Yesterday I was sad. Today I am mad. I have been reading several of the postmodern "Christian" blogs on the internet about the World Vision situation. The line of argument has been remarkably similar from blog to blog. It goes like this. . .
The Bible is not really clear on the subject of homosexuality. Good people interpret it differently so we shouldn't let such a trivial issue stop us from doing the really important work of feeding children. In fact, how can you mean conservative Christians take food out of the mouths of starving babies for your silly principles?
It all sounds so simple and compelling. And besides, which one of us wants to be the big ugly meanie who doesn't want to feed starving kids? Unfortunately, it is all an emotional argument without a shred of logical reasoning. I am sick and tired of good Christian people being publically tarred and feathered by liberals. It makes me angry when self-righteous liberals besmirch the name of God's true people.
So here goes. No more pussyfooting around. Its time to grow a backbone.
1. It is not an unclear or trivial issue. The only people who are unclear about what the Bible says about homosexuality are those who don't read the Bible or who don't believe the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 is not unclear about what God thinks about homosexuality. Further, marriage is so important that it is the picture God uses to describe Jesus and his church. There has been no branch of the church in 2000 years that has interpreted these Scriptures in any different way. There have been plenty of people who have called themselves Christians and disregarded what the Bible says. You can choose not to agree with the Bible, but don't pretend that it is unclear about the issue. And disagreeing with what the Bible clearly says is not an issue of alternative interpretations. World Vision had defended its position by stating that many of its employees come from denominations that accept homosexuality. My friends these denominations do not have this belief because they have a different way of interpreting the passages on homosexuality. They do so because they have set aside the passages as outdated, or irrelevant to today's culture. This is not a different way of interpreting the Bible. This is disbelieving the Bible. To pretend that this is just a matter of the way we interpret Scripture is a red herring in the debate.
2. World Vision is not the only game in town. The assumption by these writers is that failure to continue sending money to World Vision means you stop feeding starving children. Since when did World Vision become the only show in town? My family has been supporting third-world children for 25 years and we have never sent a penny to World Vision. Compassion, Gospel for Asia and Samaritan's Purse all do a great job of feeding kids and sharing the Gospel. I am angered by the inference by these post-modern bloggers that conservative Christians don't love children. We were feeding starving children before PoMo's were born and we will still be feeding starving children long after these PoMo's have moved on to other fashionable trends.
3. World Vision is supposed to represent its donors. In all of the discussion, the post-moderns treat World Vision as a stand alone organization. They are not. They solicit my funds in order to do for me what I cannot personally do in a third-world country. They are my surrogate. They stand in my place. They represent me to the people that I am seeking to help. Don't I have the right to choose a surrogate who accurately represents me and my priorities in the charity work that I want to do. World Vision has forgotten this. They do not do charity work. WE who give to them do the charity work. They are our arm. They could not do any charity work without us. It seems to me that it is still the right of those who pay the bills to call the shots and World Vision has forgotten that.
4. Who decides that feeding children is the most important work? Now any of you who disagree with me have probably just said "AHA! We knew you were an uncaring conservative." Well, then Jesus is one too. You see a woman once came to Jesus and spilled costly perfume over Jesus. When a disciple rebuked her because the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor, Jesus rebuked the disciple. He said that we would always have the poor with us, but that she had made the better choice in her worship of Him. Our highest goal is the glorification of Jesus, not the feeding of the poor. We feed the poor in the name of Jesus because it brings Jesus the praise. Further, is feeding the poor the best thing I can possibly do for the poor? Again, if I can paraphrase Jesus. . . What does it profit a man if he has a full belly, but loses his own soul? It is good and biblical to feed the poor, but the best option is to feed the poor and to give them the Gospel so they don't go to Hell.
Ah, that last statement is the real crux of all of this debate. The reality is that most of these post-modern writers don't believe that anyone is going to Hell. In that light, there arguments make perfect sense. If there is no worry of everlasting punishment, then the only thing left for us to do is take care of people's physical needs here and now. They are totally free to believe anything they want, but I wish they would please stop saying they get it from the Bible. Jesus talks about Hell twice as much as He talks about heaven. Because I believe that real people go to a real place called Hell, the most loving thing that I can do for anyone is share with them how Jesus can save them from that fate. I will do that while I give them food to stop the rumbling in there bellies, but make no mistake - based on what Jesus himself says - the spiritual food is much more important than the physical.
