).

    I don’t know how much televangelists (like Joel Osteen) or even local pastors are paid. I once heard a board member say that we can’t publish the sheet that disclosed how much our pastor was paid because “half the congregation would not understand.”

    1. Wow. Last I heard, Franklin Graham was making 5 times that amount. The leader of WV isn’t trying hard enough!

    2. Given his background, it’s pretty certain that Rich Stearns is independently wealthy.

       He doesn’t rely on that salary to pay his rent.

15. At least in swallowing the camel the conservative evangelicals strained out that dangerous gnat. Jesus loves that kind of gnat-centered thinking.

    1. Oh my stars: behold, a gnat,
       God you know I can’t eat that!
       For I don’t want to be unclean;
       So at the risk of sounding mean,
       I’m sorry kid, I can’t help you;
       Be warm, be fed, but it won’t do
       To get those clothes or food from me.

       See I love God too much for that,
       And God has said beware the gnat,
       So though you’re hungry I hope you’ll see
       That God is very pleased with me.
       Now I must go my work complete –
       I have a camel I must eat.
       Yum!

       1. Well said! 🙂

       2. x2

16. Borrowing that verse that says “all things work together for good…”, I am optimistic that maybe there will be a good outcome to this whole narrative. Hopefully, this will motivate donors to thoroughly investigate the budgets of religious and charitable organizations and result in better stewardship of our resources. But there is this nagging doubt that those who became so uncomfortable with this brief affair with strange bedfellows will continue to ignore the excesses of their own groups.

    1. That verse is usually taken wildly out of context. Ultimately, according to Romans 8, even death works for our good because we will ultimately be with God. It does not guarantee anything good happening this side of the veil.

       Fundamentalists and evangelicals will continue to try to impose their cultural biases on Scripture and on people. They will continue to hold individual welfare hostage to their particular theologies. They will always point to the letter of the law, preferring a predictable death to an uncertain life.

       Pity them.

17. If I send money to a Christian organization I would like for them to keep and hold Christian values and beliefs. I can also send money to the Red Cross or United Way to support a cause and not care who works there because they are not a religious group.
    Sounds like some Christians on here support gay marriage or just want to bash anyone who takes a stand. This isn’t an IFB issue. Christian organizations shouldn’t have gays working for them and they shouldn’t be neutral on Same sex marriage

    1. So you can send money to the Red Cross and be fine with anybody touching it but if somebody has the title Christian then you attach a ton of other requirements even though the Christian folks are doing the better work than many secular organizations?

       That seems to be a strange position to take.

       1. I know what I get with the Red Cross and I should know what I get with a Christian organization. I always want to support WV first. Should WV hold to a higher standard Darrell? Is not allowing gays and
          excepting same sex marriage a “ton of other requirements”?

          1. “I know what I get…” What YOU get? Isn’t it about what you GIVE to needy children? What YOU get is a reward in Heaven. I have a hard time believing that the Savior who ate with publicans and sinners is going to withhold a reward in Heaven because of the beliefs of the organization facilitating a drink of water for “one of these.” People who commit to supporting a child need to remember their commitment isn’t to the organization passing along the funds.

             I have to be honest, I fear the commitment it takes to sponsor a child. I do give regularly to charities but I do so through general donations.

18. I’m sure the question has been asked but do these people with such high standards who gave up sponsorships ever ask if anyone at World Vision was divorced and remarried? Jesus actually TALKED about that.

    1. No, no, no, you’re missing the point they see that as just NORMAL sin.

       But Gay sex is ICKY sin. That’s the difference.

       1. Dragging the divorce argument into this is just plain stupid. I come on this site to enjoy the humor and to work through my feelings on leaving the IFB and now It seems like you guys just get upset when anyone takes a stand on social issues. It’s ok to take a stand and not be IFB.

          The gay agenda and push for more equality will hit the “church” soon and what will your argument be then?

          1. “The gay agenda and push for more equality will hit the “church” soon and what will your argument be then?”

             Let it. You don’t have to go to a church which believes that LGBT people should be treated with dignity and respect like the rest of us expect. However as a matter of law and social policy, it should be clear that trying to treat a certain group as an underclass to discriminate against ought to be wrong and not tolerated.

             Frankly, the only “gay agenda” that exists is that they want to be treated as people, not as trash or as brands for the burning. Somehow I agree with that. Why don’t you?

