World Vision's Decision to Hire Employees in Same-Sex Marriages

By Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber. Published on 24 March 2014.

World Vision's American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.

Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule. But a policy change announced Monday [March 24] will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America's largest Christian charities.

In an exclusive interview, World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns explained to Christianity Today the rationale behind changing this "condition of employment," whether financial or legal pressures were involved, and whether other Christian organizations with faith-based hiring rules should follow World Vision's lead.

Stearns asserts that the "very narrow policy change" should be viewed by others as "symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity." He even hopes it will inspire unity elsewhere among Christians.

[Editor's note: All subsequent references to "World Vision" refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

In short, World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently "tearing churches apart" over same-sex relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor.

Given that more churches and states are now permitting same-sex marriages (including World Vision's home state of Washington), the issue will join divorce/remarriage, baptism, and female pastors among the theological issues that the massive relief and development organization sits out on the sidelines.

World Vision's board was not unanimous, acknowledged Stearns, but was "overwhelmingly in favor" of the change.

"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage."

Stearns took pains to emphasize what World Vision is not communicating by the policy change.

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support."

"We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us," said Stearns. "This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church.

"This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue, and nothing more."

Yet the decision is still likely to be regarded as noteworthy by other evangelical ministries. Aside from World Vision's influential size—it took in more than a billion dollars in revenue last year, serves an estimated 100 million people in 100 countries, and ranks among America's top 10 charities overall—World Vision also recently fought for the right of Christian organizations to hire and fire based on faith statements all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—and won. It also opposed a 2012 attempt by USAID to "strongly encourage" faith-based contractors to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians in order to receive federal funds.

In other words, other Christian organizations look to World Vision for leadership on defending faith hiring practices. Stearns acknowledges this, but wants observers to understand why World Vision is voluntarily changing its own policy.

Stearns said World Vision has never asked about sexual orientation when interviewing job candidates. Instead, the organization screens employees for their Christian faith, asking if they can affirm the Apostles' Creed or World Vision's Trinitarian statement of faith.

Yet World Vision has long had a Christian conduct policy for employees that "holds a very high bar for all manner of conduct," said Stearns. Regarding sexuality activity, World Vision has required abstinence for all single employees, and fidelity for all married employees.

However, World Vision now has staff from more than 50 denominations—a handful of which have sanctioned same-sex marriages or unions in recent years, including the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is now legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia, and federal judges have struck down bans in five other states (Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and—most recently—Michigan) as well as required Kentucky to recognize such marriages performed in other states. (All six rulings are stayed until the appeals process is complete.)

Stearns said World Vision's board has faced a new question in recent years: "What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?

"Under our old conduct policy, that would have been a violation," said Stearns. "The new policy will not exclude someone from employment if they are in a legal same-sex marriage." Stearns said the new policy reflects World Vision's parachurch and multi-denominational nature.

"Denominations disagree on many, many things: on divorce and remarriage, modes of baptism, women in leadership roles in the church, beliefs on evolution, etc.," he said. "So our practice has always been to defer to the authority and autonomy of local churches and denominational bodies on matters of doctrine that go beyond the Apostles' Creed and our statement of faith. We unite around our [Trinitarian beliefs], and we have always deferred to the local church on these other matters."

The reason the prohibition existed in the first place? "It's kind of a historical issue," said Stearns. "Same-sex marriage has only been a huge issue in the church in the last decade or so. There used to be much more unity among churches on this issue, and that's changed."

And the change has been painful to watch. "It's been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church," he said. "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."

Highlighting the church/parachurch distinction: Board member and pastor John Crosby, who served as interim leader when a number of churches split off from the Presbyterian Church (USA) after the denomination dropped a celibacy requirement for gay clergy in 2011. At a conference that laid the foundation of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the Minnesota megachurch pastor stated, "We have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center."

However, as a World Vision board member, Crosby didn't have a problem voting for the policy change. "It's a matter of trying to decide what the core mission of the organization is," he said.

Crosby, who leads Christ Presbyterian Church in Edina, Minnesota, told CT that the decision was about making sure that World Vision is focusing on its mission to eliminate poverty worldwide. World Vision stretches across countless cultural and theological divides in a hundred countries, and so the issue of theology and how to interpret Scripture should be left to the local church, he said.

