In stark public detail where social media blurs geographical boundaries and the world congregates, we have had a drama played out with disappointing, frustrating, and far-reaching consequences.
Act 1: On Monday, World Vision US made public their decision to honour churches who affirm marriage equality by indicating that committed gay Christians who were married would be welcome to join them in Jesus’ mission to eradicate global poverty.
As this drama opens, a major Christian organization took a significant risk to make a fair decision to recognize the theological embrace of justice for sexual minority persons that some of the denominations in their constituency have adopted. Their statements were careful – not exactly joyously welcoming – but rather insisting that this was not an affirmation of marriage equality but an effort to nurture generous spaciousness. Well ok – they didn’t use the term generous spaciousness – but they did talk about wanting to prioritize Christian unity by making space for diversity on this non-salvific, sanctification matter. They acknowledged the reality that there are deeply devoted Christians, who happen to be gay, and who happen to be married, who feel the call to work to eradicate global poverty. And they said they would no longer put up a barrier to them fulfilling such a calling through employment with World Vision.
Despite the fact that WVUS has had to reduce staff because of decreased revenues, they made this move. And they made it because they believed it was the right decision to make – no lawsuits, no pressure, no gimmicks.
Act 2: From the moment the announcement was made public the reactions came fast and furious. People who lead significant organizations and movements, who stake their credibility on defending the inerrancy of scripture and who perhaps saw the opportunity to pull frightened donors into their fold, made very clear and certain statements in opposition. Words like apostate. Messages like World Vision no longer believing or upholding the bible.
Of course, there were other voices – voices lauding this decision – encouraging people to sponsor a child through WV and demonstrate solidarity with this significant decision.
But it was the opposing voice that seemed to reverberate through the remnants of Christendom – at least on this continent. And the battle lines were drawn. “Are you with us or against us?” No room for conversation, dialogue, nuance, reflection, consideration, sharing of stories, honouring of people’s consciences, enlarging of the tent, or heaven forbid humble acknowledgement of diversity in the Body of Christ on this question. And certainly no room to consider how such harsh opposition might ring in the ears of gay Christians who have often already endured so much at the hands of the church. And alarmingly no consideration of the impact on the public witness of followers of Jesus to an increasingly gay-positive society.
Act 3: Astonishingly, people actually pulled their financial support of their sponsored children because of WV’s movement towards generous spaciousness. Well, actually, I suppose it is not completely astonishing. Perhaps shocking is a better word. There are thousands of references in scripture challenging the people of God to work for shalom – where all people can flourish. Central to the ministry of Jesus is the notion that if we live according to his teaching there will be no poor among us. How can it smell like Jesus to pull your support of a specific person, a child, for the sake of right doctrine? The apostle James said it this way, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Note: For those who might indicate that any openness to gay married Christians is worldly pollution …… would we be so quick and careless with the efficacy of the cross of Christ? Is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that we anticipate in this season of Lent so weak as to not be powerful enough to enfold those who interpret six texts differently than you do – yet who eagerly receive the free gift of God’s grace through Christ to be reconciled with Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Act 4: World Vision has been clear in its focus on the mission to serve the poor. The loss of revenue over just more than a day was significant enough for them to agonize over reversing the decision. Given that they had embarked on a journey of prayer and reflection for more than a year prior to making the decision, I feel confident that it is apt to say they agonized over trying to prioritize their mission at the cost of reversing their decision. And so today, Wednesday, they indicated that they will not move forward with hiring gay married Christians.
And now many, who privately applauded WV’s move are wrestling with whether to speak up or not. Especially those in Christian non-profits who depend on the donations of Christians to continue to do the word of justice in the world. Without the realities of power and money – how would this have played out?