             They do NOT want to force you or anyone else to be gay. They want to be able to work, play, have families, vote, worship without people trying to take away their human and civil rights.

             As for you, who are you to decide which sins to tolerate and which to not tolerate. Would you like a characteristic or sin or whatever to make you subject to discrimination, humiliation, economic ruin, and such?

          2. It’s not about treating gays with respect and dignity. You are obviously
             gay and this conversation will do us no good. It’s not about picking out certain “sins”.

          3. I am not gay, as my wife of more than 30 years will attest.

             What might should be obvious to you is that I wish to treat people with respect and dignity, no matter who or what they are. Christ did so. I intend to.

             Let Christ deal with them about their sins. He is able to do so through His Spirit. It is my job to love others.

19. I think the biggest problem that I have with World Vision (and many other charities, including non-religious charities) is not who is working there but how much of the support money that is given for these children is actually getting to said children. I read something a year or so ago about the CEO’s of these major charities (including WV) where these folks were getting paid several HUNDRED thousand dollars a year. Let me challenge all of us to do more in our local communities where it will do the most good, not line the pockets of the big name charities!

    1. I don’t begrudge World Vision’s CEO his salary in general. Other people managing tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars make far more.

       Although a guy at that level should have seen this week’s events coming.

       The breakdown of how the money works is on World Vision’s website: http://www.worldvision.org/about-us/financial-accountability

       
       When $1 is donated to World Vision: On average, we use just 17¢ of that dollar for fundraising and administrative costs. That 17¢ subtracted from each $1 leaves us with 83¢. But instead of just sending the remaining 83¢ to the field, we send 60¢ directly to the field. Then we invest 23¢ into a global infrastructure so we can accept, procure, and distribute corporate donations, large private donations, and government grants. In 2013, for every 23¢ invested, we received 55¢ worth of goods, funds, and grants! With 55¢ of goods, funds, and grants sent to the field, as well as the 60¢ of cash sent to the field, each dollar actually brings $1.15 worth of value to the communities we support.

20. Again – WELL said Darrell!
    On a lighter note did you see that Sri Lanka are once again the World T20 Cricket Champions!

    1. Yes, they took India to school. 🙂

       1. Which made us South Africans happy because India took us out the tournament!

21. Darrell,

    As a longtime child sponsor through WV — an Albanian boy who shares my 7-year-old son’s birthday — I agonized over the decision of whether to withdraw my sponsorship when I read Stearns’ interview in Christianity Today.

    After prayerful consideration, I contacted WV and advised them that unless WV reconsidered its employment policy change, I would have to withdraw my support. Because it can very difficult for a non-profit to replace withdrawn support, I stated that I would continue my support for two more months before ending it. I was elated to hear that WV had reversed its decision, and I will obviously continue my support. In fact, my wife and I are considering adding another sponsorship.

    I can’t ultimately say whether I would have actually discontinued my support. After all, the children and villages that are the beneficiaries of WV’s good work would be the first ones to suffer. But I’m afraid your posting isn’t fair to those of us who are current WV supporters and who sincerely struggled to determine if WV was the appropriate recipient of our giving in light of their revised employment policy.

    I could easily have supported any one of a number of deserving humanitarian and development NGOs, but my wife and I specifically chose WV because of its accountability, reputation, and our shared Christian beliefs. I can agree to disagree with non-profits that I support on many issues — for example, I’ve never agreed with WV’s stance on climate change — but some disagreements are so ( dare I say it?) fundamental that I couldn’t overlook the differences.

    I’m afraid you do an injustice by failing to acknowledge the sincere and good faith disagreement many (most?) of WV’s supporters had with the employment policy change.

    1. No, your sincere and good faith agreement is beside the point.

       Jesus ate with sinners: tax collectors, drunkards, harlots. He treated women like people instead of property. He said about children, “of such are the kingdom of God.”

       So what is more important, here: asserting the rightness of your understanding of Scripture or showing unconditional love through flawed individuals & organizations to help the kingdom of God?

       From the perspective of those being helped, which is more loving?

       If you could put yourself in the place of the child you support, which action would be more in keeping with Christ’s revolution of love, with the extent of the Gospel?

