Posted on 03/27/2014 7:51:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the spirit of forgiveness that God Himself extended to us through Jesus, I believe we should accept World Vision’s statement of repentance with graciousness and offer their leadership the forgiveness they requested, commending them for their contrition.
This could not have been an easy thing to do, as they will now have to deal with accusations of being double-minded, not to mention the pro-gay activist backlash they will surely face along with accusations that they were not sincere in their repentance but rather acted out of mercenary concerns, and so we need to be just as vocal in affirming them as we were in rebuking them.
The question is: Since they recognize that they deeply betrayed the trust of a large number of their constituents, how can they now regain that trust? (When speaking of World Vision throughout this article, I’m referring only to the U.S. branch, which made the initial, tragic decision.)
Not surprisingly, many are questioning the motivation of World Vision’s reversal, suggesting that they did not act out of conviction but rather out of pragmatism, not wanting to lose a massive amount of donor support. Of course, World Vision could have said, “But our mission to help the poor depends on money, and when we realized that our initial decision to change our employment policy regarding homosexuality was going to hurt us financially, we decided to reevaluate that decision.”
But that is not what World Vision said (and, candidly, such a response would hardly be worthy of a purportedly Christian organization). Rather, their statement of repentance was unequivocal.
“We have listened to you,” they said, “and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.”
They acknowledged that they “failed to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional understanding of Biblical marriage and our own Statement of Faith.”
And they explained that, “We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we have caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to Biblical authority,” claiming that this was “never the board’s intent.”
Further, they affirmed that, “World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage.”
In light of this apology, I believe it is important that we extend forgiveness and that we commend the leadership of World Vision for their act of humility and repentance. And certainly, we want World Vision to succeed, since they are doing something of great importance in the eyes of God and man, namely, helping the helpless.
The problem that World Vision faces now is that they lost the trust of many of their constituents. How can they regain that trust?
As someone wanting to help, not hurt, I humbly submit these questions to you, Mr. Stearns, and to the leadership of World Vision, in the hope that your organization will now demonstrate the reality of your corporate repentance. (The biblical expression is “to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance”; see Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:10-14; Acts 26:20; 2 Corinthians 7:10-11.)
The questions that follow are direct, but they are notmeant as accusations. Instead, they are intended to bring clarity, since there is tremendous disparity between the views expressed in the interview on Monday in Christianity Today and the repentance statement released two days later. We really need to know where you stand if we are to be able to stand with you, and we do desire to stand together with you in ministering to the poor and the oppressed.
1) In your interview on Monday, with reference to homosexual “marriage,” you challenged the idea that “Scripture is very clear on this issue,” responding with, “Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.” In contrast, in your statement of repentance, you said, “World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage.”
So, what do you actually believe? Many of us are genuinely confused. Are you now saying, “Although some churches may differ on this, we are reaffirming our strong belief that in God’s sight, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, while homosexual practice is always against the law of God, even in the context of monogamous, homosexual unions”?
On Monday did you feel that the biblical definition of marriage was debatable but on Wednesday you decided that this was not the case? If so, what produced such a drastic change? Your clarification here would help to instill greater confidence.
2) Do you recognize now that your policy change actually was, in fact, an act of compromise and did, indeed, represent a serious slide down the slippery slope? (In your interview, you said, “We’re not on some slippery slope. . . . This is not us compromising.”) If you do repudiate your earlier comments, would you be willing to state that clearly?
3) Since official, organizational policies are of great importance, is anything stopping you from writing the biblical definition of marriage into your bylaws, committing to hold to this standard regardless of societal change and regardless of financial implications (the latter, in the offhand chance that standing on scripture will ultimately cost you financially)? And since you speak of the shifting views of some churches on this subject, will you commit in writing to honoring God’s Word even if the majority of churches associated with you apostasize from biblical standards?
4) Will you require all of your senior leadership to affirm the biblical definition of marriage? And since the voice of conservative evangelicals within World Vision was ignored or overruled as the policy announcement was being made, are you taking steps to win back the hearts of those who were offended?
On a personal note, in the late 1970’s, when my pastor heard about the plight of the Vietnamese refugees from World Vision, he mobilized our church to sponsor these refugees (known as “the boat people”) and many of us, including my own family, opened our homes for several years to host these men, women, and children. How precious those days were to all of us involved, and it was your organization that did so much to help us to help them.
