IN WHICH: Joel ponders the vision of World Vision
Remember the kinds of games we used to play when we were kids? There used to be "playground rules" we all knew well and tended to work inside of. The kid who owned the ball enforced the rules for the game. The kid who brought the toy got to decide how it was used. My sandbox, my rules.
When I brought my Star Wars figures over to my friend's house, there was an unwritten, unspoken understanding - I gave my conditional consent to my friends to play with those figures. But I got priority standing to choose whatever figure I wanted to play with. No matter what my friend wanted to be, I got to be Boba Fett. I got to play with the real blaster or the real lightsaber - because they were mine and I brought them. And if my friend wanted a turn, or didn't want to play the game that I wanted to play, then I gathered up my toys and took them home. When I was at home, I could play with my toys however I pleased and I didn't have to share. I didn't have to let someone else play Boba Fett or play with the blaster or the lightsaber if I didn't want to.
Of course, my parents had something to say to me about it. They called me bossy. They said I wasn't being very considerate. They told me I wouldn't have any friends for much longer if I kept insisting upon my own way or nothing else. And it got lonely sometimes when people decided they didn't want to come over if all they got to do was play by my rules.
As I've been following some of the current events in the news/social media, it occurs to me: there are a lot of people who grow up, start taking a role in the adult world, and somehow think that the "playground rules" are still in effect.
For those playing the home game - I'm talking about World Vision.
It was a situation that happened like a flash in a pan, but it's worth knowing what happened.
You see, World Vision made a pretty stunning and bold choice the other day with regard to the way it operates stateside. They've always had a long-standing track record of being a charity that operates under Christian ideals, particularly regarding the relational practices of its employees. The idea has been that if you're going to work for a Christian mission organization, then you need to act Christ-like. It's a good idea. So for example, if you wanted to work for World Vision in America, you had to be willing to agree to abide by their regulations that you either lived in celibacy outside of marriage or faithfulness within marriage. In other words, to quote Robin Hood: Men in Tights, "No ding-ding without the wedding ring!"
Now like I said - not a terrible idea. It's a fair call to expect that the people who work for a Christian organization are willing to commit to Christian biblical values.
But that's when World Vision realized something drastically important - our culture and our times, they are a'changin. World Vision had a kind of epiphany for a moment and realized that, hey, there are LGBTQ people out there who are in legally recognized civil unions and marriages. And that these folks were also people who were expressing not only an interest in working for World Vision out of their own individual sense of vocation and calling, but were willing to abide by the rules that World Vision had established. They were being faithful in the covenant promise of their marriage and were willing to affirm that very principle which World Vision asked of them.
And so World Vision made what I would call a breakthrough in reasoning: they decided to change their current hiring policy as it stood and to allow for people in legally recognized marriages, period, to be hired at World Vision. It was a big step that World Vision was making, and they were trying to play Switzerland about the decision. Richard Stearns gave church unity as the underlying purpose for making the decision, saying that "We're an operational arm of the church; we're not a theological arm of the church." World Vision still affirmed and supported "traditional" marriage, and was not "coming out" in support of gay marriage - well, not exactly, anyway.
The problem with a statement like that is that it's very hard to separate the operational from the theological when it comes to what we do as church. In fact, we shouldn't separate them. What we do as the church is a direct result of what we believe as the church. Otherwise, what we do is meaningless. We reach out to the poor and hungry because we believe it's what Christ told us to do.
So in effect, since World Vision is deciding to recognize that same-sex partners in a legally recognized marriage are fitting within the organizations call for Christian faithfulness to either celibacy in singleness or fidelity in marriage, they're effectively affirming the notion that same-sex marriage is a legitimate, morally acceptable state of relationship between two human beings that does not run contrary to scripture.
And with this single announcement from what is arguably the biggest, most reputable, and most respected Christian charity in the world, the LGBTQ community raised a collective glass to World Vision.