       1. Doctor, thanks for your comment. Intentionally or otherwise, you’ve cut to the core of the disagreement here.

          It’s not that I have a problem with “flawed” people ministering to others. By definition, any organization is populated with flawed people. The question, for me, is whether I want to support with my own money an organization that permits behavior that Scripture teaches is sinful by allowing its employees to engage in that sin in an open, unrepentant, and ongoing manner.

          I don’t have a problem if WV (or any other explicitly Christian charity) wants to employ self-described gays assuming that those employees are seeking to overcome their temptation. I object to giving my money to an explicitly Christian organization that employs anyone who engages in open, ongoing, and unrepentant sin (including straight couple who cohabitate outside of marriage).

          Also, your analogy of the objects of Jesus’ concern (tax collectors, drunkards, harlots) isn’t really analogous to this situation. I don’t have a problem with WV offering assistance or comfort to all varieties of “sinners.” After all, I, too, am a sinner. Again, the questions, for me, is whether I should give support to an organization which, while explicitly Christian, employs self-proclaimed Christians who are engaging in open and unrepentent sin. (By sin, I mean the engaging in physical, homosexual behavior — not the orientation of simply being attracted to members of one’s own sex.)

       2. Doctor Jezebel, thanks for your comment. Intentionally or otherwise, you’ve cut to the core of the disagreement here.

          It’s not that I have a problem with “flawed” people ministering to others. By definition, any organization is populated with flawed people. The question, for me, is whether I want to support with my own money an organization that permits behavior that Scripture teaches is sinful by allowing its employees to engage in that sin in an open, unrepentant, and ongoing manner.

          I don’t have a problem if WV (or any other explicitly Christian charity) wants to employ self-described gays assuming that those employees are seeking to overcome their temptation. I object to giving my money to an explicitly Christian organization that employs anyone who engages in open, ongoing, and unrepentant sin (including straight couple who cohabitate outside of marriage).

          Also, your analogy of the objects of Jesus’ concern (tax collectors, drunkards, harlots) isn’t really analogous to this situation. I don’t have a problem with WV offering assistance or comfort to all varieties of “sinners.” After all, I, too, am a sinner. Again, the questions, for me, is whether I should give support to an organization which, while explicitly Christian, employs self-proclaimed Christians who are engaging in open and unrepentent sin. (By sin, I mean the engaging in physical, homosexual behavior — not the orientation of simply being attracted to members of one’s own sex.)

          1. You know, Jesus ate and drank with unrepentant sinners so they could get to know Him. We are told that the goodness of God brings people to repentance.

             Perhaps it is time to scale back the idea that you are sufficient to judge others and their state of heart and how quickly (or not) they are responding to the moving of God in their lives. Why even Paul said he was insufficient to judge himself, so the Lord would judge him.

             You don’t bring people to Jesus by forcing them to act “saved” or else their employment is no more. You don’t bring people to Jesus by taking food from the mouths of people. And you don’t show Jesus’ love to LGBT people by pridefully declaring that they are in an open state of rebellion against God and therefore should not have the right to be employed.

             And if you can get them fired from religious organizations, you will also likely try elsewhere and anywhere you can. That is the nature of intolerance. Once you have an enemy, you hound them into extinction.

             I think actually treating others like you would want to be treated in some similar situation would work wonders. Because you have your own unrepented sins — even if you don’t see them.

    2. (Gently) I don’t think you’ve thought this through. This is a hiring policy issue. So I ask you – for what sins is WV justified in refusing employment? This is the issue for me. I think it is a logical fallacy to pretend that who an organization choses to hire constitutes affirmation of the sins of the employee. To put it in perspective, how many third party contractors does your church partner with in its mission? Chances are you have a general contractor, garbage collector, maybe janitorial service. Is your church endorsing the serial adulterer who worked on the construction crew? It isn’t logical. It’s even less logical for a “Christian” org that isn’t a church and exists to distribute material aid.

       1. Dr. Fundy, your spirit here is greatly appreciated. And your point is a fair one.

          As a self-described Christian organization, I would argue that WV should establish an employment policy that prohibits the hiring of any employee who engages in known (versus secret) sin which that employee is not making a good faith effort to overcome.

          Of course, that leads to the question of what constitutes sin. I suspect this is the primary point of disagreement when it comes to WV. But this is a question that is pertinent not only for the non-profit itself, but also for the donor.