I have often said in my tenure with New Direction that we need to be “innocent as doves and shrewd as serpents.” In my context that meant reading the readiness of the community I was invited to engage and be discerning about what to introduce, how to introduce it, and to exercise much more patience than is my natural bent. Though God has called us to nurture generous spaciousness through the values of humility, hospitality, mutuality and justice – I cannot say all that I want to say in all the contexts I find myself in. That’s because I know that this is a marathon – not a sprint. I’m in it for the long haul. And I’m up against deeply internalized and ingrained positions with invisible but significant blind-spots that resist the systemic change that I believe is needed to fully embody the love and justice of Christ.
One of those internalized and ingrained positions seems to put the Bible above Jesus himself. I would call that idolatry. Others would call me apostate.
Another of those internalized and ingrained positions seems to elevate gender complementarity over the good news that Jesus has broken the dividing walls of hostility between male and female. I would call that limited. Others would call me heretical.
I could go on. I could talk about dismissal of historical cultural context on matters that don’t personally impact the white, straight, cis-gender, men who raised the biggest ruckus about the WV decision. I could talk about inculturated disgust that energizes much theologizing about matters of minority sexuality. I could wax and wane about simplistic, theoretical rigidness (“the body parts don’t fit”) that seem to ignore God’s outrageous accommodations of grace that minister to so many aspects of our human condition. But now is not the time to argue or debate.
Now is the time to reflect on what has actually happened here – and consider what can be done now.
Act 5: This was a significant opportunity to profile the Christ-centered, unity-focused, humility-shaped, justice-energized possibilities of generous spaciousness. Oh how I wish WV’s decision had been received with joy. Or even just with humble caution. But we know that the loudest voices went for the jugular in their opposition.
Is all lost? No! A step was made.
It was taken back. But you can never take back the reality that the board of such a prominent organization took this risk. Prayed and reflected a long time. Believed it was the right decision to make. And made it.
In these early hours of response to rescinding, I am mostly hearing sadness, disappointment, frustration – but priorities in the right place – not wanting to damage WV’s work with the poor.
It reminds me of the death of Fred Phelps – still recent news. So many voices reminding us to not respond to hate with hate – but with mercy.
So, what can we do?
Send a letter to World Vision thanking them for taking this risk. Express sadness but also understanding.
Watch your social media comments – be consistently gentle and gracious (God will help you – I know it is hard to do when emotions are strong).
Tell your story. Tell folks why this matters to you. Tell people how the reactions and reversals have made you feel.
Persevere in hopefulness. Prayer and dialogue brought WVUS to the point of this decision. I believe the Spirit was at work. The Spirit will not be thrown off course by the unfolding of this situation. The Spirit is at work in so many organizations. In the past few months I have been working with many different Christian organizations involved with social justice for the poor. It isn’t easy – but many are struggling to move forward into generous spaciousness as an outworking of their relational hermeneutic and commitment to justice. Be sad – but do not be discouraged. We are in the days when we must endure in our conviction that God is working in the church to fling wide the doors and welcome all who call on the name of the Lord.
And if that is too hard to do right now – then be still my friend and rest in the love of God. I (and so many others) will hold the Christ-light for you, in the night-time of your fear. I will remain resolute in working towards generous spaciousness and I will not give up hope!
“When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Ugh. It fairly takes my breath away knowing that there are people out there who would rather let a child die than see a shred of decency be shown to me.
It takes my breath away to see such antagonism launched against a mere stance of neutrality.
It takes my breath away that the animus held for me is so virulent even my ALLIES are forced to be closeted or manage their own coming out.
Thank you, Wendy, I deeply appreciate your speaking out right now.
While I certainly understand World Vision’s reversal and don’t entirely fault them, I am also greatly concerned that this is a reaffirmation that those within Christendom who have power can wield it against those they disagree with with near impunity and to great effect. The fact that such groups were willing to hold the world’s impoverished children hostage to get what they wanted in this situation is frightening, and possibly the one things I’m willing to unapologetically declare evil. I hope that this is a stark reality that more Chrsistians — especially those who often have a tendency to give their fellow Christians way too much benefit of the doubt, truly struggle with.
