Blown and tossed by the wind: Why it will take a while before I support World Vision again – yes, even World Vision Singapore

James 1:6 writes, "he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does."

The words "blown and tossed by the wind" best describe World Vision US of late.

 

The Apostasy

A few days ago, World Vision US changed its long-standing policies on employment and Employee Standards of Conduct to "allow a Christian in a legal same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision".

In light of the fact that several mainline denominations of the United States have endorsed same-sex marriage, World Vision US's move was purportedly meant to keep its practice of "deferring to church authority" in the lives of its staff, "to treat all of [its] employees equally", and to prevent the "divisive issue" of same-sex marriage from "tearing World Vision apart and potentially crippling [its] ability to accomplish [its] vital kingdom mission of loving and serving the poorest of the poor in the name of Christ."

In spite of its claim that it "[has] not endorsed same sex marriage" and that it continues "to expect abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage for all staff", Jennifer LeClaire rightly points out that "World Vision appears to be acknowledging that practicing homosexuals can call themselves Christians". This is obviously incompatible with Scripture.

World Vision US's sin is not merely apostasy, but deceit.

An organisation like World Vision US which claims to be Christian but is "blown and tossed by the wind" should not think it will receive anything from the Lord or His followers.

The Reversal

World Vision US's move was met with a massive backlash from Christians. Franklin Graham, son of famous evangelist Billy Graham, wrote in a statement, "World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church." Others who criticised World Vision include Michael Brown, Albert Mohler, and the Family Research Council. On behalf of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, general superintendent George O. Wood exhorted Christians to stop funding World Vision.

Two days later, World Vision US made a quick about-turn, releasing the following statement:

Dear Friends,

Today, the World Vision U.S. board publicly reversed its recent decision to change our national employment conduct policy. The board acknowledged they made a mistake and chose to revert to our longstanding conduct policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.

We are writing to you our trusted partners and Christian leaders who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the Body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

In our board’s effort to unite around the church’s shared mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ, we failed to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional understanding of Biblical marriage and our own Statement of Faith, which says, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” And we also failed to seek enough counsel from our own Christian partners. As a result, we made a change to our conduct policy that was not consistent with our Statement of Faith and our commitment to the sanctity of marriage.

We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we have caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to Biblical authority. We ask that you understand that this was never the board’s intent. We are asking for your continued support. We commit to you that we will continue to listen to the wise counsel of Christian brothers and sisters, and we will reach out to key partners in the weeks ahead.

While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.  

Please know that World Vision continues to serve all people in our ministry around the world. We pray that you will continue to join with us in our mission to be “an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.”

Sincerely in Christ,
Richard Stearns, President                                          
Jim Beré, Chairman of the World Vision U.S. Board

While this is a welcome development, there is good reason to remain hugely sceptical. What led to the change? Was it the backlash? Was it money?

Clearly Scripture and its own Statement of Faith alone did not deter it from its initial apostasy and compromise. Indeed, its original reasons reflected a deeper apostasy – a double-mindedness which followed the winds of the world rather than the Word of God.

Distancing instead of Rebuking: World Vision Singapore's response

World Vision Singapore has taken note of the reversal by World Vision US, adding that "World Vision Singapore would also like to reassure you that our core values and ministry to serve the poor have not and will not change." However, the following lines in its statement remain deeply problematic:

World Vision Singapore and its staff are committed to upholding our Christian values of the heterosexual family as a pillar of society. As a World Vision office, we are independent of World Vision US and any other country offices, and we make decisions that are relevant to our societal context and uphold our values.

The reference to "societal context" bears the same relativistic tenor as World Vision US's misguided idea of "deferring to church authority". 

The lack of public rebuke is also glaring. World Vision Singapore is apparently distancing itself from World Vision US by asserting "independence" and "context". 

Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over." 

Likewise, Paul taught:

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 5:1-2)

Is this the attitude one holds towards a brother who sins?

Why it will take a while before I support World Vision again – yes, even World Vision Singapore

The apostasy of World Vision US is an example of how quickly and easily Christians can be "blown and tossed by the wind", conforming to the ways of the world rather than effecting transformation. Fortunately, World Vision US has reversed its decision, but the reasons for its reversal remain highly doubtful and there are good reasons to be sceptical.

On the other hand, World Vision Singapore risks yet another problem. It is an attitude of indifference towards the sins of one's own brothers.

It will take a while before I support World Vision again – yes, even World Vision Singapore.

The Law of Retaliation in the Bible: Is "eye for eye" taken literally?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", or so the saying goes.

Many readers of the Old Testament are often shocked by prescriptions such as found in Deuteronomy 19:21, calling for punishment by taking "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". At first glance, these bring to mind harsh punishments like those meted out in ancient China, mutilations in some war-torn countries, or even images like the cutting off of hands for crimes like theft in some countries. Surely a good and loving God cannot be calling for such harsh punishments?

Is this Law of Retaliation (lex talionis) as barbaric and vicious as it sounds? Is "eye for eye" taken literally?