          There is a distinguishable difference between a donation a supporter makes to a charity and a third-party contractor that a charity hires. I would object to the hiring on a contractor if the contractor is self-described as Christian, yet engages in known and unrepentent sinful behavior.

          1. Would you, as an employer (in any capacity), have such religious tests for your employees? What about the employees of your suppliers? What about your customers?

             Would you refuse to serve LGBT people if you were the owner of a for-profit business? Would you refuse to hire a person who was LGBT? Would you ask? Or would you fire a good and honest employee if you found out he was gay?

             Are you next going to tell WV that if they accept money from LGBT people they are tainted with sin and you will refuse to support them?

             Yes, it is your money and your “rights.” Funny, though. The moralizers tell us we have no rights, but that God has all the rights — unless it comes to something *they* want. Then suddenly they have rights.

             Okay, I am going to go out on a limb here and make a guess about something. You can tell me if I am right or not. And I hope I am not being offensive.

             You call yourself PaleoAnglican. If you are residing in the United States, may I assume you attend an Anglican Church rather than an Episcopal Church because of women and gay clergy?

          2. reductio ad absurdum
             And the tortoise beats Achilles every time

    3. What is it about being a Christian that makes you believe that you cannot support the poor through an organization that is willing to hire gay people? Do you think it is possible that refusing to discriminate on that basis could be a good thing in our society?

       Do you believe it is possible to be a true Christian and gay?

       Do you believe sexual orientation is a fundamental part of Christian doctrine?

       Would you accept that real Christians do not share your view that homosexuality is wrong? And that they still love God? And that they know their Bible as well as you do?

       I am not being antagonistic. These are honest questions. Sexual orientation is not a major theme in scripture. And the OT passages can easily be written off (like we do with so many other things in the OT). Jesus never mentions it. That leaves Paul a couple of times. Who also said women must cover their heads when praying and prophesying. Who also endorsed slavery. Who also taught contrary to Hebrew scripture on key points such as holy days, dietary laws and circumcision. Who was accused of doing so as a man pleaser to make conversion easier for Gentiles. Helping the poor is a major theme in scripture from OT through Jesus and Paul and James etc.

       Just some thoughts.

       1. Open homosexuality was not a major issue of the day during Bible times.
          Real Christians do believe homosexuality is wrong. Do you believe anything is wrong or as long as your sincere and Gods love is extended to all your good with that.

          Arguing here wether or not
          that lifestyle is a sin or not is waste of time. Id rather discuss crazy IFB philosophies than deal with a Christian who wants to discuss if homos are sinning.

          1. “Real Christians” or “Real Pharisees”? That is the question.

          2. “‘Real Christians’ do believe homosexuality is wrong.”

             So, hi. We haven’t met yet. I’m Dr. Jezebel, but you can call me Jez or Dr. J.

             I accepted Christ as my Savior when I was 5. I’m in a heterosexual marriage & have a lot of kids. We go to church every Sunday because we want our kids to follow Jesus & His teachings.

             I’m also bisexual.

             What were you saying about “Real Christians?”

          3. Ok Jay Z you got me there 🙂

          4. “Real Christians.” That’s a subject for consideration, right there. Can you explain to me, in detail, what makes a “Real Christian”?

22. A common line of argument is that as long as kids are being helped, it doesn’t matter if WV hires gays, etc.

    My question: Is there ANY policy decision that WV could make that would make you drop support as long as kids are being “helped”?

    In my mind, one of the reasons I would choose supporting a child through WV or another “Christian” organization is in the hopes that not only would they receive help with tangible physical needs but also with intangible spiritual needs as well. Since I believe that Christ is the only way to heaven, I would not support any organization that taught contrary to this belief.

    To me, it would be better to support a “neutral” organization like the Red Cross than an organization directly opposed to basic Christian doctrine.

    Am I wrong?

    I guess what I’m saying is that I’m sympathetic to the children, sympathetic to people who are having a crisis of conscience, and sympathetic to all of you who are supporting WV regardless. The only ones I’m not sympathetic with is the Board of WV. They created this mess.

    1. I am one who would say that I don’t think it is unethical to stop supporting a child. Period. It is your disposable income; do with it as you please. However, I do think that actions can be the results of sinful attitudes or values, and that actions can have social consequences which affect Christianity and the church. It is patently absurd to pretend that there is no line here – if WV started hiring serial rapists, we might all stop donating. The real issue is about hiring policy for a parachurch not for profit in 21st century America, and who I am willing to partner with to feed hungry kids.