"Many of us support World Vision specifically because of its Christian identity. While there are many other good relief organizations, it's the faith component of World Vision that makes it distinctive for us," said Crosby. "[But] how can we represent ourselves as a Christian organization in such a diverse world? That's what we're trying to work through on a daily basis."

Board member and seminary professor Soong-Chan Rah told CT the decision to leave theology to others "honors the church as a whole." "It is not a statement in a particular direction, but it is trying to acknowledge the proper relationship between the church and the parachurch," he said. "If there is something we can learn from [this], it is the value of having conversations and commitment to prayer, over not just this particular issue but all controversial issues that divide the church."

Stearns was adamant the change will not impact World Vision's identity or work in the field. "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," he said.

"This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture," said Stearns. "People can say, 'Scripture is very clear on this issue,' and my answer is, 'Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.' The church is divided on this issue. And we are not the local church. We are an operational organization uniting Christians around a common mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ."

In recent years, World Vision and other evangelical organizations that partner with Uncle Sam to deliver humanitarian aid overseas voiced concern over USAID attempts to "strongly encourage" all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation or risk losing federal funding.

"Concerns over government funding had no impact on this decision," said Stearns, noting that World Vision caps federal funding at 35 percent of its cash revenues. "We fought for the whole Christian community, reminding USAID that faith-based organizations have a religious exemption and are not required to follow government hiring guidelines.

"If the U.S. government ever requires us to give up our religious hiring rights in exchange for grants, we would walk away from U.S. grants. World Vision's ministry is not for sale."

World Vision's 2010 victory before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on faith-based hiring practices was watched closely by many Christian organizations (500 people signed up within 24 hours for a related ECFA webinar in April 2010). World Vision general counsel Steve McFarland later gave a series of ECFA webinars advising how other ministries could best structure their statements of faith to defend their hiring practices.

Yet Stearns said World Vision is not suggesting other ministries should now follow its lead.

"We made this decision for our organization based on who we are. Every organization has to come to its own conclusion," he said. "We are still passionate about protecting religious hiring rights—making sure that every Christian organization gets to decide this issue for themselves and not have the government decide it for them." (The latest example: World Vision's amicus brief on Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court case against Obamacare's contraceptive mandate.)

"We're not doing this for any legal reasons," he said. "If we wanted to, we would fight another battle on this all the way to the Supreme Court."

So the question becomes: Will supporters, particularly theologically conservative ones, let World Vision adopt a neutral stance on same-sex marriage? One of the first prominent voices out of the gate: Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who tweeted, "I'm glad Carl Henry didn't live to see this," and promptly penned a reaction, concluding: "World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see."

Maintaining neutrality on such divisive issues is proving increasingly tricky for Christian organizations with broad coalitions. The most recent example is Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, which has declared neutrality on abortion, same-sex marriage, and guns as it seeks to encompass more Christians yet preserve its diverging base of 2.5 million Lutherans. Yet Thrivent's theologically conservative wing has not been pleased.

And the policy change comes as World Vision has reduced its U.S. workforce by 10 percent over the past 15 months as expenses have risen and government grants have decreased, reports The News Tribune in nearby Tacoma, Wash. "The last 12 to 24 months have been among the most challenging of any we have ever faced," Stearns wrote to 408,000 donors in a January letter that marked "the first time Stearns had sent out a letter asking child sponsors to increase their giving due to cutbacks," the newspaper reported.

Stearns hopes World Vision will not experience similar division like Thrivent and risk losing conservative supporters as a result.

"I don't want to predict the reaction we will get," he said. "I think we've got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we're doing this, and it's my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us. But we do know this is an emotional issue in the American church. I'm hoping not to lose supporters over the change. We're hoping that they understand that what we've done is focused on church unity and our mission."

And Stearns believes that World Vision can successfully remain neutral on same-sex marriage.

"I think you have to be neutral on hundreds of doctrinal issues that could divide an organization like World Vision," he said. "One example: divorce and remarriage. Churches have different opinions on this. We've chosen not to make that a condition of employment at World Vision. If we were not deferring to local churches, we would have a long litmus test [for employees]. What do you believe about evolution? Have you been divorced and remarried? What is your opinion on women in leadership? Were you dunked or sprinkled? And at the end of the interview, how many candidates would still be standing?

