"The Apostasy of World Vision Embracing Gay Marriage": Commentary
March 27, 2014
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
The full text can be found here. Mr. Brown has a doctorate in Near eastern Languages and Literature and is the author of 22 books.
World Vision has decided to embrace homosexual "marriage" among its employees and to recognize practicing homosexual employees who profess faith in Jesus as true Christians.
In common with Mr. Brown, we question innovations like "homosexual marriage". If marriage is the domain of the church, then it can only be changed by the church. However, if certain Protestant groups claim to be the church and allow gay marriage, then the issue becomes confused. To avoid this confusion, one must make a stand against the Protestant churches and admit that Rome and Constantinople are the only legitimate churches to the exclusion of all other churches. We do not expect this realization to occur.
We read that people "who profess faith" in Jesus are Christians. This Modern definition of Christian (professing faith) betrays its recent origin ("Christian" entered the English language in the 1520's). As with most issues in the Modern Age, we have a perceived problem of "true Christians" and false Christians. There are no issues if one rejects every claim from those who are not adherents of either Rome or Constantinople.
We read that people "who profess faith" in Jesus are Christians. This Modern definition of Christian (professing faith) betrays its recent origin ("Christian" entered the English language in the 1520's). As with most issues in the Modern Age, we have a perceived problem of "true Christians" and false Christians. There are no issues if one rejects every claim from those who are not adherents of either Rome or Constantinople.
This is a betrayal of the gospel, a betrayal of the Lord, a betrayal of the family, and a betrayal of the countless thousands of Christians who have put their trust in World Vision as a legitimate Christian organization.
To betray means to expose (one's country, a group, or a person) to danger by treacherously giving information to an enemy or to unintentionally reveal; be evidence of. Neither of these definitions work for this section. Mr. Brown questions whether World Vision is a legitimate Christian organization and he is not alone.
World Vision redefines the nature of marriage – the most fundamental institution of society, ordained by God in Genesis 2 as the lifelong union of a man and a woman and reaffirmed by Jesus as such in Matthew 19...
We doubt that World Vision has the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage may have been ordained by God in Genesis Chapter 2, but Adam and Eve were not married. If Adam and Ever were married, then the definition of marriage can be clarified by stating that marriage is a verbal contract and placing marriage in the context of Natural Law. The appeal to Jesus' authority clearly places marriage in the context of a Jewish environment. The reader may see this as foreshadowing of more emphasis on the Law.
World Vision mocks the sentiments, convictions, and sensibilities of countless thousands of its Christian constituents, rejects the historic testimony of virtually all branches of Christianity, decides to take a terribly controversial stand on the most socially divisive issue of the day, and then claims that this is "symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity"?
We doubt that World Vision mocks the feelings and convictions of its constituents, because we do not know their sentiments and convictions. Nietzsche wrote that Christians are overly sensitive and the reader can reach their own conclusion. We agree that this issue is "controversial" and "divisive". However, generally speaking, it is neither controversial nor divisive to people who do not attempt to control people's behavior.
With all respect to the massive amount of good that Richard Stearns and World Vision have done in helping the poor and needy for many years now, his words strain Christian credulity.
Mr. Brown acknowledges a "massive" amount of good that had been done regarding the poor and needy, however, we have no way to quantify "massive" from the text. Regardless of all the good that World Vision has done, it is for naught with their policy change.
We seem to be confronted with two types of credulity, to wit, Christian and non Christian. One is tempted to say that Christian credulity is more plastic than non Christian credulity and it is unfortunate that we can not make this statement. We leave it to the Gentle Reader to determine if their are various types of believability or if a different word should be used instead of credibility.
We seem to be confronted with two types of credulity, to wit, Christian and non Christian. One is tempted to say that Christian credulity is more plastic than non Christian credulity and it is unfortunate that we can not make this statement. We leave it to the Gentle Reader to determine if their are various types of believability or if a different word should be used instead of credibility.
Stearns said, "It's been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church. It's tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, 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. We are determined to find unity in our diversity."
Gay marriage is tearing apart churches, denominations, and Christian colleges. Almost as an afterthought, families are mentioned. We are uncertain if these families are Christian or not. With so much emphasis on churches and so little emphasis on families, we are not surprised that World Vision changed their policy after two days. If apprentices were as eager to please as graduate assistants, this commentary would have been published in a timely manner.