And on Monday and Tuesday of this week, I was flooded with messages from brokenhearted World Vision supporters, saying that they were devoted to the children they were sponsoring but were now doing so with mixed emotions, planning to direct their giving to another organization once the promised sponsorship was completed.
Hearing the news of your repentance, some of them are thrilled while others still don’t know what to think, and it is with people like them in mind that I encourage you to do what is needed to rebuild the trust.
All of us want the name of World Vision to shine brightly once again.
They MIGHT be able to recover from it, considering the politically correct mindset of some Christians, but should they? No, not in my opinion. Think about it....they come out in support of something God views as an abomination. They didn't make a mistake; they deliberately defied Him. Christians should be distancing themselves from WV so fast you see clouds of dust.
Yeah, well, some PC evangelicals are fine with homo marriage itself. They can jump off that cliff if they want to. It's still wrong, and I'm not about to go with them.
Here’s a list of their board of directors:
http://www.worldvision.org/about-us/leadership-team
Two are employees Christian hating Google!
LOL, note "we made a mistake."
Pure mealy-mouthed, meaningless drivel.
Thanks, wardaddy
Actually, when they came out in support of what is called homosexuals “marrying” each other, they showed their true colors.
FROM THEIR SITE:
http://www.worldvision.org/about-us/leadership-team
2014 World Vision Board of Directors
James F. Beré Jr., Chair | Chairman and CEO, Alta Resources
Dr. Vinh Chung | Vanguard Skin Specialist, Seasweep survivor
Rev. John Crosby | Pastor, Christ Presbyterian Church
Lisa Trevino Cummins | President, Urban Strategies
Gary Duim, Secretary/Treasurer | Vice Chair, U.S. Bancorp (retired)
Jacquelline Fuller | Director of Giving, Google
Sandy Grubb | Columbia-Willamette Women of Vision, Social
Venture Partners Portland; author
Dr. Stephen A. Hayner | President, Columbia Theological Seminary
Christin McClave | UNIFI Coaching, LLC
Katie Smith Milway | Head, Knowledge Group, The Bridgespan Group; author
John Park, Vice Chair | Senior Project Manager, Google
Deborah Pegues | Author and motivational speaker, The Pegues Group; CFO, Church of God in Christ, West L.A.
Rev. Dr. Soong-Chan Rah | Associate professor, North Park Theological Seminary; urban church planter
Dr. Joan Singleton | Vice President, Milton Hershey School
Richard E. Stearns | President, World Vision U.S.
Roland C. Warren | Board Member, National Fatherhood Initiative CEO, Care Net
Bonnie Wurzbacher | Chief Resource Development Officer, World Vision International
RE: Upwards of 20 percent of the aid World Vision distributes comes from the Federal Government, and their initial decision to hire same-sex married persons looks very much like a pandering to ~that~ funding source,>>>>>>>
In that case the only thing World Vision or any other Christian organization can do to convince me that i can trust them is to stop receiving money from the Government.
Yes, improperly imploring the misapplied “mistake” excuse. That alone is cause for doubt as to the authenticity of their “repentance.”
I’ve been doing Google searches on all these guys. Mostly a bunch of liberals. No surprise.
Amen.
Can you share some details?
I did not read the whole piece, but I read enough to conclude that the writer is quite naive. One can certainly forgive them, but only a fool would ever trust them again and give them money.
finding references of “social justice”
several are from Presbyterian and Church of Christ churches (both officially recognize gay marriages).
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, though. This whole thing has served to separate some chaff from the wheat. There are many other worthwhile Christian charities in need of support.
&&&
Good point.
I am a Catholic, but I steadfastly refuse to donate to any charity that is sponsored by the United States Conference of Bishops because far too many of them support illegal immigration and think it is their moral duty to help illegals who broke into this country. I do not trust them.
If they're really sorry, they should resign, acknowledging they can no longer be trusted. That's what would demonstrate true regret.
We have to stop letting those who backstab us from having more chances to do so.
What/who is World Vision?
I absolutely despise the manipulation techniques people use against others using Scripture.
And that’s what this article is to try to coerce people into not pulling their funding.
That’s a despicable use of the word of God to put people on a guilt trip when they do right to wrong they’ve seen done.
World Vision recanted when they saw the fallout from their decision. If they had repented and changed their minds on their own, that would be one thing, but they didn’t.
They didn’t *repent* until they saw the backlash and loss of revenue. That is not *repenting* of wrong done. That’s a CYA, ooops, we really blew it, time to backpedal actions.
They can’t be trusted.
Too late. WV already showed its hand.
WV, you’re done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.