Because it seems pretty clear to me thatsuch people will continue to wield power in such abhorrent ways so long as they can get away with it.
Hi Wendy,
After leaving my brief response here I thought some more about your encouragement to contact WV directly. Below is a message i left in their “Contact Us” comment box:
I am not sure where to direct this comment – but I feel compelled to speak about the recent drama regarding your decision reversal about committed same-sex couples in your employ. You were right to include them. You were right to acknowledge the faith communities who support them. You were right to allow them to work with you to help the weak, the vulnerable, the hungry.
I am deeply aggrieved that you felt pressured to change that position. As a gay man it takes my breath away to read online that there are people who hate me so much that they would rather allow a child to die than allow you to allow me a shred of decency.
It takes my breath away that such vitriol should be launched against you for acknowledging compassion in a gay couple.
It takes my breath away that the animus against me is so great that you had to be punished for taking a less-than-hostile stance toward me and people like me.
I am deeply saddened that for a mere statement of neutrality (not even one of outright support) you must be subjected either to a closet or manage your own coming out process.
I sincerely wish you had held to your position of inclusiveness. I KNOW what it is like to come out. I KNOW what it is like to hold fast to my truth in the face of abandonment and hostility. I KNOW what it is like to have to completely restructure my entire social network because the one that gave birth to me and nurtured me no longer had room or time for me. I KNOW what it is like to have to completely reinvent my sense of self with no support from anyone I knew.
I also KNOW, despite all evidence to the contrary at the time of my coming out, that there IS support, and love, and help, and kindness. I KNOW that it is far healthier for me to be out of that closet than in it. It took time to learn, time to find, time to be sustained by the actual love that is out there. But it is there – and I never would have found it inside my closet.
I would posit it’s not so different for you. I sincerely hope the day soon comes when your inclusivity and acknowledgment of us is no longer something your organization feels compelled to closet and deny. I sincerely hope the day soon comes when you will be able stand firm by the convictions you have regarding who we are as gay people. I sincerely hope the day soon comes when you allow the compassion and calling we have as gay people is as holy and necessary and godly as yours.
The closet is an awful place. Even for Christian missions.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Wendy, thank you. Thank you. You are Bernie Taupin for Elton John. Writing the words so that others can understand with the music. I can only say thank you!
Elegant, eloquent and gracious, as usual – thanks Wendy!
I read your piece carefully, looking for the nuanced Scriptural support for your comments. I found none.
Knowing something about the beginnings of New Direction, having had occasion to work with Pat – a predecessor to your leadership – I am left wondering what “new direction” you offer.
Thank you everyone for your comments. Brian I especially appreciate you sharing how deeply personal all of this is.
David – I’m not sure what Scriptural support you were looking for – given that this is a descriptive opinion piece. But these immediately come to mind:
Matthew 12:7 “If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”
Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
John 17: 20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
Romans 14: 13, 14 (check the whole chapter though) “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.”
I could go on and on ….. but that will have to suffice for the moment as I have to run to meet some parents whose gay son is suffering in the hospital – and they are desperate for God’s grace to pour into their lives.
Thank you for your response, Wendy. And thank you for the texts you provided, which I take to be foundational texts for you as you forge your understanding and subsequent actions in ministry.
A couple of observations:
1. For those of us who still believe that any sexual relationship outside the parameters of one woman married to one man is contrary to Scripture, the Matthew 12:7 text is inappropriate in this discussion.
2. The Galatians 3:28 text is speaking to the issue of the availability of salvation – not about gender roles, nor about sexual orientation. It is not a text addressing same-sex relationship.
3. John 17:20-23 does speak to the matter of unity between genuine believers – followers of Jesus Christ. This is an important text when Christians engage in discussion where there are differences.