"It is not our role to take a position on all these issues and make these issues a condition of employment."

Stearns said he doesn't expect any outcry among World Vision's 100 country affiliates, since World Vision International allows each country to set its own hiring policies appropriate to its local legal context. Even in Uganda, where a high-profile new law criminalizing gays and lesbians has been opposed by World Vision Uganda, it stated: "The issue of same-sex relationships will neither prevent us from serving children, families and communities around the world, nor obstruct our collaboration with one another and with our partner organizations."

The policy change will also not affect World Vision's partnership with ministries that maintain current faith-based bans on same-sex behavior. "This is a very narrow policy change. It's strictly about whether this issue should be a condition of employment at World Vision."

How would Stearns respond to critics who bemoan the decision as yet another Christian organization caving before the advancing gay rights movement?

"We're not trying to do anything that's symbolic for the rest of the church," he said. "But if we're making a statement at all, I hope it's a statement about unity.

"I hope it's a statement that says when Christ left, he gave us the Great Commission [to make disciples] and the Great Commandment [to love others as ourselves], and we're trying to do just that," said Stearns. "Bridging the differences we have, and coming together in our unity."

Stearns has even written books on this subject. "In some manner we haven't finished Christ's mission for the church because we've been divided and distracted by too many other things," he said. "We've got to find our way to unity beyond diversity in the Christian church.

"I know the Evil One would like nothing better than for World Vision to be hobbled and divided on this issue, so that we lose our focus on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission," said Stearns. "And the board is determined not to let that happen.

"I hope if it's symbolic of anything, it is symbolic of how we can come together even though we disagree. We—meaning other Christians—are not the enemy. We have to find way to come together around our core beliefs to accomplish the mission that Christ has given the church.

"We feel positive about what we've done. Our motives are pure," said Stearns. "We're not doing this because of any outside pressure. We're not doing this to get more revenue. We're really doing this because it's the right thing to do, and it's the right thing to do for unity within the church.

"I'm hoping this may inspire unity among others as well," he concluded. "To say how can we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom."

Read more here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html?paging=off

By Alex Murashko, CHRISTIAN POST Reporter. Published on 25 March 2014.

Christian leaders such as evangelist Franklin Graham and Russell D. Moore, who is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, expressed outrage that Christian relief organization World Vision announced it would hire employees in same-sex marriages on Monday.

"I was shocked today to hear of World Vision's decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages," Graham, the son of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, said in his statement. "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," Graham, who is the president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Moore also released a statement on Monday in which he pointed out that World Vision, one of the largest Christian relief organizations in the world, said its move was no capitulation, just a recognition that some groups supporting World Vision have differing views on sex and marriage.

"This is no surprise, on one level," Moore explained. "The constellation of parachurch evangelical ministries founded after World War II have been running headlong, with some notable exceptions, toward the very mainline liberalism to which they were founded as alternatives. Some think if we can just barter away Christian orthodoxy fast enough we can catch the wave of that Presbyterian Church (USA) church growth boom.

"But here's what's at stake. This isn't, as the World Vision statement (incredibly!) puts it, the equivalent of a big tent on baptism, church polity, and so forth," he writes. "At stake is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish."

Moore's statement includes his belief that the world has entered an era "where we will see who the Evangelicals really are, and by that I mean those who believe in the Gospel itself, in all of its truth and all of its grace." He continues, "And many will shrink back."

He writes that there's "an entire corps of people out there who make their living off of evangelicals but who are wanting to 'evolve' on the sexuality issue without alienating their base."

"I don't mind people switching sides and standing up for things that they believe in," Moore states. "But just be honest about what you want to do. Don't say, 'Hath God said?' and then tell us you're doing it to advance the gospel and the unity of the church."

He concludes, "Donor bases come and go. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ stands forever. World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see."

Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, said the decision by World Vision brings on a time to grieve for children everywhere.

"No matter what you think about this decision, I hope you feel a sense of grief…for the children," Wax wrote on The Gospel Coalition's blog. "This is a story of deep and lasting significance, because there are children's lives at stake in how we respond.

"Children will suffer as Evangelicals lose trust in and withdraw support from World Vision in the future. It will take time for evangelicals to start new organizations that maintain historic Christian concepts of sin, faith and repentance."