The fact is that World Vision claims to be a Christian organization, with phrases like this on its website: "World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization . . . . Motivated by our faith in Jesus Christ . . . ." As Stearns reiterated, "World Vision is committed to our Christian identity. We are absolutely resolute about every employee being followers of Jesus Christ. We are not wavering on that."
Once again, Mr. Brown questions whether World Vision is a Christian organization. In our youth, we also had doubts of what a Christian organization was or was not. We adopted a simple rule: if an organization says that it is Christian, it is Christian. Therefore, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and all Protestant Churches are Christian. This is not an elegant or satisfying resolution, but in an age when belief and neither facts nor standards determine who is a Christian, we are left with little choice in the matter.
Let it be stated plainly to the leadership and board of directors of World Vision U.S.: The Lord Jesus is no longer central in the corporate life of your organization. You have denied his lordship by your actions.
Nietzsche wrote that he who denies the good news is an Antichrist. It seems as though Mr. Brown desires to return to the Law and, in the process, deny Grace. Mr. Brown believes that by making this acknowledgment of gay marriage, World Vision denies the Lordship of Jesus and the observant reader will notice that His divinity is subtlety called into question by the lower case "h". We presume to be encountering a version of Christian credulity, whereby actions of a second party, by some unknown mechanism, calls into question the authority, lordship or sovereignty of the first party. One may be quick to rush to judgement and state that Mr. Brown is an Antichrist, but we can not make this statement without proof, or at least more evidence.
The fact is that no matter how much two men or two women love each other, their union is not marriage in God's sight – nor will it ever be – and their sexual relations, even if totally monogamous, remain sinful in his eyes.
I always treat statements about how God views human affairs with great caution. My course of action is to avoid topics that I am ignorant of, and to leave such things to people more learned than myself. When Socrates himself is unable to determine the standards that define what is holy and unholy (Euthyphro), it is best if I transition to another topic. Fortunately, we return to sin.
And for every child who will fall through the cracks because of World Vision's betrayal of its Christian principles, I say to Richard Stearns and those who made this decision together: You will have to answer to God.
We encounter the Modern refrain of "Think of the Children" as though children are the highest achievement of society. This article would not be complete without the fear and guilt of God's judgement. Based on World Vision's abrupt return to their former policy, it seems as thought Mr. Stearns took this warning to heart.
Observations
We were unaware that Dr. Brown is a Messianic Jew until we completed all but the final two sections and, if Wikipedia is to be believed, Dr. Brown is an adherent of Arminianism. The lack of quality Apprentices for basic research is an unfortunate and frustrating situation.
Our normal practice of using the entire text has not been followed here, as we found the writing to be rambling and have only used selected passages. If this is an example of esoteric writing, we confess that we were unable to understand it.
From this article, we can reasonably conclude that Christianity is a belief system where some of the faithful are true Christians and some believers are not true Christians. We were unable to determine if there is a standard to make a definitive definition of Christian. We are led to believe that certain types of behavior are attached to this belief system, thereby holding some persons sinful. Because this article deals only with "gay marriage", we were unable to determine from the text if there are other types of sins other than sexual sins. One is tempted to think that Dietary restrictions may be involved, but this conclusion would be speculative.
We have learned that one's behavior determines or reflects poorly on another person's lordship or authority. This specifically relates to people who claim to be Christian [one again, we have no standard to determine eligibility], but do not behave in accordance with another person's expectations. This interdependence of behavior and authority is novel and we wonder if this example of Christian credulity can be applied to real world situations.
Our normal practice of using the entire text has not been followed here, as we found the writing to be rambling and have only used selected passages. If this is an example of esoteric writing, we confess that we were unable to understand it.
From this article, we can reasonably conclude that Christianity is a belief system where some of the faithful are true Christians and some believers are not true Christians. We were unable to determine if there is a standard to make a definitive definition of Christian. We are led to believe that certain types of behavior are attached to this belief system, thereby holding some persons sinful. Because this article deals only with "gay marriage", we were unable to determine from the text if there are other types of sins other than sexual sins. One is tempted to think that Dietary restrictions may be involved, but this conclusion would be speculative.
We have learned that one's behavior determines or reflects poorly on another person's lordship or authority. This specifically relates to people who claim to be Christian [one again, we have no standard to determine eligibility], but do not behave in accordance with another person's expectations. This interdependence of behavior and authority is novel and we wonder if this example of Christian credulity can be applied to real world situations.
Omnia mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.