Many of you will have read World Vision’s (WV) announcement of its intent to hire gay Christians in same-sex Marriages on March 24, and World Vision’s reversal of that decision by its Board on March 28. The American Anglican Council applauds and thanks the Board of World Vision for their reconsideration and the following statement:
“The Board acknowledges they made a mistake and chose to revert to our longstanding conduct policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness between the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Faithful Anglicans will recognize this as the same standard we have been given by the Bible and expressed in our own Anglican Communion teaching in Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 (1998).
Nevertheless, the original lengthy explanation by World Vision’s President Richard Stearns “Why we’re hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages” contains at least three assertions that seem to go unchallenged in the March 28 statement by the charity’s board. These unchallenged assertions by their President leave one wondering what will be the long term trajectory of WV:
- “Same-sex marriage has only been a huge issue in the church in the last decade or so. There used to be much more unity among churches on this issue, and that’s changed.”
Does the lack of unity among churches require or even invite faithful Christians to suspend their judgment on any issue directly addressed by the Bible? The Bible is very clear in its teaching on human sexuality and marriage, as the Board noted in its statement of reversal on March 28. Yet Stearns said on March 24 that the board of WV was “overwhelmingly in favor” of the change—even if not unanimous.
In the space of four days, that “overwhelming majority” reversed itself and rediscovered clear biblical teaching on the matter. What happened in those four days? A sudden rediscovery of biblical standards? Or pressure from its donors and constituents? And if the latter, how long until they lose again their biblical convictions as the voices of culture or the church change?
There was a time in the first four centuries of the church when the church was very divided over whether Jesus Christ was a created being (and hence in need of salvation himself—see the Arian heresy)—or the eternal and divine Son of God and savior of all humankind– (“of the same substance (homoousios) of the Father”—see the Nicene Creed). This crisis raged for centuries, but the fact that the crisis raged did not mean faithful Christians took the existence of controversy as an opportunity to suspend judgment on who Jesus was and is. Saints like Athanasius paid a dear price for standing up for the truth and resisting the Arian heresy that Jesus was a created being. Likewise, controversy within a church should cause us to go back to what the Bible says and examine whatever decisions the church makes in light of the Bible and its teachings—our ultimate authority.
- “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture,” said Stearns. “People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.’ The church is divided on this issue.”
This was perhaps the most disheartening reason given by WV’s President. He seems to be saying that the bible does not speak with clarity on the issues of human sexuality and marriage. He seems to be saying so on the mere existence of disagreement among theologians and denominations. This assumes that all opinions by all theologians and denominations are equal.
What would have happened if good Christians in England had taken this position with regards to the issue of slavery? “Ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with William Wilberforce and those who advocate the abolition of human slavery in these realms on biblical grounds. The fact that we disagree means the Bible does not in fact speak with clarity on the issue. So we are fine in allowing slavery to continue.” It’s this kind of woolly thinking that actually leads to the very injustices, and the very undermining of God’s highest hopes for all humankind, that WV seeks to redress.
The question is not whether Christians disagree on what the Bible says. The question is what does the Bible actually say, and is the interpretation of a theologian or denomination faithful to the text of the Bible? If it is not faithful, Christians need to say so, reject that interpretation, and do what the Bible says. It is possible to make that judgment—as possible in fact as it is to judge whether there is hunger, poverty or injustice among any given community or peoples.
- “[This issue of same-sex marriage] is tearing churches…denominations…Christian colleges…and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We’ve got to focus on our mission.”
But what Christian mission is there that rises above “the whole Gospel for the whole person,” as the Lausanne Conference so eloquently stated? This appeal to “mission” as a unifying force is an appeal out of context that can become an idol—as we are seeing in the Anglican Communion today. For apart from the whole Gospel—including those parts of the Gospel that speak with utter clarity on human sexuality and marriage—we have no basis other than the shifting norms of secular culture to do justice, or to love mercy (Micah 6:8).
WV says in its March 28 reversal that its mission is “to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the kingdom of God.” But as Archbishop ++Eliud Wabukala of the Anglican Church of Kenya has pointed out, there can be no ‘Kingdom of God’ human transformation unless human sinfulness is addressed in the same degree as economic injustice and poverty. Archbishop Wabukala is no stranger to injustice, hunger and poverty. But in the wake of the visit of the Anglican Alliance to Nairobi, a coalition that includes those from the West who promote same-sex marriage and other non-Biblical innovations, he came down squarely in favor of the whole Gospel for the whole person—in contrast to the idea of a unifying “mission” that WV’s president, and the Anglican Alliance, are promoting at the expense of the whole Gospel.
The tragedy is that the failure to embrace the whole Gospel for the whole person ultimately leads to the sacrifice of the Gospel entirely. Several years ago, The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon explained why “sex” is merely the tip of the iceberg. Yes, it gets all the attention. But what sinks the ship is below the surface. Dr. Harmon went on to explain how underneath the presenting issue of “sex” lies the failure to affirm God’s creation ordinances, the undermining of marriage, the rejection of authority, the undermining of the authority of the Bible and, finally, the denigration of very Gospel of Jesus Christ ultimately into a message of affirmation rather than transformation. You can find it here and it is well worth the 8 minutes listening time.
This isn’t just the challenge facing WV. It’s the challenge facing all Christians and churches today. Will we exchange the birthright we have in the Bible for doing true, authoritative, Godly, wholistic justice for a bowl of secular pottage—a go along and get along mirage of mission divorced from God’s divinely inspired and authoritative word? World Vision has pushed that bowl aside—but for how long?
Canon Phil Ashey is CEO of the American Anglican Council.
