the power of the internet?

That's a tough call, who do you offend? Gay people or starving children? Yes it's sad.

WV clearly tried to do the right thing, but they couldn't keep it up, losing 1000 sponsorships a day. They made the announcement Monday. Imagine how many more sponsorships they could have lost after the ministers had their say the following Sunday.

 

As one of the commenters said (paraphrasing), "Imagine how Jesus looks to homosexuals today."

 

There are rumblings online that WV showed their true (rainbow) colours, and that they are going to suffer more dropped sponsorships over this anyway, because they clearly support gays in spirit, if not in their employee manual.

 

The crazy black hearted thing is that 2000 americans cancelled their sponsorships of children in 2 days.  This is what happens when hate is value and love is not.

 

I wonder why Jesus has to take the blame for a group of people that are too afraid of loving all people.

I have sponsored a child through World Vision for several years now, although I have had mixed feelings about the organization itself.  I chose World Vision because from the research I've done, they do a really great job of actually helping people and communities and most of the money they raise goes to the programs themselves.  It is my understanding that here in Ontario they are not allowed to discriminate in hiring based on sexual orientation, but I'd like to get clarification from them about that.  I don't want to simply withdraw my support of the child I'm sponsoring, though.  It's complicated.  I am considering a switch to Free The Children, in part because of this situation and in part because they actually have a better record for how much money goes towards their programs.  I couldn't sponsor a specific child through Free The Children, though, and that was part of what attracted me to World Vision.  By deliberately selecting a girl the same age as Rachel, my hope has been that she will feel more personally connected to the idea of giving because it's more tangible.

Wow. Why would people do that? Cancel their sponsorships because of that, I mean. So sad!

I've avoided WV, there are some other good ones. Had nothing to do with anything LGBT. This is the first time I'm reading about this.

great image, Alex.

some commentary on the issue, evangelical shrinkage & in the ghetto

Hi Alex,

 

 

I wonder how many of us expressing outrage about "evenagelical" Christians dropping sponsorships because of World Vision's decision to reverse its policies regarding Gays and Lesbians were the same ones refusing to participate in World Vision's outreach under their original policy?

 

Starving children are starving children right?

 

If we were right not to assist World Vision when we thought they were homophobes.  Why are we now critical of homophobes for not supporting a suddenly worthwhile mission?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

There are other, possibly better, ways to help.  Check out the Grandmothes Grandmothers arm of the Stephen Lewis campaign.  Grassroots action from Canada.

Okay I have been sponsoring a child through World Vision for over 20 years. I also sponsor two children through the Salvation Army Sponsorship Program and one through Plan Canada. I figure by going through three different organizations that at least one will get it right. Does anyone know of any other organization that helps starving children better than any of three organizations I mentioned? I don't think there is an organization out there that gives at least 90 percent of the money directly to children in need. The starving children getting help would be my first priority everything else comes in second.

Of course World Vision was backed into a corner, and inevitably had to choose the children, which I agree with. I've been trying to figure out a way that this could have been handled differently, but I come up with nothing. How do you deal with people that hold a whole organization hostage by imposing sanctions in order to sway opinion, but end up hurting the innocent?

 

Was there any other way to have handled this without bringing harm to the children?

Our family has sponsored through World Vision for several years.....

I am more concerned that the child gets help than I am about the politics of the organization.

I am much more concerned that an actual child gets a bowl of good food, clean water, and a chance at a better life.    This is not about me buying a chicken sandwich or a cake.     I will gladly work shoulder to shoulder with the worst homophobe in order to help someone who so desperately needs it.....

To not support because of such secondary reasons I feel is not right.

Now how many will drop their support because World Vision reversed its stance?

Not this gal ....... 

Regards

Rita

Waterfall,They might have publicized what had happened and ask people to sign up and cover the gap

 

That's a possibility, and maybe they will come up with something like that down the road.