After listing reasons children suffer in so many ways, not just in decisions such as the one that World Vision made, and how Evangelicals will respond with grief, he writes. "But we also grieve for children here at home who are growing up in a culture in which sexual idolatry distorts the meaning of marriage and the beauty of God's original design."

Read more here:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-leaders-shocked-grieved-by-world-visions-decision-to-hire-employees-in-same-sex-marriages-116730/cpt

The Bible & Homosexuality: Part 2

By Greg Downes. Published by Christianity Magazine in February 2013.

Link: http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/sexuality/gregdownes2.aspx

The issue of homosexuality and the Church is rarely out of the news.

It seems that ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ will now not keep quiet. The government’s plans to redefine marriage have dominated the news recently. However, this article is about the Bible and homosexual practice – surely the starting point before we get into any debate about ‘gay marriage’.

As I looked at today’s news, one feature was about a vicar in New Zealand who has caused offence by putting up a poster outside his church in Auckland that claims Jesus was gay. ‘It’s Christmas. Time for Jesus to come out’, the sign proclaims, with an image of baby Jesus as a toddler in a manger, surrounded by a halo coloured in the gay rainbow motif.

I remember clearly the one and only time that I met Sir Ian McKellen. It was at a set of traffic lights in Trafalgar Square. I happened to be passing by as a protest rally was ending. As we waited for the light to turn green, he turned to me and said, ‘Today will be the day when justice will be done.’ Not quite knowing what he was on about, I nodded in agreement, thinking that whatever it was sounded good. As I walked away, I realised that the rally had been a protest in favour of gay rights and later, that Wednesday 23rd February 1994 was the day the government lowered the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 18.

Justice: that is what the issue of homosexuality has become for many people in our secular society. To many, to suggest homosexuality might not be the moral equivalent to heterosexuality is tantamount to racism.

These assumptions have permeated the Church, too, and there are even those from the evangelical tradition calling for a reappraisal of the traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality.

A Common Argument

A common argument we hear today is: ‘The Bible approves of slavery and the subjugation of women and the Church has moved on from these issues; surely it is consistent and logical to now champion gay rights?’

While the Bible does not repudiate slavery directly, as the book of Philemon reveals, the biblical view of humanity inevitably leads Christians to abolish slavery and find other ways to deal with debtors and prisoners of war (Philemon 1:15-16).

Likewise the Bible’s view of women, emerging from the misogyny of the prevailing cultural norms, culminates in the radical equality we see in the New Testament (Galatians 3:28).

With homosexual practice, we see no such development, nor does the Bible allow for the possibility of one. The Bible is uniformly negative about it. What’s more, unlike the issues of slavery and gender, it does not relate to a person’s God-given worth but is a prohibition against a lifestyle that is chosen (even though same-sex attraction is clearly not).

In October’s edition of Evangelicals Now, the rector of St Ebbe’s Church, Oxford, Vaughan Roberts, gave an interview entitled ‘A Battle I Face’ in which he spoke about his own struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction and his decision to be celibate. He was asked whether giving pastoral counsel to those who themselves struggled with same-sex attraction had affected his decision to be more open. ‘Certainly,’ he said. ‘I pray for them every Monday from a list that is divided in two: Those who continue to seek to be faithful to the Bible’s teaching that the only right context for sexual intercourse is in a marriage between a man and a woman and those who have moved away from that view. Sadly, the second group is growing.’

It is no surprise that the numbers are growing as we live in times where there is a theological paradigm shift happening in the Church on the issue. It is more than a coincidence that this theological shift is mirroring a massive cultural shift in society at large, where in the space of one generation attitudes to homosexuality have gone from prohibition to tolerance, and now to celebration.

What’s more, the relativist society in which we live ensures that there is an absolutism in this new sexual ethic, one in which there is very little tolerance for any dissenting voices. So how do we know what is true when there are conflicting voices from people who command our respect within the evangelical constituency?

The American Methodist scholar Albert C Outler examined John Wesley’s work and recognised that while Wesley (1703-1791) believed in the primacy of scripture, he also used tradition, reason and experience in discerning truth. 

While looking primarily at scripture, we will utilise the ‘Wesleyan quadrilateral’ to wrestle with this thorny issue.

