Just two days after World Vision U.S. announced the organization would now consider hiring Christians in same-sex marriages, the decision has been revoked.
On Monday, Christianity Today published an exclusive interview with World Vision U.S. president Richard Sterns. In the article, Sterns said the decision to employ individuals in homosexual marriages was not a result of any outside lobbying, or because of any financial or legal pressures. Rather, Sterns said, as a parachurch organization, World Vision would defer to the authority of churches on theological issues, many of whom now perform same-sex marriages.
“We’re an operational arm of the global church, we’re not a theological arm of the church,” said Sterns.
Then came the tornado of holy furor.
Within hours of the announcement, numerous Christian evangelicals publicly denounced World Vision’s stance. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and founder of Samaritan’s Purse, said he was “shocked;” and former megachurch pastor John Piper said World Vision is “[shipwrecking] their legacy of compassion for the poor.”
Darrell Bock, a senior research professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, said World Vision was becoming “more world and less vision.” Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention said the issue isn’t about denominational unity; the issue at stake is the very gospel of Jesus Christ.
Then on Tuesday, the Assemblies of God denomination issued a statement, calling on all its members to withdraw their financial support of World Vision.
From the other side, bloggers like Rachel Held Evans and Kristen Howerton petitioned their readers to consider the children World Vision feeds and clothes and educates before moving funds to another child sponsorship organization.
Out of the 1.2 million child sponsorships by World Vision U.S., more than 2,000 had been cancelled between Monday and Tuesday afternoon.
On Wednesday, Sterns and Jim Beré, Chairman of the World Vision U.S. Board, issued a letter of apology to World Vision U.S. supporters, stating the decision to consider gay married Christians for employment has been reversed:
In our board’s effort to unite around the church’s shared mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ, we failed to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional understanding of Biblical marriage and our own Statement of Faith, which says, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” And we also failed to seek enough counsel from our own Christian partners. As a result, we made a change to our conduct policy that was not consistent with our Statement of Faith and our commitment to the sanctity of marriage.
It has been a confusing week. Especially for the leadership of World Vision U.S.
In the interview with Christianity Today, Sterns said he didn’t want to predict the kind of reaction World Vision would get as a result of their initial policy change. The question is: why wouldn’t he?
This kind of backlash isn’t new; the doctrinal debate over the issue of homosexuality has not only split individual churches, but entire denominations.
In 2008, a formal schism was announced in the Episcopal Church after the ordination of an openly gay bishop in 2003, causing its more conservative members to break away from the denomination. A similar split occurred in 2009 within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America as well as within the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2011. The United Methodist Church is currently divided on the issue, as they conduct church trials against clergy who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The theology surrounding homosexuality has been the issue in Christian evangelical churches for over a decade now. So why did World Vision U.S. think it could somehow dodge this kind of fracturing?
As they made their initial declaration known, of course there would be negative reactions. Of course it would come down to a matter of standing up for biblical orthodoxy. And of course donors would vote with their dollars.
Whatever its motives, World Vision U.S. — first through its initial policy stance and then in its retraction — has made a grave error, if not in doctrine, then definitely in strategy. Because at the end of the day, it’s hard not to ask: what is really behind this apology anyway? Does the board at World Vision U.S. feel conviction around this matter, or does it all come down to money?
This week, those situated both on the Christian right and left have felt anger, alienation, and most of all, bewilderment. It’s hard to trust an organization that flip flops and fails to think through its decisions to their predictable conclusions.
But there’s another curious aspect to this cultural storm. In the midst of the emotional political and theological sparring, no one has questioned the very existence of World Vision U.S.’s employee code in the first place.
World Vision’s Christian conduct policy requires abstinence for single World Vision workers, and fidelity for all married employees. Sex outside of marriage is still grounds for dismissal.
Why does the organization require its employees to sign such a contract? What is the benefit in creating this kind of policy?
In 2011, World Vision U.S. fought for the right to hire Christians all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — and won. They currently make no mention of the employee code of conduct online, however it does clearly state they will hire only Christians:
The status of World Vision U.S. as an equal-opportunity employer does not prevent the organization from hiring staff based on their religious beliefs so that all staff share the same religious commitment which is central to our mission. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 702 (42 U.S.C. 2000e I(a)), World Vision U.S. has the right to, and does, hire only candidates who agree with World Vision’s Statement of Faith or the Apostles’ Creed.
But does this right give World Vision U.S. the mandate to enforce a code of conduct from its employees when they’re outside of the workplace? Could it be that this is the very source of the dysfunction?
It’s understandable World Vision would not want their ministry misrepresented by those who don’t uphold a lifestyle consistent with their religious values; however it seems as though making a clear delineation of acceptable and unacceptable employee behaviour is not only controlling, it’s unnecessary. It goes beyond the realm of what an organization should ask of its employees, whether they’re gay or straight, married or single.
World Vision Canada’s stance on the issue is not the same as World Vision U.S.’s. Here is their official statement.
Flickr photo (cc) by Pio Arce/Genesis Photos – World Vision
