The Real Problem with World Vision

President of World Vision Richard Stearn surprised many in the evangelical Christian community when he announced a change to World Vision’s Employee Standards of Conduct. According to their new policy, confessing Christians in a legal same-sex marriage are approved to work at World Vision (at least at the US wing of the organization).

What is the rationale for their policy change? I’ll let Stearn speak for himself:

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. We have chosen not to exclude someone from employment at World Vision U.S. on this issue alone.

The board and I wanted to prevent this divisive issue from tearing World Vision apart and potentially crippling our ability to accomplish our vital kingdom mission of loving and serving the poorest of the poor in the name of Christ.

You see, World Vision’s mission is not the same as that of our local churches; nor are we a body of theologians whose responsibility is to render biblical advice and interpretations of theological matters. We are, as our mission statement so clearly expresses, “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.”

(You can find the rest of the statement here: http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Employee-Letter-Change-in-Practice.pdf)

So, what do we see World Vision claiming from the text of Stearn’s letter? Not from personal sentiment about the issue. Not from our own past experiences. Not from the Facebook clamor. What does Stearn set forward as his explanation for the change in policy?

It seems that World Vision’s board has determined it’s best for them (as an organization) to refrain from establishing policies that disallow monogamous, homosexual Christian couples from working for them.

Why?

Their essential claim is that they are not “a body of theologians whose responsibility is to render biblical advice and interpretations of theological matters.”

First, I think it’s important to note how World Vision understands their essential mission—they understand themselves to be a “partnership of Christians” working together to care for the poor and oppressed and to “promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the kingdom.” Leaving aside the question concerning whether the “good news of the kingdom” includes a particular posture towards sexual ethics, we need to realize that World Vision is a parachurch ministry. They come alongside existing church bodies and provide outlets, resources, and support for doing kingdom work (i.e. caring for the poor).

So, in some ways, the position they decided to take makes complete sense. They are NOT a Christian Church/denomination with a particular stance towards morality and ethics. Certainly, the people who work for World Vision have an ethical script that they live by as they exist within the World Vision organization, but it doesn’t strike me that World Vision needs to adopt a particular position as an organization. Why? Because their express purpose is to help any and all “Christian” churches take care of the poor and bring justice to the world, not make definitive statements about morality.

I don’t think then that the problem is with World Vision and their stance on homosexuality. That (to me) is a secondary issue.

The problem is that all actions (moral and “non-moral” – if such a distinction exists) are always united in one person. We all choose according to what we think is right and wrong. I am not one person when I decide to support a family in need through a ministry such as World Vision and another person when I confess my most holy Christian faith. I am always (ideally) a unified, willing whole. Therefore, my unspoken desire is to follow the same moral script in every area of life.

So, when Christians (who think homosexual expression is contrary to God’s intention for human sexuality) are faced with continuing to support a needy person through a parachurch organization that has adopted a laissez faire posture towards the issue, many will feel morally conflicted. Their options quickly breakdown when faced with such a quandary. Do I keep caring for the poor? Or do I take a stand on homosexuality?

It seems, then, that the REAL problem might be the unappealing choice between these two options.

I’d like to suggest that perhaps our ecclesiology (i.e. what we think about the Church and her mission) is to blame here. Intentionally or not, the tendency in many evangelical churches has been to shift the focus of the church’s mission to “saving souls” and away from care for the orphans, widows, etc. (James 1:27). Sure, we’ve all heard the annual sermon or so that guilts us into dropping an extra copper into the plate as we corporately raise money to support the poor and needy, but we’ve all too quickly forgotten that this is supposed to be the norm for the church.

Did you catch that? This is the norm for the Church – not the parachurch organization.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not down on parachurch ministries, but this is definitely one of those times when the divide between Church and parchurch proves detrimental. I hope the day will come when more ministries like World Vision are affiliated with evangelical churches and exist as extensions of the church. We can always dream, right?

In all honesty, ministries like World Vision that are direct outpourings of evangelical hearts (and share a robust evangelical ethic) won’t spring up overnight. So, you’re still going to be faced with a decision to make: keep supporting the poor through World Vision or stop. 

If you’ve already been supporting people through World Vision, I would encourage you to keep doing so. Why? Because their dependence on you outweighs the moral frustration stirred up by World Vision’s new policy.

If you haven’t already been supporting people through World Vision and your conscience is conflicted, then seek out a different way of caring for the poor. I promise you, World Vision isn’t the only way. Seek out ways that your local church can care for the local and global poor. Or, if you still prefer parachurch organizations you can look into places like Samaritan’s Purse (www.samaritanspurse.org).

Finally, I would encourage you all to pray. Richard Stearn and the entire board of World Vision did not make their decision quickly. Stearn notes that it took them several years to figure out what to do. Keep them and all other Christian organizations (broadly construed) in your prayers as the Church at large works to figure out how to deal with an ever-changing world.