For many, this announcement was a huge step forward - both for World Vision and the church as a whole. Here we have a major charity that people from all denominations support. And they were throwing their name into the hat for LGBTQ equality. Even if it wasn't what they were really trying to do, it was nevertheless a call for the church to stand in unity as the body of Christ, rather than continuing to draw lines in the sand against each other and refuse to work together to help the very people whom Christ calls us to help.
Others found this announcement less than welcome. Representatives of various conservative "evangelical" Christian denominations and organizations immediately took to the internet and to their congregants, decrying World Vision's decision as a direct attack against biblical principles and Christianity itself. They encouraged their members to stop sponsoring World Vision children, threatened to withdraw their own donations to the organization, and systematically pointed "the long arm of the church" at this charity.
And then to compound the issue even further, the Gospel Coalition (a neo-Calvinist reformed interest site that includes such names as Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller and John Piper) posted this barrel of vitriol on their website. That's right: rather than be honest that a decision like this means removing opportunities for clean water, nutritious food, medical care, and education from children because he doesn't like that an organization no longer outright condemns the idea of two people of the same gender committing to each other in a legally married relationship, the author of this blog passes the buck and blamed homosexuals for trying to redefine marriage in the first place.
At this point, I can't help but wonder how that scene would play out if it weren't on a blog and were happening in front of the child whose sponsorship was suddenly being pulled. I have to wonder if Trevin Wax could have looked the child whose picture he exploited in his post directly in the eye and tell that child word for word that he's sorry that the meals and the medicine won't be coming anymore because World Vision said something he didn't like. I have to wonder... what kind of Gospel is that presenting to the child?
Unfortunately, the story doesn't end with this, outrageous enough as it is. With barely even enough time for us to process the magnitude of what World Vision was doing in the first place (but apparently enough time for plenty of people to begin withdrawing their support of the organization), World Vision changed their minds. They backed down and changed their policy back to what it had been in the first place.
Now, while this is perhaps fortunate for the kids who might have otherwise lost their support, it's shameful on so many levels that I'm not even sure where to begin.
I get why World Vision did it. I understand why they took their statement back. At the end of the day, they had to make the tough call between feeding and caring for as many children as they could continue to take care of, or having to find a reason to explain why so many people had suddenly decided to stop sponsoring those kids. Whatever else the "evangelical" branch of Christianity does, they do like their charities and causes. And World Vision gets a major cut of that mission money. Ultimately, they had to pick whether this was a hill they were willing to die on. And in a choice between standing behind a progressive statement or continuing to support the mission that is their highest priority, World Vision chose the path of less resistance. And while it saddens me to hear that they backed down, I don't know that I blame them. I'm sad that it came to this. I'm sad that World Vision's retraction was blatant pandering to the evangelical movement to ensure that as many would come back and support them as they could manage.
But more than that, I'm sad that the church still thinks it can operate with "playground rules" still in effect. I'm sad to see that people in the church would rather bully people into submission than try to understand one another or work together with one another despite differences in theology or practice. I'm sad that the church thinks it can just take its toys and go home when people don't agree with it. That we still have this desperate need to be the ones who are in power, even when Jesus told us that the only way to be raised up is to be ourselves made low.
And I'm sad that we're losing our identity as members of the body of Christ in this process. Because that's exactly what's happening when we do things like this. It says that we'd rather keep Christendom mindsets and power-structures than listen for the Gospel of Christ at work in our lives, guiding and pushing us in the Holy Spirit to keep pushing toward deeper and greater expressions of love for ourselves and for our neighbor. It says that we're more interested in keeping God in our own little boxes than in letting our own selves be broken and reshaped into the people God is calling us to be. And it says that we're more willing to be bullies and force people to think and act the way we think they should than to accept that we are each members of the same body, each serving different functions, each with our own unique qualities, but still one body working together for the glory of God.