Scripture

Many of the voices calling for a reappraisal of the Church’s historic teaching are revisionists. Revisionism is distinct from liberalism in that old-fashioned liberalism (in essence) argued ‘the Bible says this – the Bible is wrong’. Revisionism (in essence) argues ‘properly understood– the Bible says this’.

I remember talking with a theology student who told me confidently, ‘Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexual practice is wrong.’ This is the bold assertion of a revisionist. But is this new hermeneutic (interpretation) warranted?

There are 12 references to homosexuality in the Bible (nine in the OT, three in the NT).

Five of the OT references refer to homosexuality in the context of cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-15, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:6-8).

We will consider the remaining seven thematically in three distinct groups:

1. The Lifestyle of Unbelievers Outside of the Law (Genesis 19:5; Judges 19:22)

Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:5) has an obvious parallel with the story of Gibeah (Judges 19:22) so we will consider them together.

In 1955, Derrick Sherwin Bailey became the first theologian in modern times to re-evaluate the traditional orthodox view in his book Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. He suggested that the sin of Sodom (and Gibeah) was in fact a breach of hospitality and not homosexuality. He argued that the demands of the men of Sodom regarding Lot’s guests – ‘Bring them out so that we might know them’ – was in fact not sexual but flouted the ancient rules of hospitality.

This is not good exegesis for a number of reasons; for one, Lot’s gratuitous offer of women instead indicates it was sexual. Also the Hebrew word for know (yada), used 943 times in the OT, can refer to sexual intercourse, and of the ten occasions it does, six of these are in the book of Genesis.

Perhaps the most convincing argument is the NT interpreting the OT, as Jude 7 teaches that ‘Sodom and Gomorrah…gave themselves up to sexual immorality’.

2. The Lifestyle of Believers Under the Law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable’ (Leviticus 18:22) has been seen as a classic verse clearly prohibiting homosexual activity.

A new Bible translation, the Queen James Bible claiming to be the world’s first gay Bible, has been published (in the words of the editors) ‘to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible…in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible’

When it comes to the Leviticus texts, the Queen James Bible translates Leviticus 18:22 as ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.’

The problem is, the translators have achieved this lucidity by changing the very text of scripture, by conflating the verse with the previous one (Leviticus 18:21) which is a condemnation of the practice of child sacrifice in the temple of Molech.

They were, in fact, part of the holiness code prescribing how God’s covenant people were to conduct themselves in distinction to the surrounding nations. This flagrant distortion and twisting of scripture in an attempt to make the text say what it patently does not will fail to convince anyone committed to the authority of the Bible.  

Another way of circumventing these verses it to suggest that they no longer apply in the new covenant. I chatted to a well-known OT scholar once, who stated, ‘There will come a day when evangelical Christians have to repent of their attitude to homosexuality; it is no more sinful than wearing polycotton shirts.’

He was pointing out that the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality are part of the same law code which condemns many things, such as the eating of pork and the wearing of garments that are woven with two kinds of material.

These Levitical rules no longer apply in the new covenant, it is argued.

The Reformation theologian John Calvin (1509-1564) rightly distinguished between the ritual and moral law, arguing that though the ritual law is fulfilled in Christ (and therefore abolished), the moral law still applies. If there is any doubt that this is the case, it is further evidenced by the fact that the prohibition against homosexuality resurfaces in the new covenant (NT), and is articulated in three new separate prohibitions. While the NT makes it clear that the ritual requirements of the law are now superseded in Christ (Acts 10:9-15), the moral law remains intact, and in fact is reiterated forcibly.

3. The Lifestyle of Believers in Christ and Under Grace (1 Timothy 1:8-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-27)

There are three Pauline prohibitions in which the apostle argues that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian discipleship. In 1 Timothy 1:8-10 ‘practising homosexuality’ is one example among many of the lifestyle of those who break the law of God. The Greek word that is used is arsenokoites, which literally means ‘male in a bed’ and (as the linguistic connotation infers) refers to a person who engages in homosexual sex – particularly the active partner.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul includes those who practice the homosexual lifestyle among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Here there are two words for homosexuality used, the same one as in the Timothy passage, but also the word malakoi which literally means ‘soft to the touch’, and refers to the passive partner in homosexual sex.