 

I wonder if the wisdom of King Soloman would have applied here also?  I sincerely hope that the decision that WV made will expose what "giving" and a "gift" truly means. Gifts and love shouldn't come with condtions

Neither will I Rita. Like I said if there is an organization that has a better track record than WV at helping starving children then I will support that organization. I don't consider myself a Christian or a believer but when it comes to helping those who need it the most I could care less about what they believe in terms of religion. Well actually if I had a choice between two organizations that helped children in dire need and one identified as Chistian and the other had no religious affiliation I would probably choose the latter eveything being equal. So I guess their belief does play a very small part in whom I will choose to support. I am talking about the organization here.

Good for you for supporting children 

No one is saying that you should not continue with your sponsorships. In fact in the USA there were many LGBT people and allies who signed up with World Vision when they found out that people were cancelling their donations.   And as far as I can see, not one is cancelling their support, as they understand 2 wrongs do not make a right.

 

Howevr there are plenty of peopele claiming that they are (and not world vision USA) And plenty of people claiming that people who support other charities are somehow hypocrites.  What is troubling is the depths of peoples hatred, combined with the lack of compassion they have for the children of World Vision, who have nothing to do with same -sex marriage.

 

ANd Jesus said, "gather the children onto me, as they make great hostages"

Sleeping Children Around the World  (www.scaw.org) helps children in need and 100% of each donation is spent on the child.  World Vision spends about 17 cents per dollar on administration.

I fail to understand what is your point

 

Are you saying that supporting Oxfam or the Foster Children Plan, or other charities makes a person a hypocrite?

 

Alex - that image is haunting

Sadly .... well said Alex.....

What i took from rev john was that how many of the folks complaining actually supported world vision?

Regarding the other places to support, one if the ones that I like is heifer international. M&s also through their partners

I just read the opening, didn't follow the link . . . will do that . . . but I'm curious

 

Did the 2000 come back once the policy was reversed?

 

We have sponsored a child through World Vision for over 25 years.  It was the group I chose at the time based on where I was.  Perhaps I wouldn't choose it today, I don't know.  But, we have just continued, believing we were making a difference in a child/children's lives.

 

So, the debate on same sex marriage (and all that involves) not only splits churches, it splits other groups too.  Sad.

 

So sad. The hatred of some matters more to them than following Jesus command to care for "the least of these". Tragic.

Wondering how many will pull their support in the reversal of their original decision?

Keep in mind that pulling support from WV in either case doesn't necessary mean pulling support from childrens' charities in general.

 

Yes, UNICEF, SOS Childrens Villages, the Red Cross, and others are charities that support children.

 

I fondly remember Red Cross aid when I was a starving child right after WWII in Germany. I mainly support the Red Cross. I think they can be trusted, and they don't do expensive television ads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Alex,

 

 

Then let me try to be clearer.

 

On Monday March 24, 2014 World Vision announced that it would no longer discriminate against individuals working for the organization who belonged to same sex marriages.  Further, it opened the doors to homosexual employees lifting up the standard of celibate singleness it expects from its hetereosexual employees.

 

Prior to Monday, March 24, 2014 World Vision actively discriminated against homosexuals.

 

As recently as October 5, 2011 The United States Supreme Court, upheld a lower court ruling that World Vision was free to discriminate against gays.

 

President Richard Stearn is quoted as saying:

 

 

I read that as Stearns saying you can be Gay or Christian but you cannot be both.

 

I wonder, how many Christians decided that because of World Vision's position they could not in good conscience work with World Vision

 

Then Richard Sterns sings a different tune on Monday, March 24 and all the good people (who think a lot like us) are suddenly proud of World Vision.

 

While all the bad people (who do not think like us at all) are suddenly very angry.

 

On Monday, March 24, 2014 and following they being to inform World Vision that because of World Vision's position they can not in good conscience work with World Vision.

 

Shameful isn't it that they would let children starve because of their ideology.  Funny how they aren't capable of shifting their charitable dollars to a group that is more ideologically in line.  Mind you it is only two days later and they haven't actually said they were not going to try and find ways to feed starving children.

 

So that is the hypocrisy in a nutshell Alex.

 

We don't have to give to World Vision, we can give to other similar agencies.  That way we can occupy the moral high-ground on our moral high-horses and look down our moral noses at World Vision for not thinking exactly like us.