4. Romans 14 & 15 (includes the texts you quoted) deal with non-salvific differences among believers about matters not clearly spelled out in Scripture (mainly between issues of Gentile & Jewish expressions of the faith. To use this text to negate objections to same-sex relationships is to misuse this text since the Scripture speaks plainly about the wrongness of same-sex relationships. (e.g. Romans 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-12).
David – it seems that you and I have very different understandings of justification and sanctification. Additionally, we likely operate with very different hermeneutical grids. I believe that Christians committed to Jesus Christ and to the authority of the Scriptures do arrive at different conclusions on the matter of committed same-sex relationships for gay Christians. I do not believe this to be a justification matter (ie. ultimate reconciliation with God through the free gift of grace accomplished by Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection). And in my years of prayer, discernment and reflection, I have come to view this as a disputable matter. It would seem clear that you do not. What I think is interesting about people not wanting to consider Romans 14 in connection with this matter – is that to the Jewish believers, the scriptures were abundantly clear about both matters they were disputing: staying away from anything potentially connected with idolatry and honouring the Sabbath. At the time, they were the only scriptures (the OT) that the early church had. And yet, Paul was challenging traditional interpretation of generations of faithful people to make space and room for greater freedom. He doesn’t say which response is “right” – he spends a chapter telling the believers how they ought to get along with one another.
I have no desire to argue an affirming position. My goal is to always nurture space where Christians and interested others can dialogue together about their spiritual journeys, their beliefs, values, and convictions, and together find common ground. I believe this honours Christ and his prayer in John 17. If you are looking for a place to debate whether Christians should affirm committed gay relationships – this is not the place to do it. I honour people who hold a traditional view of marriage when it is their true and deep conviction. This is a conviction that some gay Christians hold. But I will not question whether those who hold an affirming view are “genuine” Christians or not – that is God and only God’s judgement to make. I will spend my energy encouraging all people, regardless of their views, to explore and grow in faith in Jesus Christ. And for those who are post-Christian or of a different faith, I will love them – entrusting them to God’s loving care.
Wendy,
Your wrote:
“David – it seems that you and I have very different understandings of justification and sanctification. Additionally, we likely operate with very different hermeneutical grids.”
That does sum it up – we are operating with different assumptions and a conflicting hermeneutic. Like you, I am not looking for an argument. I was looking to be sure I understood where you were coming from. You have been gracious to lay that out openly – I appreciate that.
I think this discussion about same-gender relationships is of far more consequence than the Jewish – Gentile questions of Romans 14-15, and I do believe the well-being of society is tied up in our understanding of sexual identity. It has everything to do with the implications of being created in the image of God. I clearly do not agree with your presuppositions, but I do agree that this conversation needs far more grace & love than one usually encounters.
Again, thank you for your willingness to respond and clarify your understanding in these important questions.
Wendy, thank you for writing this. One of the better blog posts about this incredibly sad chain of events that I’ve read, and I’m particularly partial to the structure you presented it in.
So incredibly grateful for you and ND.
🙂
Thanks for your message Wendy. Charity and unity are central to the gospel, and I appreciate your efforts to be a peacemaker and take the long view. Having said that, it seems to me that World Vision USA could have taken another approach – maybe similar to World Vision Canada – which would have been less divisive.
The one area I found distasteful in your comments, and those of Brian and many others, is your presumption in imagining the motivations of those who chose to withdraw their support from World Vision USA. After all, they have been supporting poor children through World Vision. There is no reason to think they will not continue to do so, through another ministry. They feel strongly about the issue and they made a legitimate choice. Nor is it fair to insinuate that leaders of other ministries who opposed the World Vision decision are trolling for their supporters.
Best wishes as you continue to speak up for those who have been marginalized by the church and society.
