World Vision Redux: Taking Words at Face Value and Biblical Inerrancy

    World Vision has issued a statement reversing its recent decision to permit "married" homosexuals to work for it.  Many evangelical leaders have praised the move.  Some allegedly Christian commenters, however, have taken a cynical approach, suggesting World Vision is just waiting for a better time and will ultimately relent and repent of its repentance.

     I cannot look into anyone's heart and, therefore, cannot determine if the folks at World Vision are being honest or not.  Thus, I either take their words at face value, or I don't.  This is similar to one of the main problems people have with the Bible.  The plain words often say things people simply don't want to hear, so they come up with reasons why the Bible couldn't possibly mean that.  Ironically, homosexuality is one of the key places where this happens.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah becomes a tale of poor hospitality instead of one of immoral homosexual behavior.  David and Jonathan are made into homosexual lovers despite no reasonable inference this is true.  Prohibitions against homosexual behavior found in Romans Chapter One are cast aside because Paul supposedly couldn't have understood the idea of same sex attraction and, therefore, had to be talking about temple prostitution, for instance.  All of these are extra-biblical notions that seek to avoid the otherwise clear language of Scripture.  If we are to believe what the Bible says, then we have to take the words for what they say, not what we want them to say.

     So, ironically, many who believe homosexual behavior is sin because they believe we can take the Bible at face value, nonetheless refuse to take World Vision at face value.  I understand World Vision's statement are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, at least not in the way the Biblical writers words were.  Yet, when a brother or sister in Christ specifically repents for an error, do we not then owe them the benefit of the doubt?   Cynicism should be our last thought, not our first.  Should World Vision ultimately give into the culture, then those of you who saw it coming no doubt will be happy to tell those of us who choose to think otherwise that you told us so.  In the meantime, we should, as we do with the Bible, accept World Vision's words for what they are and applaud the courage it took to do such an about face, particularly in light of social pressure even among so-called Christians to do otherwise.

     My family has supported World Vision in the past, and I had sent World Vision an email stating I could no longer give to them in good conscience, because one of my main reasons for giving to them was their Christian worldview.  I repent, as well.  Good for World Vision for doing what they've done.