What kind of Gospel does that show to the people who are outside of our churches looking in on us at work and at worship? What kind of Jesus do we represent when we continue to divide amongst ourselves because we disagree with one another about one matter or another? What kind of body do we form when the feet are constantly threatening to cut themselves off because the hands keep getting themselves dirty from reaching out to the untouchables, the unwashed, and the outsiders?
When I brought my Star Wars figures over to my friend's house, there was an unwritten, unspoken understanding - I gave my conditional consent to my friends to play with those figures. But I got priority standing to choose whatever figure I wanted to play with. No matter what my friend wanted to be, I got to be Boba Fett. I got to play with the real blaster or the real lightsaber - because they were mine and I brought them. And if my friend wanted a turn, or didn't want to play the game that I wanted to play, then I gathered up my toys and took them home. When I was at home, I could play with my toys however I pleased and I didn't have to share. I didn't have to let someone else play Boba Fett or play with the blaster or the lightsaber if I didn't want to.
Of course, my parents had something to say to me about it. They called me bossy. They said I wasn't being very considerate. They told me I wouldn't have any friends for much longer if I kept insisting upon my own way or nothing else. And it got lonely sometimes when people decided they didn't want to come over if all they got to do was play by my rules.
As I've been following some of the current events in the news/social media, it occurs to me: there are a lot of people who grow up, start taking a role in the adult world, and somehow think that the "playground rules" are still in effect.
For those playing the home game - I'm talking about World Vision.
It was a situation that happened like a flash in a pan, but it's worth knowing what happened.
You see, World Vision made a pretty stunning and bold choice the other day with regard to the way it operates stateside. They've always had a long-standing track record of being a charity that operates under Christian ideals, particularly regarding the relational practices of its employees. The idea has been that if you're going to work for a Christian mission organization, then you need to act Christ-like. It's a good idea. So for example, if you wanted to work for World Vision in America, you had to be willing to agree to abide by their regulations that you either lived in celibacy outside of marriage or faithfulness within marriage. In other words, to quote Robin Hood: Men in Tights, "No ding-ding without the wedding ring!"
 |
| No no nooo.... |
Now like I said - not a terrible idea. It's a fair call to expect that the people who work for a Christian organization are willing to commit to Christian biblical values.
But that's when World Vision realized something drastically important - our culture and our times, they are a'changin. World Vision had a kind of epiphany for a moment and realized that, hey, there are LGBTQ people out there who are in legally recognized civil unions and marriages. And that these folks were also people who were expressing not only an interest in working for World Vision out of their own individual sense of vocation and calling, but were willing to abide by the rules that World Vision had established. They were being faithful in the covenant promise of their marriage and were willing to affirm that very principle which World Vision asked of them.
And so World Vision made what I would call a breakthrough in reasoning: they decided to change their current hiring policy as it stood and to allow for people in legally recognized marriages, period, to be hired at World Vision. It was a big step that World Vision was making, and they were trying to play Switzerland about the decision. Richard Stearns gave church unity as the underlying purpose for making the decision, saying that "We're an operational arm of the church; we're not a theological arm of the church." World Vision still affirmed and supported "traditional" marriage, and was not "coming out" in support of gay marriage - well, not exactly, anyway.
The problem with a statement like that is that it's very hard to separate the operational from the theological when it comes to what we do as church. In fact, we shouldn't separate them. What we do as the church is a direct result of what we believe as the church. Otherwise, what we do is meaningless. We reach out to the poor and hungry because we believe it's what Christ told us to do.
So in effect, since World Vision is deciding to recognize that same-sex partners in a legally recognized marriage are fitting within the organizations call for Christian faithfulness to either celibacy in singleness or fidelity in marriage, they're effectively affirming the notion that same-sex marriage is a legitimate, morally acceptable state of relationship between two human beings that does not run contrary to scripture.