 

The fact that they were feeding starving children was not enough to win our support.

 

They pull a 180 and while we are happy that they have joined the 21st century and been enlightened others are decidedly not and they move swiftly to take their support away from World Vision and that is going to take food out of the mouths of starving children.

 

World Vision is forced to choose between starving children or gay employees and they are true to their mission, they choose to do what they can to prevent children from starving.

 

So I'm wondering, when are "we" right to not work with a specific aid organization because we disagree with its hiring practices and when are "they" right to not work with a specific organization because they disagree with its hiring practices.

 

That is what I am wondering.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pinga,

 

 

That is part of it.  The other part is, who is obligated to support World Vision in the first place.

 

Some of us won't work with World Vision because they are discriminatory.  We have a reason not to work with them.

 

They pull a 180 and folk who can't keep up and operate under an ideology espoused by the President of WV that you cannot be gay and Christian now decide that they now have a reason not to work with WV and we criticize?

 

A week ago it was those left of centre who wouldn't work with WV and that was okay.

 

This week it is those right of centre who won't work with WV and we think that is obscene.

 

By definition, that is hypocrisy.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Azdgari,

 

 

Agreed.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Here's World Vision Canada's statement on their hiring practices, which are different from World Vision USA:

 

http://churches.worldvision.ca/our-christian-identity-responding-to-worl...

 

Friends, we’ve been getting lots of questions about World Vision US’s hiring policy and I wanted to let you know that this does not affect World Vision Canada’s policies or actions.

 

Canada’s legal environment is quite different from that of the United States. We comply with provincial laws on this matter which prohibit discrimination in employment. For example, as part of our hiring process, we do not ask questions about sexual orientation, marriage or related issues.

 

However, when we hire, we are very clear about our values and our Christian identity. We explain how our Christian identity motivates and informs our work and how we work together here in Canada.

 

While we have a code of conduct on ethical and legal issues, we don’t ask staff to sign a lifestyle code of conduct.

 

We want our staff to be united around our mission of following Christ in serving the poor. When we hire staff, our Christian faith is clear. And when they join World Vision they are aligning with us as a Christian organization.

 

This is what is most key for us: When it comes to working with the poor, World Vision serves children, families and communities, regardless of whether they are aligned with our values or not. Race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation do not prevent us from serving the poorest of the poor.

 

If you have further questions, please get in touch. This is an important issue and we’d value the opportunity to discuss this with you.

 

All things being equal, I guess Christianity would have to be removed from the equation so they can get on with feeding those kids.

 

Edit: except in Canada it appears  Thanks Aaron

Thanks for sharing that, Aaron.

Hi Chansen-- I was wondering did you read what was said. I don't think you can get a job with them either. It's  a christain run organization only hiring those who followed.  Christ.

 

 

Hi waterfall,

 

 

Except that the issue isn't really Christianity per se so much as it is how Christians choose to exercise their Christianity.

 

Those who wouldn't work with World Vision when it wasn't gay friendly may have claimed that such a stance was an affront to their Christian values (starving children was not a trumping moral problem--disagreement was).

 

Those who wouldn't work with World Vision when it was gay friendly claimed that such a stance was an affront to their Christian values (starving children was not a trumpin moral problem--disagreement was).

 

Remove Christianity and you have an organization that helps starving children but is at odds with both Christian expressions making it equally disagreable to both.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi airclean33,

 

Unwittingly your selective underlining and bolding around the hiring policy is precisely why folk were protesting.

 

 

 

to be consistent it would have to be

to hire Christians in same sex marriages,

to hire Christians in same sex marriages,

to hire Christians in same sex marriages or,

to hire Christians in same sex marriages.

 

The idea that no Christian ever finds themselves in a same-sex marriage is World Vision's original position.  The uproar of this week is that they have decided Christians can, in fact, be gay and all of the noise is from Christians loudly disagreeing and pulling their support from the organization.

 

In order to win back the support they just lost World Vision has to change their mind for the second time this week and embrace an employee code that effectively states you cannot be gay and Christian at the same time.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Agree Revjohn.