23. I wrote a letter just like this a few years ago when I stopped supporting our local madrasa.

24. Did Jesus pick any homosexuals to be his disciples, and to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ? In fact did Jesus EVER select homosexuals to carry on ANY of His work?

    The “annihilated” citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you what God thinks of WV hiring gay couples to work for them.

    1. According to the Bible, God thinks gays should be annihilated. Is this what you’re saying? So if Christians despise them, refuse to hire them, tell them they’re hell-bound sinners, they are actually being more compassionate toward them than God. Thanks for affirming what I’ve been saying all along.

       Jesus was indeed very exclusionary when it came to choosing his disciples.

    2. How would you know the sexual orientation of any of Jesus’ disciples?

       Sexuality wasn’t approached & discussed in the same terms we use today, so of course, there isn’t going to be a Bible verse that says, “And verily, David & Jonathan were a fabulous gay couple.” Or “John, the disciple that Jesus loved (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).”

       Also, you come very close to sounding as if annihilation is the only Godly way for Christians to deal with the threat of “the gay agenda.”

       Greg, why do you harp on this one sin so much? I don’t see you pointing out gluttony, or drunkeness, or brawling, or any other sin with the same passion & intensity. What is it about homosexuality that has your knickers so twisted?

       1. “Also, you come very close to sounding as if annihilation is the only Godly way for Christians to deal with the threat of ‘the gay agenda.'”

          It’s in the Bible. Do you dare argue with the Bible, Dr. Jez? The gays are taking over the world, even boldly infiltrating charity work, and it’s time Real Christians everywhere stand up with GODLY FORCE!!!!!!!!!!

       2. Well as soon as the topic to turns to gluttony, drunkeness…etc., then I may have something to say regarding those sins, but that’s not what this thread is about.

          I hope you are still up and around after casting lies on Jonathan & David and John & Jesus. But let’s let God’s word have the last say on this wicked sin of homosexuality, shall we?

          “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done” Romans 1:26-28

          1. Greg, I thought it was obvious I wasn’t actually implicating David & Jonathan or John & Jesus in anything. I was pointing out that *if* there were gay+ people mentioned in Scripture, the reference to their sexual orientation wouldn’t be overt.

             Also, Jesus was accused of being a drunkard who kept company with harlots & tax collectors. He probably wouldn’t be offended at being lumped in with gay+ people too, considering he’s the friend to sinners & all.

    3. From the Bible, there is no evidence that Jesus had any gay disciples– or any heterosexual disciples, either. All we read is that he had disciples.
       The sexual orientation (as we call it in our century) of none of the people in the New Testament is stated at all.
       We could speculate on why no NT writers chose to mention this, but “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

       1. The logic is clear.

          God annihilated gays in Sodom. If he thought they shouldn’t even exist, there is no way Jesus would have chosen gay disciples. And there is no way that anyone should give to a ministry that accepts those that God wishes to annihilate.

          Jesus did not choose wimin disciples to preach–therefore wimin are excluded.

          Jesus did not choose physically challenged disciples (unless you consider short stature)–therefore the physically challenged are excluded.

          Jesus did not choose Caucasians as disciples–therefore Caucasians are excluded.

          Try your hand at it. This is fun.

          1. Maybe no beardless men should be allowed to preach, since it is highly likely that all of the (male) disciples had beards.

          2. I have a beard. I’m in!!

             Dang it, I’m not Jewish. Never mind. I’m back out.

       2. In that case then, there is no mention if any were child molesters, arsonists, killers, rapists, or pedophiles.

          Gary I had come to expect better from you. Maybe the liberals here are starting to get to you too!

          1. Saul (aka The Apostle Paul) was a killer.

          2. Never mind. He repented. Doesn’t count. You’re right.

          3. Greg, if you had argued that no apostles were arsonists, I would have said the same thing (that we have no way of knowing that).
             But your point was that none of them were gay, so that’s why I said the Bible has no evidence of THAT.

    4. God did to talk to Moses via a “flaming” bush.

       The Bible talks about the “flames” of hell.

       greg – you need to read your Bible more.