The Bible is not really clear on the subject of homosexuality. Good people interpret it differently so we shouldn't let such a trivial issue stop us from doing the really important work of feeding children. In fact, how can you mean conservative Christians take food out of the mouths of starving babies for your silly principles?
It all sounds so simple and compelling. And besides, which one of us wants to be the big ugly meanie who doesn't want to feed starving kids? Unfortunately, it is all an emotional argument without a shred of logical reasoning. I am sick and tired of good Christian people being publically tarred and feathered by liberals. It makes me angry when self-righteous liberals besmirch the name of God's true people.
So here goes. No more pussyfooting around. Its time to grow a backbone.
1. It is not an unclear or trivial issue. The only people who are unclear about what the Bible says about homosexuality are those who don't read the Bible or who don't believe the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 is not unclear about what God thinks about homosexuality. Further, marriage is so important that it is the picture God uses to describe Jesus and his church. There has been no branch of the church in 2000 years that has interpreted these Scriptures in any different way. There have been plenty of people who have called themselves Christians and disregarded what the Bible says. You can choose not to agree with the Bible, but don't pretend that it is unclear about the issue. And disagreeing with what the Bible clearly says is not an issue of alternative interpretations. World Vision had defended its position by stating that many of its employees come from denominations that accept homosexuality. My friends these denominations do not have this belief because they have a different way of interpreting the passages on homosexuality. They do so because they have set aside the passages as outdated, or irrelevant to today's culture. This is not a different way of interpreting the Bible. This is disbelieving the Bible. To pretend that this is just a matter of the way we interpret Scripture is a red herring in the debate.
2. World Vision is not the only game in town. The assumption by these writers is that failure to continue sending money to World Vision means you stop feeding starving children. Since when did World Vision become the only show in town? My family has been supporting third-world children for 25 years and we have never sent a penny to World Vision. Compassion, Gospel for Asia and Samaritan's Purse all do a great job of feeding kids and sharing the Gospel. I am angered by the inference by these post-modern bloggers that conservative Christians don't love children. We were feeding starving children before PoMo's were born and we will still be feeding starving children long after these PoMo's have moved on to other fashionable trends.
3. World Vision is supposed to represent its donors. In all of the discussion, the post-moderns treat World Vision as a stand alone organization. They are not. They solicit my funds in order to do for me what I cannot personally do in a third-world country. They are my surrogate. They stand in my place. They represent me to the people that I am seeking to help. Don't I have the right to choose a surrogate who accurately represents me and my priorities in the charity work that I want to do. World Vision has forgotten this. They do not do charity work. WE who give to them do the charity work. They are our arm. They could not do any charity work without us. It seems to me that it is still the right of those who pay the bills to call the shots and World Vision has forgotten that.
4. Who decides that feeding children is the most important work? Now any of you who disagree with me have probably just said "AHA! We knew you were an uncaring conservative." Well, then Jesus is one too. You see a woman once came to Jesus and spilled costly perfume over Jesus. When a disciple rebuked her because the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor, Jesus rebuked the disciple. He said that we would always have the poor with us, but that she had made the better choice in her worship of Him. Our highest goal is the glorification of Jesus, not the feeding of the poor. We feed the poor in the name of Jesus because it brings Jesus the praise. Further, is feeding the poor the best thing I can possibly do for the poor? Again, if I can paraphrase Jesus. . . What does it profit a man if he has a full belly, but loses his own soul? It is good and biblical to feed the poor, but the best option is to feed the poor and to give them the Gospel so they don't go to Hell.
Ah, that last statement is the real crux of all of this debate. The reality is that most of these post-modern writers don't believe that anyone is going to Hell. In that light, there arguments make perfect sense. If there is no worry of everlasting punishment, then the only thing left for us to do is take care of people's physical needs here and now. They are totally free to believe anything they want, but I wish they would please stop saying they get it from the Bible. Jesus talks about Hell twice as much as He talks about heaven. Because I believe that real people go to a real place called Hell, the most loving thing that I can do for anyone is share with them how Jesus can save them from that fate. I will do that while I give them food to stop the rumbling in there bellies, but make no mistake - based on what Jesus himself says - the spiritual food is much more important than the physical.
Comments