There are some who argue that these verses clearly speak of pederasty (the practice of keeping a catamite – a boy kept for sexual relations with a man), and therefore have nothing to say concerning the current debate as to whether consensual, monogamous gay relationships are an acceptable Christian option. The fact is, this is not clear – especially with reference to the Timothy passage, which uses a singular word to describe homosexual activity and is therefore unlikely to refer to this practice.

What is clear from the graphic words used is that what is being prohibited here are actions – homosexual  behaviour not orientation.

In Romans 1:25-27, Paul writes:

‘They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.’

The context is non-believers in general and the vocabulary used does not lend itself to referring to pederasty (as some have argued 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does)

This also is the only passage which seems to expressly prohibit lesbianism. Surely, then, this is a blanket prohibition of homosexual practice of any kind for all God’s people? Not so fast, argue the revisionist exegetes.

Since the passage states women ‘exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones’ and men ‘abandoned natural relations with women’, does it refer to something else?

Some have interpreted this as a condemnation of perversion rather than inversion. Perversion is where a heterosexual chooses to experiment sexually with their own gender, but inversion is where a person has a homosexual orientation that he or she cannot help – that is innate to them. This interpretation is mistaken, as the Bible authors knew nothing of the modern distinction between homosexual orientation and practice.

The historian Michel Foucault argued that homosexuality as an identity did not emerge until 1870 – before that, the terminology referred to practices alone and not identity.

We have already noted that for Paul it is the behaviour that is prohibited, so any mention of men ‘abandoning natural relations’ cannot refer to heterosexuals going against their natural orientation – but rather that the practice of homosexuality contravenes natural law; it is not how the creator intended us to live.

The sobering fact is that out of all the Bible references to homosexuality, every one is negative regarding its practice.

The Big Picture

John Stott said that the most convincing argument, however, is not these sets of verses to be used in a proof text manner, but rather the single affirmation of heterosexual marriage to be found in Genesis 2:24 – ‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.’

It is sometimes said that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (as if this cancels out all the other verses), but Jesus squarely condemned sexual immorality in general (Mark 7:20-23) and quotes the Genesis 2:24 verse in his teaching as an expression of his Father’s will in creation (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7)

Further to this, the whole sweep of scripture is, without exception or deviation, a heterosexual narrative from the creation of Adam and Eve, through the poetic affirmation of heterosexual love in the Song of Songs, right up to the finale of the book, when Revelation concludes using a heterosexual metaphor to speak of the return of Christ (Revelation 22:17).

Those who try to argue that the intimate relationship of David and Jonathan was homoerotic simply fail to understand the Jewish cultural context, and retroactively visit the assumptions of our own highly sexualised culture on the text, in an attempt to make the Bible say what it does not.

Those who say the Bible does not teach homosexual practice is wrong are simply engaging in hermeneutical gymnastics, in which they embrace a revisionist interpretation which is completely alien to the original meaning of the text.

Since the scriptures are crystal clear on the issue, my fear is that any shift to embrace this new interpretation is nothing short of a denial of the authority of the Bible itself.

Tradition

It is important to remember that we stand in a spiritual tradition that is 2,000 years old, and longer if we include our Jewish heritage. We stand on the shoulders of giants – men and women who have been theologians, pastors, prophets, apostles, mystics, teachers, evangelists and writers. When seeking to ascertain if something is true, we need to ask ourselves, ‘Is there an unbroken tradition which seems to argue in a particular way?’

Applying this to the issue of homosexuality, there is a near-unanimous tradition that the only two possible Christian vocations with regard to our sexuality are marriage and celibacy. Added to this, there has been a remarkable ecclesial consensus on the issue.

The three great traditions of the global Church (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism), though they diverge on many things, agree on this. 

Surely we would need very compelling reasons to come up with a new hermeneutic that is at variance with this ecumenical consensus and also the ‘silent majority’ (as GK Chesterton would say) of so many brothers and sisters who have gone before.

Reason

One of the reasons Roman Catholics oppose a revision of the historic teaching of the Church is that they believe homosexual acts contravene natural law.

The great Western theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) expounded on natural law in his Summa Theologica. He wrote: ‘…all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as…its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.’

In other words, for Thomas, natural law was closely aligned to divine law; or, put another way, theology and biology belong together – we can get an inkling of the creator’s intension for a thing by assessing how it was created to function. This is the idea that freedom is rooted in design; a thing is most free when it is functioning as it was designed to function.