Proportionality: Qualitative and quantitative restraint

Context is important. Read contextually, it will be seen that the lex talionis prescriptions aim to lay down a principle of proportionality. Punishments are to be restrained both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Earlier in the Book of Genesis, we read about the violent man Lamech, who married two wives, Adah and Zillah. Genesis 4:23-24 records Lamech's vengeful boast:

Lamech said to his wives,

"Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times."

Lamech's responses are vastly disproportionate on two counts. Qualitatively, he killed a man for merely injuring or wounding him. Quantitatively, he avenges himself seventy-sevenfold.

The lex talionis therefore prescribes a qualitative and quantitative restraint upon such disproportionate conduct. Qualitatively, it is "eye for eye" instead of "life for eye". Quantitatively, it is "eye for eye" instead of "two eyes for an eye".

Paul Copan comments in his book, Is God a Moral Monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God:

The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime. Furthermore, these were the maximum penalties; punishments were to be proportional and couldn't exceed that standard. And a punishment could be less severe if the judge deemed that the crime required a lesser penalty.

Lex talionis not taken literally, except the death penalty

Furthermore, passages in the Bible show that the lex talionis was not taken literally, except in cases involving the death penalty (see, e.g., Exodus 21:12 and 14).

Exodus 21:22-25 is one such passage containing the lex talionis:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Even as the prescription "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" is laid down, it is immediately followed by Exodus 21:26-27:

If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

Taken together, these passages suggest that the laws of ancient Israel required compensation for non-fatal physical injury. Jonathan Burnside writes in God, Justice and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible: 

Ultimately, the phrase "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" operates on two levels: it creates an initial presumption of physical mutilation but, at the same time, it functions as a symbol of some more general equivalence, which could be substitution or some other form of compensation. It is probable that in cases of nonfatal injuries resulting from a fight, the victim was entitled to threaten the offender with talionic punishment. But that punishment was always negotiable, and the further the circumstances were from the typical case, the less likely that talio would even be demanded, let alone enforced.

Ultimate emphasis on restraint

Ultimately, the emphasis is on restraint. Passages laying down the lex talionis emphasise a principle of qualitative and quantitative proportionality. Furthermore, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" are not taken literally, except in cases involving the death penalty.

Hence, it can be seen that Jesus was not abolishing the Old Testament Law in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5:17), but instead correcting several abuses and misunderstandings of the Law when He said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

God's Definition of Marriage and Family: For all humanity or for Christians only?

Debates over issues like marriage, family and homosexuality have many dimensions. These include the morality of homosexual behaviour, questions about law and morality, and the role of religion in politics. As a result, we often find some Christians who try to find some kind of compromise or take a safe "middle ground" so as to avoid controversy. 

One example of this is a recent Supper Club interview with Anita Fam, long-time member of Families for Life – formerly the National Family Council, who is also a Methodist: 

Q: The Health Promotion Board advisory sparked quarrels about the notion of family. Given this context, how should we define family?

I don’t think we should draw a box and say families are defined as X,Y,Z. You can’t pigeonhole family, because if you did, then you’re sure to leave someone out.

There is a conventional idea of father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, but if you think about it, who is family?

Family comprises the people around you, the people you were raised with, the people who brought you up, who are there for you. They are your loved ones. You don’t define them by sexual orientation, race or religion.

Q: There is one camp that says you cannot be LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)-friendly and still be pro-family.

I recognise that everyone has different views. Both camps are very passionate in how they feel and the views expressed at the moment are extreme views. You will probably never get these two groups of people to reach middle ground.

But I don’t think that is any reflection of what the majority of Singaporeans think. Some voices are more strident than others, and these are the voices that we hear.

Q: So does this affect the family as a building block of society?

That’s thinking too much into what family is. To me, simplistically, family are the people who surround you and, in most cases, love you.

So, not at all. Everyone is born into a family, no matter what. Whether or not there are differences in views, it doesn’t affect what the core of family is. You will always have a mother and father.

Q: As a parent (with publisher husband Goh Eck Kheng, 58) of two teenagers, how have you approached this issue with them?

We teach them that mutual respect is important. To remember that: I may not agree with them but that does not mean I condemn their views. They are fully entitled to their own views.

We’ve raised our kids to be colour-blind and sexual-orientation-blind. I don’t think they’ve ever thought of themselves as being Chinese, or seen their friends as being Malay, Indian, English or Chinese, and they’ve never seen someone as being straight or gay.

But the thing that we’ve always taught them – and this is within the confines of our personal faith (as Methodists) – is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

What is God's definition of marriage and family?

God's definition of marriage and the family is found in Genesis 1:27-28a, where it is written:

So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number..."

Genesis 2 details the account of how God created Eve from Adam's rib and brought her to him, and they were united to become one flesh:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)

In the New Testament, Jesus reiterated the "one flesh" union between a man and a woman:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has affirmed this in its 2003 statement on Homosexuality:

Recognizing the Bible as the authoritative standard for its faith and practice the Church has historically and consistently held the view that the practice of homosexuality is clearly incompatible with the teachings of the Christian faith. The only sexual relationship, sanctioned by God and given as a gift from God, is between a male and a female within the bounds of a monogamous marriage.