       1. Good points, Scorpio. God also revealed his backside to Moses. So there’s that.

          1. That may have been a little over the top, even for me. But still, God showing his hinder parts to Moses has always been a funny image to me–even when I was a kid in Sunday School I had a hard time not laughing out loud.

          2. God revealed his face to Abraham. He are and drank with him. Abraham never doubted that he had seen and spoken with God.

             By Moses, God had decided to be a God distant, not close. When God told Moses that no man could see His face and live, that was because God changed the rules.

             God, being God, could have let Moses see His face and preserved his life. Omnipotence hath its privileges.

             Sure, God clothed Himself in such a way that Abraham was comfortable (to a point) with His Presence. But Abraham never doubted Who He Was. God did not allow Moses that comfort or that closeness.
             From my iPhone.

          3. Omnipotence hath its privileges. That’s a good one, rtg! Might makes right. It’s good to be the King!

             God changed the rules? Say it ain’t so! God changeth not. If the death penalty for gays was good enough for Moses, it’s good enough for me, haymen?

             No punishment for slave owners, though. That would be harsh and would violate the cultural sensitivities of the people God was lovingly wooing to himself.

25. Some have questioned why others here are concerned with whom WV hires or who the money touches before it goes to the children. Another has made the point that kindness leads to forgiveness (of course I agree) and if one thinks homosexuality is wrong being nice to them will lead them to belief. (paraphrasing).

    So, what if WV announced a policy that is was now acceptable that they would hire active and known members of the KKK ? (Or insert any other abhorrent group). Methinks some of the same people who are critical of others for rethinking their support of WV after their decision to allow employment of gay married couples would in turn have the SAME moral dilemma to face. …to support the ministry purposely allowing KKK members.

    Well you say “But Just John, that’s not a fair comparison because I don’t believe the Bible allows for racism but it does for homosexuality” or you might say “the Bible may say they are both wrong but we need to love the homosexuals and work with them and be nice to them to win them over because they are loving but the KKK is hateful and deserves our venom and to be spurned.”

    That kind of thinking would make the sin of racism more “icky” to some like they may say that about the thinking of other’s towards gay sex. The truth is some do view homosexuality as sin and to ridicule them for making decisions to where to give their charitable dollars based on what an avowedly Christian organization decides on some social issues is well, less than charitable. It’s a deeply personal issue and it’s inevitable when significant changes are made it will result in pain. This pain is not only borne by the children.

    Lastly there have been cries of “intolerance” and reminds me of claims recently that such intolerance resides most prominently “on the right”. Pity the guy who had to resign from Mozilla because of public backlash fomented primarily by homosexuals and liberals because he gave $1k to the Prop 8 campaign against gay marriage six years ago…the same viewpoint President Obama and former Senator Hillary Clinton claimed at the time. Guys, let’s just be real…some people just disagree on this hot-button issue but it doesn’t make them bad people. This is still an issue where we need to respect people’s views. Honestly, it’s not a big deal either way to me. I have worked full-time in fundraising for 2 Christian non-profits with specific projects helping specific people. I passionately engaged in the work I did but if one of my donors chose to give to a competing non-profit (and it happened both ways occasionally) that’s what happens. I just get a bit annoyed with the self-righteousness and judgmentalism of some on this issue who don’t want to recognize it in themselves towards others who are not being hateful or selfish because they see things differently and feel strongly about it.

    This place is much better when we can hammer on Hyles or blast BJ in unity. 🙂

    1. Pitting gay sex against the KKK isn’t a reasonable comparison. Racism hurts people. Gay sex hurts no one.

       Why do you care so much about the sexual activities of consenting adults? It affects no one but them. As a sinful act, it doesn’t concern you.

       1. I think so and you think so but the KKK thinks they are doing a great thing.

          I really don’t care who is engaging in homosexuality…except to a very limited degree. It’s not something I wish for my children any more than I wish for them to sin sexually heterosexually or any other sin. You are bisexual. I don’t have a problem with you. I disagree with the lifestyle but it would not cause me to treat you different in any way. I have a very close friend who is gay. He came out after we were already friends. I would never consider turning my back on his friendship and it’s been some 20 years now. We have never shielded it from my children nor they from him. He is welcome at my home anytime and we have done many things socially including with my entire family. He said my wife was the one he wished he could really fall in love with. LOL. I worked in the airline industry and many of my coworkers were gay. It was not/is not a problem. The point seems to be I can be tolerant of those I disagree with but some have a hard time being tolerant of only what I believe. My beliefs aren’t hurting anyone. Why should you be so concerned with them?