It's so strange to me why World Vision USA and other groups focus so much on this one issue. If they want to be biblically consistent they could include so many things they won't hire a person because of. In fact, they would have no employees at all. 

So from what I have read from World Vision Canada's hiring policy it sound like you don't necessarily have to be Christian. You can be an atheist and in a same sex marriage or both and you could be hired. If this is the case then somebody needs to notify airclean33 of this. Someone here is confused so it could be the both of us.

 

not only that, if we were considered christian based on our lack of sin, we would have been extinct the second Jesus rose from the dead !

..... just wondering ...... can you be a bigot and be a Christian? ......

Would that disqualify a person from employment with such an organization?

Or perhaps a particular form of bigotry is a  prerequisite......

I am no longer sure .....

...you cannot be gay and be a christian....how odd!!! ... how demeaning!!

Sorry ... this has struck a nerve

Rita

As I understand the CT report of the October 2011 decision, it was "a case involving three former employees who were fired because they did not believe in the deity of Jesus or in the doctrine of the Trinity."

 

Perhaps "Unitarian or Christian but not both"?

 

 

 

Hi....

 

I live in a town nicknamed the Buckle on south Manitoba's Bible belt. A young gay man has gone public as an advocate for the passing of Bill 18, a Manitoba anti-bullying initiative. That bill was being forcefully resisted by local politicians and preachers. You can find the story here:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gay-teen-holds-the-line-for-manitoba-bullying-bill/article9863497/

 

The controversy has continued in the local paper. Most recently a letter to the editor called all pastors to warn the people about the danger of hell for all who welcomed and affirmed homosexual relations. As is my habit, I responded with another point of view.

 

Editor:

 

I appreciated the words of Leonard Randolph, in his letter to the editor (March 20). He reminded me of my responsibility to speak out whenever truth is compromised. With this in mind, I would like to say a few things to Mr. Randolph and those who share his point of view.

 

What follows where we exclude and stigmatise some “sinners” while welcoming (“forgiving”) and affirming (“blessing”) others? We may think of prominent Church leaders who compromise the gospel of Jesus Christ by advocating values deeply at odds with the revealed will of God. Where scripture points us to simplicity and humility, in the manner of our living, these leaders promote covetousness and pride. Will we hold these persons accountable as we hold others accountable?

 

I have a life long relationship with the Biblical prophets. Many years ago, while wondering about the sin that brought judgement on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, I found something interesting in the writings of Ezekiel. He does not seem overly concerned with the problem of gender relations. Speaking in the name of God, the prophet says Sodom and Gomorrah: "had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

 

The gospels also notice the problem of those much blessed by God who neglect the “poor and needy”. Jesus tells the story of a “certain rich man” who everyday walked past a destitute “poor man”. By the end of the story we learn that God has preferred the destitute poor man to the indifferent rich man.

 

Jesus came into the world with a purpose. That purpose is clearly stated in the opening chapter of Luke where Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah. In a nutshell, Jesus comes in the name of God to liberate the poor and the broken from the strong arm of religiously sanctioned powers by which they are excluded and stigmatised. We see this on every page of the Gospels. Those who follow in the way of Jesus, in Spirit and in Truth, share this purpose.

 

Mr. Randolf suggests that I have a responsibility to “warn the people”. Taking him seriously let me conclude by saying simply that those who judge others under the law will themselves bear the full weight of that law."

 

George Feenstra

There seems to be a problem with your reference here. Jesus says nothing in Luke 1. Maybe a typo?

 

 

 

Hi RAN,

 

 

Thank you for lifting that up.

 

Documents I had read did not include this doctrinal element and with this week of announcements I conflated the two stories.

 

My apologies to World Vision for that bit of false witness.

 

 

That may be closer to the mark for that particular court case.  The discriminatory against gays is still in play on the most recent imbroglio.

 

That aside, there are some groups of Christians who I think would not fit well into unitarianism but also have problems with the person of Christ.

 

Not that I want to turn the thread into "Name that Heresy."

 

Thank you, once again for your correction.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Ran... Good catch... Thanks... Fourth chapter...!
.
George