Marriage, as defined by Scripture, is an exclusive "one flesh" union between a man and a woman, and "what God has joined together, let man not separate". It is the foundation of a family, as seen from God's blessing, "be fruitful and increase in number".

For all humanity or for Christians only?

But are marriage and the family merely "within the confines of our personal faith" as Christians?

The answer is no.

The passages in Genesis and the Gospels cited above show that this is not merely some Christian idiosyncrasy, but God's foundation for all humanity. As the apostle Paul said, "[from] one man [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" (Acts 17:26).

The application of God's laws to all humanity, whether or not they are believers, is made manifestly clear from passages in Scripture such as the flood in the time of Noah (Genesis 6-9), God's punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), or God's injunctions against the sexual practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians (Leviticus 18, 20). Paul in Romans 1 and 2 also wrote about the application of God's standards to non-believers and believers alike. The Bible speaks of a universal natural law which applies to everyone, not just Christians.

This is also seen from the NCCS statement, which takes a public stand on the issue of homosexuality and reiterates its commitment "to serving our nation by helping to preserve and promote wholesome values and lifestyles that will contribute to the well-being of our society".

Indeed, as insightfully pointed out by the writer of I on Singapore, Anita Fam herself recognises this, when she contradicted what she said earlier in the following terms:

Everyone is born into a family, no matter what. Whether or not there are differences in views, it doesn’t affect what the core of family is. You will always have a mother and father. 

Faith is personal, but it is not "confined" that way

When questioned about whether to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus replied with one of the most profound statements in the Bible:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God the things that are God's.
(Matthew 22:21, KJV)

This is not a call to compromise to Caesar. Instead, as bearers of God's image, we are called to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). It is a call to whole-hearted dedication to God, in every aspect of our lives. This is a path which Jesus Himself and the early church have trod, and we are called to do the same.

Faith is personal, but it is not "confined" that way. We are not to lead a life of compromise in a desperate search for a "middle ground", but to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). 

Marriage and family, as defined by God, is a standard not confined to Christians only, but applies to all humanity.

Is the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 "God's punishment"?

In light of the news about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 having gone missing while on its way to Beijing, a post has been circulated online, written by Jim Solouki, claiming that this is "God's punishment". Dated 8 March 2014, the post titled "Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, God’s punishment for Islam in Malaysia!" reads:

Greetings True Christians,

I literally just posted on the fact that God hates Islam when the Holy Spirit led me to an article about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappearing en route to China. Malaysia is a heathen country filled with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and witch-doctors, and God has allowed this plane to disappear as a way to open they eyes of the Malaysians to the wrong-ness of their ways. It is likely that God allowed their plane to crash into the sea as punishment for the sinfulness of many on the flight.  Unfortunately, many families will experience sadness due to this event, but if the passengers were all True Christians, this plane would not have crashed. It’s as simple as that.

The disappearance of this plane is a punishment from God. .Either God will allow the plane to turn up safely as a way to lead the passengers to Christ, or God will crash the plane into the ocean. If the passengers were willing to be saved and embrace Jesus, then the plane will land safely. If not, the plane will crash and the passengers will be cast into Hell. The Holy Spirit has told me of this fact.

Let us pray that the passengers have made the correct choice and embraced Jesus so that they might land safely.

Yours in Christ,

Jim Solouki

Is the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 "God's punishment"?

"If the passengers were all True Christians, this plane would not have crashed"?

Solouki claims that "if the passengers were all True Christians, this plane would not have crashed. It’s as simple as that." Or is it?

A quick look at the New Testament shows that this is obviously wrong. Jesus Christ Himself, as well as the early church, all suffered in one way or another.

Even Jesus Christ, being without sin (Hebrews 4:15), was  insulted, mocked, ridiculed and ultimately crucified.

Jesus warned His disciples that "[if] they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20). And they did. James was put to death by the sword (Acts 12:2). According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside down. Early Christians suffered intensely for their faith. We read in the Book of Hebrews:

Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated — the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and in holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:35b-38)

The idea that bad things do not happen to "True Christians" is simply naive and wrong.

Is the crashing of the plane "God's punishment"?

Did God, as Solouki claims, allow the plane to crash as "punishment for the sinfulness of many on the flight"?

Jesus was asked a similar question in Luke 13:1-9:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

"'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"

Jesus' words are clear. These people are not any more sinful than anyone else. Instead, the focus is on an attitude of repentance, "unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Was Jesus talking about "perishing" physically here, like in a plane crash? No, because as we have already seen above, Jesus and early Christians suffered and died some of the most painful deaths imaginable.

Instead, it the kind of eternal death that Jesus was warning about. In Matthew 10:28:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

We do not take any delight in the death of anyone, Christian or otherwise, but instead we constantly hope for the salvation of all.

Conclusion

The apostle John wrote in 1 John 4:2b-3a: 

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

While it is true that Islam does not recognise Jesus as the Son of God, perhaps the better question to ask here is whether we ourselves recognise Jesus as Lord in faith and repentance. 

All that has happened to MH370 is nothing short of a tragedy, and as Christians, we constantly pray that the Lord will have mercy on the passengers, crew members, as well as their families and friends.