          Now many who know me might challenge this but I still have some traditional beliefs. I’m not a fan of the term “marriage” for a gay union. I’m fine with “union” though. The argument was always “gay people need to have the same rights with hospital visits, insurance, housing, etc. that married couple do and that would have been predominantly addressed with “unions” and I’m completely fine with that. But I do believe it was more of a political statement to push for marriage. Am I necessarily “hateful” or bigoted because I don’t agree? I’m not marching over it. I don’t send campaign donations because of it. In fact I have made it clear I think it’s wrong and do not like it when the church harps on homosexuality. And I have observed a life-long rule to never lose a friend over religion or politics. I would say I’m quite tolerant and the people who know me best would agree.

    2. Just John,

       The essence of Faith and Chistianity ought to be thankfulness for Christ being with us through our sinfulness and providing salvation, NOT with hounding others over how they offend us with their sinfulness and demanding that they conform to us.

       So, if you see homosexual marriage as sin, don’t you homosexually marry. On the other hand, if someone else does gay marry, or hire someone who is gay, then let God deal with them as their Master.

       Because morality is not about what others do. It is about what you do. It is not the place of believers to punish others for their sins. God will do that in His time.

       If God sends His Blessings on the evil and the good, so should we. After all, we are supposed to be like our Father.

       1. So by the same token treat those whom you disagree the same way. Some do believe there is morality in where they choose to give. And be willing to criticize those like the ones who went after CEO of Mozilla because of his beliefs. (You may have elsewhere and I just haven’t seen it but you didn’t take the bait in my post. LOL).

          See I really want to find the middle ground. I think there are crazies on both side.

          1. If one is a CEO, one should remember that their words and actions have huge, oversized effects.

             So he made a statement opposing gay marriage. He was saying he didn’t believe that LGBT people deserve the same legal protections and rights as straight people. So he got hammered over it. And he deserved it.

             Fully as many as 10% of his employees are LGBT, if statistics are correct. Were I to tell you that you do not deserve the same rights as others, you would be rightly offended.

             So no, the people attacking him weren’t crazy. They were right.

             Was he entitled to his opinion? Sure. Absolutely. Was he entitled to hurt other people? Especially to advocate a class system? No.

             Now I understand you oppose gay marriage. But those of us who are supportive of it, and I am, are not telling you that you have no rights. We are telling you that you do not have exclusive rights.

             You present many false equivalencies. I will grant that you probably do not see that to be the case — but it is, anyway. The ones fearing losing power and certainty feel like they are being persecuted, even though the real situation is that they are being called to account for the persecution they have given to others.

             And being told that you cannot persecute others is not being persecuted!

             You have the right to feel as moral as you like. You have the right to be moral, righteous, bigoted, ignorant, educated, or whatever. But there is a dramatic difference between, say, telling people that getting drunk is wrong and telling them that you are going to ban all alcohol and take away their right to decide.

             Again. Be moral. Make your decisions. But realize that in the mix, when you demand the right to make decisions for other people, there is additional responsibility. Life is not just about you.

             Okay! How’s that for “taking the bait”? I can play, too!

             This, by the way, is illustrative of the need for a secular society. Secular societies do better at preserving political, religious, and individual liberties than religious societies do. Keep religion in its place. Let people teach their precepts but not have the authority to enforce them or to deny others their freedom of choice and personal conscience!

26. James 1:27-Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
    That’s from the KJV so as not to offend the die-hard fundies who love to yell about “following the Bible”.
    Guess they missed the part about the importance of caring for the fatherless in their quest for putting those filthy sinning gays in their place! Pretty sure those children who don’t have clothes or shoes or food or clean water don’t really give a flying monkey’s fart who is making sure they have what they need to survive, or what kind of sin they might be living in. This just makes me want to puke! I honestly don’t know how some people sleep at night. BTW, that verse is just one of many verses in which God tells us to care for the widows and the fatherless. Think that might be something that’s close to God’s heart?

27. rgtmath -“Secular societies do better at preserving political, religious and individual liberties than religious societies do.”

    One example please?

Comments are closed.