And with this single announcement from what is arguably the biggest, most reputable, and most respected Christian charity in the world, the LGBTQ community raised a collective glass to World Vision.
 |
| And there was much rejoicing |
For many, this announcement was a huge step forward - both for World Vision and the church as a whole. Here we have a major charity that people from all denominations support. And they were throwing their name into the hat for LGBTQ equality. Even if it wasn't what they were really trying to do, it was nevertheless a call for the church to stand in unity as the body of Christ, rather than continuing to draw lines in the sand against each other and refuse to work together to help the very people whom Christ calls us to help.
Others found this announcement less than welcome. Representatives of various conservative "evangelical" Christian denominations and organizations immediately took to the internet and to their congregants, decrying World Vision's decision as a direct attack against biblical principles and Christianity itself. They encouraged their members to stop sponsoring World Vision children, threatened to withdraw their own donations to the organization, and systematically pointed "the long arm of the church" at this charity.
 | |
| Visual representation of the above paragraph |
At this point, I can't help but wonder how that scene would play out if it weren't on a blog and were happening in front of the child whose sponsorship was suddenly being pulled. I have to wonder if Trevin Wax could have looked the child whose picture he exploited in his post directly in the eye and tell that child word for word that he's sorry that the meals and the medicine won't be coming anymore because World Vision said something he didn't like. I have to wonder... what kind of Gospel is that presenting to the child?
Unfortunately, the story doesn't end with this, outrageous enough as it is. With barely even enough time for us to process the magnitude of what World Vision was doing in the first place (but apparently enough time for plenty of people to begin withdrawing their support of the organization), World Vision changed their minds. They backed down and changed their policy back to what it had been in the first place.
Now, while this is perhaps fortunate for the kids who might have otherwise lost their support, it's shameful on so many levels that I'm not even sure where to begin.
I get why World Vision did it. I understand why they took their statement back. At the end of the day, they had to make the tough call between feeding and caring for as many children as they could continue to take care of, or having to find a reason to explain why so many people had suddenly decided to stop sponsoring those kids. Whatever else the "evangelical" branch of Christianity does, they do like their charities and causes. And World Vision gets a major cut of that mission money. Ultimately, they had to pick whether this was a hill they were willing to die on. And in a choice between standing behind a progressive statement or continuing to support the mission that is their highest priority, World Vision chose the path of less resistance. And while it saddens me to hear that they backed down, I don't know that I blame them. I'm sad that it came to this. I'm sad that World Vision's retraction was blatant pandering to the evangelical movement to ensure that as many would come back and support them as they could manage.
But more than that, I'm sad that the church still thinks it can operate with "playground rules" still in effect. I'm sad to see that people in the church would rather bully people into submission than try to understand one another or work together with one another despite differences in theology or practice. I'm sad that the church thinks it can just take its toys and go home when people don't agree with it. That we still have this desperate need to be the ones who are in power, even when Jesus told us that the only way to be raised up is to be ourselves made low.
And I'm sad that we're losing our identity as members of the body of Christ in this process. Because that's exactly what's happening when we do things like this. It says that we'd rather keep Christendom mindsets and power-structures than listen for the Gospel of Christ at work in our lives, guiding and pushing us in the Holy Spirit to keep pushing toward deeper and greater expressions of love for ourselves and for our neighbor. It says that we're more interested in keeping God in our own little boxes than in letting our own selves be broken and reshaped into the people God is calling us to be. And it says that we're more willing to be bullies and force people to think and act the way we think they should than to accept that we are each members of the same body, each serving different functions, each with our own unique qualities, but still one body working together for the glory of God.
What kind of Gospel does that show to the people who are outside of our churches looking in on us at work and at worship? What kind of Jesus do we represent when we continue to divide amongst ourselves because we disagree with one another about one matter or another? What kind of body do we form when the feet are constantly threatening to cut themselves off because the hands keep getting themselves dirty from reaching out to the untouchables, the unwashed, and the outsiders?
Comments
Post a Comment