Hi Flyn – thanks for stopping by. I agree that those who pulled their support may well transfer their financial gifts to another ministry – but I still believe it to be profoundly disruptive in the lives, families and communities of sponsored children when people abruptly pull support. The child, their family and community become pawns in a power-play regarding doctrinal matters that have nothing to do with their poverty and need. Yes, I did surmise that other organizations may have been aware that with their strong, clear, and certain statements they might attract the disgruntled donors. I think it is fair to surmise this – though I wouldn’t go so far as to declare or argue it. The reality is, whether we like it or not, money plays a huge role in all of this.
Thank you for this blog post Wendy. As someone who still holds to Christian marriage as being between a man and a woman, I nevertheless applauded the courageous step World Vision took on Monday. They tried to move toward neutrality on the “issue” while keeping relational and organizational ties with people and churches across the spectrum. It was an attempt at what you describe as generous spaciousness. It communicated to me that they really were concerned about people, not merely ideological positions. Rather than trying to tell all churches what they must believe and how they need to act toward sexual minority people, they rightly moved to a stance of leaving that with the churches themselves.
I was deeply saddened and, to be honest, sickened by the way their action was misrepresented as anything more than an effort at neutrality. It shows that, in the present climate, there is little if any space left for attentive listening and efforts to understand and respect each other. Then I was shaken by their reversal yesterday. World Vision has been forced now to take the stand it didn’t want to, to not only say that it disagrees with same sex marriage, but to go back to exclusionary practice which pushes away people who very well could not only contribute meaningfully to their work, but also enter into real relationship with them. What this whole situation has made clear is that the space for questions and reflection has all but disappeared. We are being pulled more and more toward the “exclusion” side of Miroslav Volf’s “Exclusion and Embrace.” Indeed, it reminds me of when Yugoslavia broke apart, and no one could call themselves a Yugoslav any more, but was forced to self-identify as Croat, Serb or Bosniak, even if that meant making an artificial decision which denied significant aspects of one’s identity.
Thank you for leading us along a different path. Thank you for taking us into that space in between where we can listen carefully and respectfully to each other. In my own journey the question I wrestle with is, will it be possible for me to continue to disagree conceptually with same-sex marriage, and yet be in mutually respectful and deeply committed relationships with people who disagree with me and especially with people who are in same-sex marriages? Will we be able to work together in shared mission? Will this be possible even if we continue to disagree?
I hope so …
Greg – I am committed to live in such hope!
If we truly understand that it has always been God’s intention to reconcile all that he has made to himself – because of his outrageous self-emptying love, then we will remember that all sin, all errors in interpretation, all misguided but well intentioned convictions, all decisions that erred on the side of striving and all decisions that erred on the side of libertarianism …. all these things have been swallowed up in the victorious cross of Christ – past, present, future. The battle has been won – even as we live in the tension of the now and the not yet. That means we can be generous and humble with one another in the midst of our differences – because our confidence is in Christ – not in our own rightness or holiness.
Neal Plantinga has defined sin as “culpable shalom breaking”. I find this very thought-provoking – and the longer I ponder it – the more deeply it resonates with me. Our common ground then – despite our differences (and these differences can be very significant at times) – is to join hands and works towards shalom for all.
Wendy: Plantinga’s definition of sin resonates with me as well. Chesterton said of his brother that they argued incessantly, but never once quarrelled. Their love for each other was too deep to turn the argument into something non-constructive and damaging. Instead, their arguing was a means of helping each other in a confusing and at times contradictory world. And it ended up deepening their trust in and commitment to each other. Keep leading us into conversation, perhaps even arguments, which make shalom rather than break it.
Wendy, I appreciate your reference to Plantinga…I had heard of his definition but hadn’t read it in full yet. I’ve been struggling for sometime with my distrust for the word “sin.” In my experience, the way most in the church use this word, it does not actually mean what they say it means, especially when it is used to condemn the actions of another person.
