Why I Was Disappointed by World Vision's Reversal of their Decision

I just came across an excellent blog by Rachel Held Evans in which she discusses the recent decision World Vision made to allow gays and lesbians to work in their company, the backlash they received from the evangelical community, and the subsequent reversal of that decision. here is her blog if you want to read it:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/how-evangelicals-won-a-culture-war-and-lost-a-generation/

if you don't know the details, last week World Vision, a Christian relief organization, announced that it would allow gays and lesbians to work in their company. they said that they did not consider themselves a theological arm of the church and that this decision reflected their desire to be diverse and to preserve Christian unity across a number of denominational practices. Robert Stearns, the director, said in an interview with Christianity Today, "“I want to be clear that we have not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.”

then there was a strong conservative Christian backlash. many denominations told their congregants to withdraw support. in the first 48 hours 2000 people withdrew their support. so World Vision reversed their decision. “We’ve listened to supporters who were concerned about the conduct change in policy,” Stearns told a reporter. “We believe we made a mistake. We’re asking them to forgive and understand our poor judgment in the original decision.”

this reversal of decision disappointed me for a couple of reason. first, I want to say that I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I also believe divorce and remarriage is a sin in certain instances, and that looking at pornography is a sin. but I don't believe the latter two should be grounds for not hiring someone at a relief organization. neither should the first. I also feel that the original decision should not have warranted the withdrawal of support that it did. as Rachel says in her blog: "When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong."

yes. something is wrong. why are we offended that gays and lesbians are involved in the paperwork or clerical work that makes it possible for hungry kids to receive aid? and why aren't we offended at the divorcees or the potential pornography users? I agree there should be some boundaries. World Vision's original decision stated that they required their employees to practice abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. so it's not like it was one big free-for-all at World Vision. why is it evangelicals were willing to be selective about this issue and no other sin issue? and why were they willing to sacrifice the health of children for it? something in our priorities has gotten out of whack.

I do believe in purity. I believe in living a godly lifestyle. but when it comes to relief organizations or corporations I believe they should have the right to allow gays and lesbians to work in their company without being labeled as heretics or compromisers. and I'm also fine with Christian organizations that choose not to support gays and lesbians. I believe they should have the right to choose either way. I myself believe that the issue of homosexuality being a sin is a debatable issue. I am not convinced that all the passages in Scripture that typically call it a sin are properly understood. I believe there are mistranslations and misinterpretations. so I still believe it's a sin? yes. but for personal reasons. the point I am making is that this is an issue that doesn't have easy answers. it's not as clear-cut and set in stone as we would like it to be. and for issues that are not as clear-cut, such as gay marriage or divorce and remarriage, I believe we should extend grace where there is uncertainty. I agree with World Vision's original statements about how they are not a theological arm of the church nor should they have to operate as though they were. in closing  I'll mention another quote from Rachel which I found convicting: "Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus."

this is not about orthodoxy. this is about being like Jesus. are we being like Jesus if we withdraw support from an organization that feeds kids because they allow gays and lesbians to work there? I think not. I could be wrong. but I suspect that Jesus, the same Jesus that sat with the Samaritan woman at the well (a no-no in his culture, both because she was a woman and a Samaritan), wouldn't have a problem with a Christian organization hiring gays and lesbians. I just don't see it.