We can reason that homosexual practice is not the creator’s original design, since male and female are anatomically and biologically made to complement one another.

Experience

The 1998 Lambeth Conference for the Anglican Communion affirmed the Church’s historic teaching. It also stated, ‘We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons.’ It is important in the current debate that we engage lovingly with those with whom we disagree, and listen attentively – especially to those who are working out what it means to be a disciple of Christ and have same-sex attraction.

There are many voices in the current debate that speak about the pain and rejection gay people have experienced through the Church. There is no doubt that genuine homophobia does occur, and evangelicals perhaps have been guiltier than most at perpetuating it. Where there has been homophobia we need to repent. It is vital that the Church is true to its biblical DNA in being an inclusive and redeeming community.

We need to remember that homosexual practice is no worse than other sins, and given the standards of heterosexual holiness in today’s Church, beware of jumping to hypocritical judgement.

One concern is that many of the vocal comments in today’s Church on the issue are from Christians who have embraced the gay lifestyle and are very much advocating a change of theology.

There are many Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction who have embraced another path – the counter-cultural and costly teaching of the Bible, and perhaps for obvious reasons, choose, by and large, to remain anonymous.

They too have a story to tell, and often it is one of discovering that applying the teaching of scripture to their lives has become Good News to them. This is not to say it has been without pain and sacrifice, but in the midst of this, they have come to discover a redemptive gift. We need to salute these brothers and sisters as the courageous overcomers they are, and examples to all of us of sacrificial obedience.

Most of my ministry I have worked with students and on several occasions have had individuals confide in me pastorally about their struggle with same-sex attraction. I share the testimony of two of them (not their real names):

‘The celibate life – although with its challenges – can be a very “royal” one of depth and fulfilment. I wish this was mentioned much more often: celibacy is no “option two”. Beyond the issue of sexual orientation, it’s a lifestyle worth living, expressing oneself in creative and pastoral skills. The life of prayer that I have been offered by the Lord shows to me, in profound ways, that in Christ I can own the world and may make the world his own.’ John

‘During my teens I experienced same-sex attraction, and for periods of time felt that I was destined to be homosexual. Nobody really talks about that stuff, until they have experimented and made a final decision to embrace what they thought was the only option – come out as “gay”. But I ended up speaking about it to a chaplain who carefully guided me through the options, and what he felt the Bible taught. As I looked at the issue myself, I recognised that the traditional biblical view pointed to same-sex practice as wrong, and less than God’s best for my life. I made a tough decision not to pursue that lifestyle, and I’m so hugely thankful that I did. ‘I’m now married to a beautiful woman who sharpens, challenges and inspires me, and we have amazing children who I totally adore – to think that they would not exist if I hadn’t made that choice is unthinkable. I’ve now experienced a considerable change in sexual orientation through prayer, discussion and decision, and feel so incredibly blessed by the life I am living.’ Dave

I conclude with a testimony from one of my close friends. I’ve known James for over 20 years, after he became a follower of Jesus while we were at university together. He came to accept the orthodox Christian perspective not because he was convinced by scripture, tradition or reason, but by experience. His experience, like that of John and Dave, is that embracing the truth, while not without cost, has set him free.

‘I was a man who was perfectly content with being gay – and a vehement gay activist at that. I was also wholly faithful to my long-term male partner. However, it was while attending a well-known London evangelical church that I came into a deep personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Soon enough, my ex-boyfriend came to Christ, and he and I, as well as being lovers to each other, became lovers of daily prayer and of God’s word.

‘I had spent my entire adult life affirming others in their gay identity. Imagine therefore what happened when, some time later, after a dozen or so appointments with a good but pretty regular therapist, and some incredibly accurate and powerful sessions of healing prayer, I rapidly began to find resolution around areas of my past where I had become stuck and my “fixed, always felt gay” identity began to unravel.

‘In brief, I came to discover that God’s word, which I had learnt to interpret as pro-homosexual practice, was the opposite. God doesn’t judge anyone’s same-sex attraction. I have come to learn, however, that it is not the way he has created us to be. I meet people nearly every day who are leaving behind the gay lifestyle and embracing Christ, not sexual attraction, as their true identity. [Now], 15 years on, I’m married and a dad, and my ex…a great man, is dead. I believed I was living a fulfilling and happy life as a (so-called) gay man. I now live a wholly amazing and much more deeply contented one having…matured into a fuller expression of what I stumbled across “by accident”…my…true sexual identity.

