World Vision hiring gays?

[ByTheSpirit]

I sponsor through 'Compassion international'... and I would recommend, for any future sponsorships, that WV be forgotten, and other agencies used that are more compatible with Christian ethics...

if they deviate in that one point, how many other points are they deviant in their work, teachings, etc... ???

the 'innocent' children need their sponsor... the group supplying that help for you, needs to re-evaluate, and have a change of leadership... but till they do, more sponsorship through them, would be wrong..

The foundation is either the rock or the sand.

How on earth is supporting poor and vulnerable children and communities shaky "sandy" ground? Plenty of celebs do very good things for communities and I don't see many people denouncing them. In fact Hollywood is a leading proponent of many secular anti-Christian ideas and if you watch those actirs or movies then you are doing the very thing that you want to come here and denounce. Why?

 

[lismore]

How on earth is supporting poor and vulnerable children and communities shaky "sandy" ground? Plenty of celebs do very good things for communities and I don't see many people denouncing them. In fact Hollywood is a leading proponent of many secular anti-Christian ideas and if you watch those actirs or movies then you are doing the very thing that you want to come here and denounce. Why?

When a Hollywood celebrity says same sex marriage is valid it's meaningless. You would expect the world to follow and promote worldly values.

When a Christian Ministry or church says same sex marriage is ok it creates a scandal. God's people should be following God's values not worldly values and they certainly shouldn't be promoting worldly values.

We know that Christians sin. But when they corporately promote or condone sin it's a whole different ballgame.

There's the why.

Now, from experience I can tell you that the denomination the Church of Scotland allowed a pastor to get married to another man to be inclusive and loving and bring people in. They're doing lots of good work and such like. However their desire to be inclusive and bring people in drove many away. There won't be a church of Scotland denomination in thirty years.

The ministry you are supporting allowed gay marriage to try and seem inclusive. I agree they're doing good work helping children, but what they did will drive people away

God Bless You

 

[murjahel]

The foundation is either the rock or the sand.

sounds Biblical to me...
Matthew 7:26-29 (KJV)
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

so, we need to put our investments for God into organizations still building on rock... current children being helped is understandable... but new investments need put on the Rock... not building on sand...

we sometimes do not have any choice, as with gov't programs, ... our tax dollars are paying for abortions, promoting homosexuality, etc... and we have no choice... until the next ballot box...

when we do have a choice, we need to exercise it...
when we don't have a choice, we need to preach the good news... and pray up a storm...

when we condone evil, we become partakers of the evil...
2 John 1:10-11 (KJV)
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[Simon Peter]

Suppose a ministry considers it not only acceptable to affirm gay marriage, but actually IMMORAL to NOT do so. Would you say that ministry should violate its morality in fear of losing donations?

World Vision clearly does not believe it's IMMORAL to 'NOT affirm gay marriage', because they've now reversed their decision.

From this we can learn that World Vision is confused, or at least uncertain of their own moral stance, and perhaps they are just being blown this way and that by cultural pressure. They need, like many churches, to determine their own sound Biblical doctrine and moral Theology.


peace,
Simon

 

[Chainless]

When I heard about World Vision's decision to hire gay couples who are married I was pretty confused. They still require celibacy for unmarried couples. So, they take a stand there for holiness. Then they decide to allow gay married couples to work for them. So, gay marriage is fine but if a Christian couple live together before marriage that's not fine. It's confusing. We know World Vision is the the one taking moral stances and here they stood with the gay marriage camp.

In my mind, hiring a gay married couple is almost like them hiring someone who applies with a "certificate of thievery" or awards for "most likely to lie". Yes, we're all sinners. But when a gay couple gets married they're putting their stamp of approval on sin. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't about the sin as much as it is about sin's approval. This isn't about politics for me. I hate politics.

I've been supporting World Vision cause for more than 10 years now. No way will I just up and run off at the first sign of trouble. I encourage everyone else who has supported World Vision's cause to have patience as well. Yes, we should hold our leaders accountable. It's a good thing to be prudent, especially as Christians. My heart breaks for the hurting people we seek to help. However, I can't compare a bowl of rice to eternity with Jesus. My priority is the gospel.

I'll continue to pray and seek guidance over this for quite awhile before I decide to continue with World Vision or shift fully to another organization I support.

 

[NorrinRadd]

World Vision clearly does not believe it's IMMORAL to 'NOT affirm gay marriage', because they've now reversed their decision.

From this we can learn that World Vision is confused, or at least uncertain of their own moral stance, and perhaps they are just being blown this way and that by cultural pressure. They need, like many churches, to determine their own sound Biblical doctrine and moral Theology.


peace,
Simon

I was introducing a hypothetical case for discussion.

 

[Tobias]

Perhaps World Vision isn't trying to make any doctrinal statements whatsoever. They are a ministry that reaches out to families in need, and are supported by Christians from all denominations.