I find the idea that sin is an act within our control that hurts someone we are in relationship with (be that God, others, self, or creation) to be quite powerful. It is also something that is very difficult to assert about someone else, especially because each person’s relationship with those other parties is going to look slightly different. Pretty much across the board, I find honest questions and statements of personal interpretation (e.g. “This is what I see being played out in your life, and it seems like it might be harming your relationship with God/Others/Self/Creation.” or “Do you think this decision might harm your relationship with so and so?”) to be far more convicting than an outright condemnation and absolute statement about an objective rule that fails to account for an individual’s experience of God.
Christ modeled this with both the woman accused of adultery and the Samaritan woman, asking them questions and/or making observations from his perspective about their behavior rather than making any statements about their violation of the law. Even when Christ speaks in anguish and anger to the Pharisees, he only accuses them of sin in Mark and John, and both places are accompanied with a clear explanation of how their behavior has hurt their relationship with others and with God.
This is a significant part of my frustration with the way that the horde of Christians condemned World Vision and similarly condemn people like me every day: it is not based in relationship. Is that not the same thing that Christ condemned the pharisees for in Mark when he healed the blind man? They applied a universal standard to a unique, individual child of God without any concern for the maintenance of a relationship. When Jesus told them that if they were blind, they would not be guilty of sin, but since they claim to see, their guilt is still present, I think this is what he meant.
So all that to say, yes, please, let’s use different language to talk about sin. Let’s pick a phrase that takes time to explain, that forces us to relate to other people when we use it. The word sin is short, pithy, and so incredibly easy to abuse. And in abusing it, we become guilty of unnecessarily damaging relationships ourselves.
Sorry for the delay in posting this Andrew – it is delightful and full to be engaged with the retreat and a community of 80+ people committed to entering dialogue at the intersection of faith and sexuality.
One additional comment I might make from my gleanings of Plantinga’s work in “A Breviary of Sin” is that he speaks about the communal nature of sin that was more prioritized for the communities that received the scriptures than today’s over-emphasis on individualism in relation to sins.
I appreciate your desire to see more contextualization through relationship. Certainly scripture speaks about conscience and the role is plays in determining something to be sinful for one person and not for another. Paul says in Romans 14 that he believes nothing to be unclean in and of itself – but if you believe it to be unclean then it is unclean for you.
For me, the liberating good news of the gospel is that regardless of how you might view or define sin – the reality is that all sin: past, present, and future has be taken up into Christ through the mystery and scandal of the cross and the resurrection. The good news is really that good. Our confession of sin is for us and our sense of cleansing and reconciliation – forgiveness has already been accomplished and established in Christ. Some lack of confession cannot undo what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf. Unconfessed sin will “clog” up our lives – but it cannot undo the power of the cross and resurrection in our lives. This good news is so scandalous – that many cannot actually accept it. So systems of theology teach us that our confession is contingent on our salvation. Our acknowledgement of sin and need of a Saviour prepares us to be receptive to the good news that Christ has already accomplished this for us – but it doesn’t create that reconciliation. The reconciliation already exists in Christ – and we are invited to receive it. Nothing we do or do not do can alter what Christ has done on our behalf. If we open ourselves to receive it – we are given this free gift through Christ. The good news is really that good.
Hi Greg,
You might be one of those rare people with whom I might be able to maintain a disagreement and a cordial relationship. I’d like to ask you a rhetorical question though regarding anything “deeply committed.”
Supposing you are married and your best friend despises your spouse. You get along on every other thing but this friend just can’t (or won’t) understand what you see in her – and even though, out of respect for you, he mostly keeps it to himself, sometimes he can’t help betraying the disdain he feels.
Now suppose your spouse is terminally ill and you are beside yourself with grief and worry and exhaustion. Who would you lean on? The friend who never liked her anyway, or the friends and family who loved her too and were happy to see you together? Who would you trust with this ultimate pain? The people who shared your joy or held that joy in contempt?
From my point of view it’s not an academic question or even a Biblical one. It’s a deeply personal and human one. It’s a question of trust that I do not easily give (because, quite frankly, betrayal sucks).