‘Many of us are discovering God’s word as interpreted over the centuries to be true, even in the face of incredible hostility from society and, more sadly, from other Christians.’

Greg Downes is Christianity magazine’s theologian in residence and director of the Centre for Missional Leadership: http://www.cml.uk.net/ 

For a further resource that reflects the traditional evangelical stance, go to: 

www.eauk.org/church/resources/theological-articles/resources-for-church-leaders-biblical-and-pastoral-responses-to-homosexuality.cfm

Chick-fil-A: Religious Freedom vs Gay Rights

Illustration by Ted McGrathPublished by Bloomberg Businessweek on 2 August 2012. By Drake Bennett.

Gay-rights groups, which for years have pointed out that Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm gives millions of dollars to Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, and other organizations that agitate against gay marriage, pounced on Cathy’s comments. The quotes spread in the usual ways, through blogs and the websites of watchdog groups, and the political haymaking commenced. 

On July 20, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter to Chick-fil-A urging the company to back out of plans to locate in Boston and told the Boston Herald that he would make it “very difficult” for the restaurant to come to town. (He later admitted he had no power to do so.) A few days later a Chicago alderman announced that he would block a planned Chick-fil-A location in his ward, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel chimed in that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values.” 

On Twitter, San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee declared that Chick-fil-A wasn’t welcome in San Francisco, even though the restaurant hadn’t announced any plans to open a location there, and Washington mayor Vincent Gray called the chain “hate chicken.” New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a favorite to be the city’s next mayor, wrote a letter last Saturday to New York University president John Sexton, whose campus hosts the only Chick-fil-A in the city, asking him to boot out the restaurant.

Against this array of urban Northern and coastal liberals, a red-state chorus arose to defend the honor of Chick-fil-A. Its partisans pointed out, among other things, that the chain was being attacked even though there’s no evidence it discriminates against gay customers or job applicants. Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin voiced their support for the chain, as did Billy and Franklin Graham. Former Arkansas Governor and talk-show host Mike Huckabee took to Facebook (FB) to declare himself “incensed at the vitriolic attacks” on the restaurant. He declared Wednesday, Aug. 1, to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day; more than 600,000 people pledged on Facebook to attend, and on the appointed day TV news channels showed lines outside certain franchises.

Read more here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-02/chick-fil-a-deep-fried-civil-war#p1
Related report: http://www.christianitytoday.com/thisisourcity/richmond/another-kind-of-christian-witness-at-chick-fil-a.html?paging=off Franchise owner Erik Devriendt doesn't have much to say about the recent imbroglio over Dan Cathy's comments. He just wants to help local refugees.

Why Catholics and Evangelicals Can Be United Against Nihilism

A Christianity Today editorial [ posted 6/27/2012 ].

Chuck Colson's vision for Christian unity and full-orbed reform lives on.

Chuck Colson knew that we must aim our reform efforts at a long horizon. On this score, he took inspiration from the historical example of William Wilberforce, who for almost four decades pursued in the British Parliament the abolition of the slave trade and then slavery itself. Colson's 1985 CT article celebrating Wilberforce's persistence was titled "Standing Tough Against All Odds." Colson was under no illusion that we could mend American society as the result of a single election or Supreme Court decision. He knew that he, like Wilberforce, was called to a long obedience in the same direction. That is why he titled one of his CT columns "The Sky Isn't Falling." He perennially fought evangelical tendencies to play Chicken Little because they undermine efforts to reform society.

Like Wilberforce, Colson knew that he was called to comprehensive reform. Wilberforce fought not only the slave trade but also the poor working conditions of chimney sweeps and textile workers. He advocated education and prison reform and founded the world's first animal welfare organization. Likewise, Colson worked for justice reform and against prison rape. He advised the George W. Bush administration to fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa and to support human rights around the world. In all of these things, he built coalitions.

Unlike Wilberforce, Colson did not live to see his greatest aims achieved. But before he died, he saw his leadership exert tremendous force on American Christianity.

Read more here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/june/united-against-nihilism.html