They only accepted married Gay Christians because some of their supporting churches have considered the issue, and find it acceptable. They never thought that thousands of Christians from other denominations would consider pulling their support for the children because they disagree with the doctrine concerning homosexuality that some churches have established.

Now, if there was a denomination that started issuing indulgences for sin, allowing practicing thieves and such to have a free pass to sin, would they allow that?

Many of these satellite ministries do not focus on establishing doctrine. They leave that up to the churches, and simply try to work with all the various forms of Christianity. Because stuff like feeding the children usually is more important that denominational disputes!

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Perhaps World Vision isn't trying to make any doctrinal statements whatsoever. They are a ministry that reaches out to families in need, and are supported by Christians from all denominations.

They only accepted married Gay Christians because some of their supporting churches have considered the issue, and find it acceptable. They never thought that thousands of Christians from other denominations would consider pulling their support for the children because they disagree with the doctrine concerning homosexuality that some churches have established.

Now, if there was a denomination that started issuing indulgences for sin, allowing practicing thieves and such to have a free pass to sin, would they allow that?

Many of these satellite ministries do not focus on establishing doctrine. They leave that up to the churches, and simply try to work with all the various forms of Christianity. Because stuff like feeding the children usually is more important that denominational disputes!

Exactly!

 

[Alithis]

I sponsor through 'Compassion international'... and I would recommend, for any future sponsorships, that WV be forgotten, and other agencies used that are more compatible with Christian ethics...

if they deviate in that one point, how many other points are they deviant in their work, teachings, etc... ???

the 'innocent' children need their sponsor... the group supplying that help for you, needs to re-evaluate, and have a change of leadership... but till they do, more sponsorship through them, would be wrong..

im not going to take your right your wrong stance .. we are both right .
in my previous post i stated the care for the poor ..in godly love.. to be the dominating factor .that does not mean i condone world vision s actions .
if a way become available to continue aiding the same family through another organisation i would certainly take it .. but to withdraw aid and cause distress to an already distressed family ,i think is not wise nor compassionate is all i am saying .

to be honest this is the only reason i have not ceased involvement through WV long ago .. i don't particularly like WV .. i am never confident the min80% funds get to the sponsored ones .
way back in the 1980s was when they had the HUGE shake up and the 80% law was brought in .. after it was found that WV workers were driving round Africa in shiny new cars and having a rather nice time of it etc .. the whole organization got audited i understand and the rules got changed etc .
so i have always maintained an attitude of mistrust in the back of my mind .

 

[murjahel]

im not going to take your right your wrong stance .. we are both right .
in my previous post i stated the care for the poor ..in godly love.. to be the dominating factor .that does not mean i condone world vision s actions .
if a way become available to continue aiding the same family through another organisation i would certainly take it .. but to withdraw aid and cause distress to an already distressed family ,i think is not wise nor compassionate is all i am saying .

to be honest this is the only reason i have not ceased involvement through WV long ago .. i don't particularly like WV .. i am never confident the min80% funds get to the sponsored ones .
way back in the 1980s was when they had the HUGE shake up and the 80% law was brought in .. after it was found that WV workers were driving round Africa in shiny new cars and having a rather nice time of it etc .. the whole organization got audited i understand and the rules got changed etc .
so i have always maintained an attitude of mistrust in the back of my mind .

I AGREE

 

[Chainless]

Perhaps World Vision isn't trying to make any doctrinal statements whatsoever. They are a ministry that reaches out to families in need, and are supported by Christians from all denominations.

They only accepted married Gay Christians because some of their supporting churches have considered the issue, and find it acceptable. They never thought that thousands of Christians from other denominations would consider pulling their support for the children because they disagree with the doctrine concerning homosexuality that some churches have established.

Now, if there was a denomination that started issuing indulgences for sin, allowing practicing thieves and such to have a free pass to sin, would they allow that?

Many of these satellite ministries do not focus on establishing doctrine. They leave that up to the churches, and simply try to work with all the various forms of Christianity. Because stuff like feeding the children usually is more important that denominational disputes!

There are certain guidelines they go by. No unmarried couples who cohabitate, for example. So, in this case what they were saying was gay marriage is acceptable but two unmarried Christians living together is not. I know Christians who think cohabitating is fine among other things. This is my understanding, anyways.

 

[Alithis]

There are certain guidelines they go by. No unmarried couples who cohabitate, for example. So, in this case what they were saying was gay marriage is acceptable but two unmarried Christians living together is not. I know Christians who think cohabitating is fine among other things. This is my understanding, anyways.

kind of twisted...if that's true

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The issue with the disciples and Jesus plucking wheat from the field was not that they violated the letter of the law, as they were accused of doing by the Pharisees. It was the Pharisees failing to apply the heart of the law in leui of the letter. I think while words and the like are important, the heart of the law is what matters most which is why in such instances it was okay for those to "do good" on the Sabbath even if it meant working, or eating show bread if "they were hungry"... etc..


