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 |
(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.