More World Vision Division, Diversion and Perversion

There has been more confused scribbling on the World Vision brouhaha, one of which is  a post over at the Federalist entitled “For World Vision, is Sexuality More Important than Theology?”  The  obvious  question in response would be, “Is perverse sexuality more important than humanitarianism, never mind natural theology or natural law?”  with the answer being no.

If not that, one is reminded of the opening lines in the first of  Garet’s trilogy in The People’s Pottage,  “The Revolution Was”. 

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them.

 Or  Codevilla’s remark that:

. . . the uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done? (The Ruling Class, p.65)

Likewise Codevilla's previous remarks that the lure of power and acceptance co opts and confuses those who should be opposed to the revolutionary changes – illegally –  imposed upon the America,  but yet we are supposed to acquiesce and accept them as legal (cf. p.15). So  we  take Lee's comments on World Vision.

Church vs. Parachurch

There is no question that the work of the church and the work of a humanitarian organization such as World Vision are not the same thing. Yet that WV purports to be a Christian organization, albeit humanitarian or no is in part, the crux of the unrecognized issue. Would Pastor Lee quarrel with WV if they offered  abortions, if not abortifacient drugs as part of the medical plans they provided their employees? And if not, why not? (We understand there is a legal minimum wage in America – Congress knows better than the free/open  market what that should be – but we didn’t know that mandatory health care/birth control pills was also necessarily included in the definition of "wage".)

Which is all to say there is all kind of confusion to the argument. Since when has Christianity/the Christian church ever considered homosexuality within the pale of acceptable behavior, in or out of the church? True, like abortion, there are some churches these days that would consider both lawful,  if not desirable practices for  Christians, but the majority position in history  condemns both.

Further, it is to err to say that because one is saved by what they believe, what one does is not important. Yet what one does can very often give the lie  to what one professes to believe. Or does Lee presume antinomianism is also lawful?

Law vs. Gospel

That WV’s policy is all about law and not gospel is not a deal breaker either. Surely Lee as  a reformed churchman, ministering in Washington  DC to boot,  is familiar with the civil use of the law (usus politicus sive civilis) in restraining sin in the body politic,  the current interest in Two Kingdom theology/separation  of church and state  notwithstanding. 

Moreover that we sin daily in thought, word and deed is also no objection to WV’s policy, in that there are degrees to sin. Though all sin is damnable, not all is equally damnable. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed on the account of little heathen Billy throwing rocks at cars when  he wasn't stealing fellow little heathen Jimmy’s lunch money in the local pagan public school.

If the article closes by asking, why feeding the poor should be the exclusive endeavor of those who share a common faith? as well as mentioning that Christianity is not integral to the work of feeding the  poor   nor does it make it a “Christian ministry”. But the objections are immaterial. WV is free to decide if they will have rules and if they purport to be a Christian humanitarian organization, necessarily there will be a definite flavor to them as opposed to what an outfit run by GLADD or the  ACLU might come up with. 

Humanitarianism and the Family

More to the point, the family is the greatest humanitarian institution on earth and it hardly behooves a humanitarian organization, even a secular one, to tolerate, if not approve and subsidize anti family behavior on the scale of homosexual “marriage”.

In short again, The Revolution Was. The “non agenda” agenda of the homophiles has been to capture the middle ground and portray the historical norm as homophobic and bigoted.

Which incessant propaganda has bewitched more than a few who should know better. The lying smears of the homophiles and homosexualists, along with the homosexuals themselves has proved a potent strategy.  That is to accuse your opponents loudly and at non stop length smear them as being guilty of exactly what you are trying to put over on the public yourself.

Fast Forward  to Now

Consider the current witch hunt for  bakers and photographers who will not offer the appeasing pinch of congratulatory incense to Adam and Steve on their  wedding day. In the current climate/regime of mind bending judicial rulings – oriented of course to the Supreme Court  lodestar of “it’s a bird/plane/penalty/tax” when it comes to government mandated purchase of private healthcare insurance – that neither the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker have genuine public accommodation monopolies granted to them by the state, nor are they government agencies is completely immaterial to the question. And so, the so called argument of “equal protection/discrimination” has trumped the old rule of “no shoes, no shirt, no service/ the management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone”. Those days are long gone.

Non Non-Sequiturs Nobody Wants  to Talk About  (Don't Ask, Don't Tell?)

But then Virginia, wouldn't doctors  be  necessarily  forced to perform abortions? And photographers shoot porn sessions? Or Chinese restaurants to serve McDonald's hamburgers?  To ask  is to answer, little grasshopper. Once something becomes legal in  the current egalitarian "hate speech" redefinition pogrom,  it also becomes mandatory. Just  like in  William White's The Book of  Merlyn   where  King Arthur of The Knights of the Round Table fame is changed into an ant so he can see  what  life  is like for the rest of  the drones in the existential heap:  EVERYTHING  NOT FORBIDDEN IS  COMPULSORY

Go to the ant,  thou sluggard socialist sodomite.

(Nowithstanding charges/slanders that  White himself was a buggerer as the Geneva Bible puts  it in 1 Cor. 6:9). So the freedom of association and private (not public) "free" enterprise  goes, if the sacred cow of marital rights for sodomites and lesbians becomes the queen bee and  top dog in the pecking order of cultural martyrs that must be pampered and affirmed by judicial decree. And of course the duty of every  good citizen worker ant   is to  accept being stuffed full of such nonsense by those who know better and then disgorging the same undigested tripe on demand whenever "democracy"  is attacked or "discrimination" looms its wooly head with horns and carrying a pitchfork.

By way of contrast, the full weight  of the  top heavy  unconstitutional and unaccountable  federal government  bureaucracies along  with  the yammering pseudo intellectual nomeklatura and the posturing hair-dos  in the media, will come  down on  anybody who dares to question the point of  regurgitating the current anointed "status quo". Equal protection/opportunity again has  come to  mean "equal outcome/results" and since the current victim class can't get married . . .  presto changeo, the Supreme Court can channel the Tooth Fairy and at  the very same time do sexual social justice. What next? Will water run uphill?

To Whom Much is Given . . . 

Yet the pithy  maxim found on the title page of J. Begg's Anarchy in Worship sums it all up quite nicely.

When nations are to perish in their sins,
'Tis in the church the leprosy begins.

So  it has. 

While we grant that for too long, the American church has wrapped  its faith in  the  flag, even  a return to Two Kingdom theology, i.e. a principled separation of church and state, does not necessarily mean the separation of religion and society. 

Or that in our ordinary day to day secular dealings,  Christian morality does  not come into play. Even when  it comes to feeding  the poor, baking cakes or catering a banquet for cannibals. 

In other words, this shouldn't be  that hard  to understand,  regardless of the prevailing cultural miasma (sin) which affects even  the world vision of Christians at times, who should know better. Not only can World Vision  do better, so too  its erstwhile critics and  commentators.