Heart of the law over the letter, which in this case would highlight the real essence of the discussion.

Should needy, poor, and vulnerable people be subject to further suffering and want just to uphold a somewhat murky interpretation of law?

What I mean by murky is not that I believe homosexuality is okay, I don't. But rather that it is more severe than other sins. Just because there is a group of people out there that campaign for it's acceptance doesn't necessarily mean that all homosexuality is worse than other sins, it just means people are using it for political purpose. God doesn't see the issue as we see it, just as He doesn't see sin as we see it.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Mark 3:1-6

New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Heals on the Sabbath

3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.


FRANKLIN GRAHAM SAYS WORLD VISION DOESN'T BELIEVE IN BIBLE

This type of thing ^ is completely unnecessary.

 

[geetrue]

FRANKLIN GRAHAM SAYS WORLD VISION DOESN'T BELIEVE IN BIBLE

This type of thing ^ is completely unnecessary.

You have not qualified your statement ... What type of thing ^ is completely unnecessary?

You mean Franklin Graham's statement from your link:

“I was shocked today to hear of World Vision’s decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages.

The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God. World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church.

From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin.”

Truth is truth the son of Billy Graham is %100 correct

 

[lismore]

Truth is truth the son of Billy Graham is %100 correct

 

[ByTheSpirit]

No, it is not correct. So you are telling me if we apply that same standard to all of us here, then if you have EVER had a belief in a doctrine that was proven wrong, or if you did something that you knew to be wrong and fixed it, that means you do not believe in the Bible either. That is the exact same thing.... Good grief

 

[jiminpa]

No, what we're saying is that an evangalistic organization legitimizing and encouraging a lifestyle of sin is a conflict of interests.

An honest look at homosexuality realizes that homosexuals aren't born, they're made. The vast majority of homosexuals in the Western hemisphere cultures are childhood sexual assault victims who are now continuing the cycle, whether actively, or by taking advantage of the destruction done by a rapist. They deserve compassion, but it is not compassion to make their path to Hell an enjoyable trip.

So World Vision still wants to feed the hungry, that is a good thing, but with a perverse Gospel they are offering them a questionable eternity in the process, or worse, giving them a completely false Gospel that will make them think they are saved when they really haven't received a new life. Why not just give the same money to UNICEF or Sally Struthers? At least they won't tell them they are on their way to Heaven when they aren't. Or better yet, give to real Gospel organizations that do the same thing. World Vision is a business, and they have just made it very clear that they will do whatever advances the business, and everything else is just the bait.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

No, what we're saying is that an evangalistic organization legitimizing and encouraging a lifestyle of sin is a conflict of interests.

An honest look at homosexuality realizes that homosexuals aren't born, they're made. The vast majority of homosexuals in the Western hemisphere cultures are childhood sexual assault victims who are now continuing the cycle, whether actively, or by taking advantage of the destruction done by a rapist. They deserve compassion, but it is not compassion to make their path to Hell an enjoyable trip.

So World Vision wants still wants to feed the hungry, that is a good thing, but with a perverse Gospel they are offering them a questionable eternity in the process, or worse, giving them a completely false Gospel that will make them think they are saved when they really haven't received a new life. Why not just give the same money to UNICEF or Sally Struthers? At least they won't tell them they are on their way to Heaven when they aren't. Or better yet, give to real Gospel organizations that do the same thing. World Vision is a business, and they have just made it very clear that they will do whatever advances the business, and everything else is just the bait.

But this ^^^ doesn't make it right for someone like Franklin Graham to say the organization doesn't believe in the Bible. I'm still not on board with the train of thought that says it's okay for believers who sin to preach the gospel as long as they aren't homosexual. Homosexuality as I've explained is only one of many sins and perversions that scriptures condemn as unholy and unrighteous. I suppose I'll have to agree to disagree on it. I'm not in any way, shape, or form condoning the lifestyle or even the decision WV made. I'm simply advocating on behalf of those who are affected most by a decision to stop funding WV, those poor innocent little children and communities overseas who depend upon the support given through WV. Obeying the heart of the law is more important than the letter...

 

[lismore]

No, it is not correct. So you are telling me if we apply that same standard to all of us here, then if you have EVER had a belief in a doctrine that was proven wrong, or if you did something that you knew to be wrong and fixed it, that means you do not believe in the Bible either. That is the exact same thing.... Good grief

No, what we're saying is that an evangalistic organization legitimizing and encouraging a lifestyle of sin is a conflict of interests.
.

I would agree with what jiminpa said. If an organisation came out and said that lying or stealing was now morally acceptable then they would be equally wrong. But it is same sex marriage that is being legitimized and encouraged.

Furthermore marriage is like one of the foundations of Christian morality. It's too serious an issue to let slide any further.

God Bless