-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
World Vision Endorses Homosexual Marriage
- Thread starter shodan
- Start date
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I think they should rename themselves Shortsighted.
Compassion International is not World Vision. I'm not saying people don't sponsor children in general, but specifically through World Vision. Why the fuss and bother, you already didn't partner with them?
Now if someone where to partner with World Vision and disagrees with the new policy writing a blog post or sending a tweet hardly seems like the way to handle it.
I don't partner with World Vision, instead we participate in our state conventions World Hunger Offering so what World Vision does or doesn't do is of no consequence to me.
I actually have donated to them in the past (not sponsoring a child although I thought about it at one point but decided to go with Compassion because of a friend), but not anymore. But the issue is that they are a LARGE Christian organization that has done a lot of good. They are the largest Christian charity organization, if I remember correctly. That makes it a big deal.
Only if it is made one. If they are out of touch with their donors, it will reveal itself soon enough. There are other groups, organizations, etc to accomplish this mission. I suppose there was a time when I would get all up in arms about this, but not anymore, more pressing issues within my congregation to concern myself with now.
Just seems a "shake the dust" approach would come closer to being useful. Lots of churches, ministries, etc do things I wouldn't support, I choose to move forward with the work I have been called to, instead of getting high centered on something I can't help and doesn't really concern me. You know where World Vision stands on this issue, if you can't support it, shake the dust and move.
Just seems a "shake the dust" approach would come closer to being useful. Lots of churches, ministries, etc do things I wouldn't support, I choose to move forward with the work I have been called to, instead of getting high centered on something I can't help and doesn't really concern me. You know where World Vision stands on this issue, if you can't support it, shake the dust and move.
Some may agree with you, and others....
...will call you a homophobe. I happen to agree with you, but there are those on this board who can't seem to separate the sin from the support.
There is such a thing as being "Guilty be association!" But as sin continues to creep into the church, more believers are being infected by liberal, tolerant diverse and politically correct desires and mandates.
On the other hand, if the church doesn't start teaching its kids the truth about the need to be separated from the world around us, we will see more who see o problem with accepting such practices!
It has long gone past semantics. It is now downright and outright condoning the sin!
...will call you a homophobe. I happen to agree with you, but there are those on this board who can't seem to separate the sin from the support.
There is such a thing as being "Guilty be association!" But as sin continues to creep into the church, more believers are being infected by liberal, tolerant diverse and politically correct desires and mandates.
On the other hand, if the church doesn't start teaching its kids the truth about the need to be separated from the world around us, we will see more who see o problem with accepting such practices!
It has long gone past semantics. It is now downright and outright condoning the sin!
Congrats, Judith!
We do agree on something! :wavey:
I knew if I read enough posts where you commented, we'd find something that worked to our mutual benefit of agreement! :smilewinkgrin:
We do agree on something! :wavey:
I knew if I read enough posts where you commented, we'd find something that worked to our mutual benefit of agreement! :smilewinkgrin:
Reversed decision, partners at work
http://www.christianpost.com/news/world-vision-reverses-decision-on-gay-married-employees-we-made-a-mistake-116871/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/world-vision-reverses-decision-on-gay-married-employees-we-made-a-mistake-116871/
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
"The board acknowledged they made a mistake ... "
Gee, ya think??
This isn’t something that they accidentally fell into, rather it is something that they clearly contemplated for some time before deciding on a course of action they felt best. For reasons that are incomprehensible, they obviously didn’t expect such a backlash. I laud them for their apology, but the fact that they could even make such a move in the first place should evoke serious concern. I would not be surprised if, in the next year or so, WV quietly withdraws its “lifestyle” rules and replaces them only with a set of faith principles to adhere to. Truth be told, this model (statement of belief to accept but no set of rules for personal living) is used by a lot of fully orthodox Christian organizations and so wouldn’t necessarily cause the same uproar. It would nevertheless result in the same basic outcome from their perspective.
Unfortunately, I think it is too late. The damage has been done. And the pro-gay agenda forces will now go after them as well for being “homophobic,” demanding withdrawal of government and corporate support.
Let the "we told you so" ring throughout the land!
Very curious to what will next create uproar, handwringing and wearing of sack cloth in the land that is conservative evangelical blogs, tweets and URGENT email alerts. What will they ever talk about until then?
Very curious to what will next create uproar, handwringing and wearing of sack cloth in the land that is conservative evangelical blogs, tweets and URGENT email alerts. What will they ever talk about until then?
I doubt the “repentance” behind the change in WV’s decision. As so many say “follow the money”. Once WV realized that their funding would go south, they had to change and fast. I suspect they are just as committed to same sex marriage as they were before and probably will continue hiring “married” homosexuals. Truthfully World vision does not need to be a faith based Christian organization to serve the poor. Why not be true to their current mission and just drop the “Christian” moniker?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Because that Christian moniker helps them maintain nonprofit status in California and the US. If they had to pay taxes on that nearly 3 billion of revenue, they wouldn't know what to do.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Perhaps liberal Christians who don't take seriously what the Bible says sin? Just a thought ...Very curious to what will next create uproar, handwringing and wearing of sack cloth in the land that is conservative evangelical blogs, tweets and URGENT email alerts. What will they ever talk about until then?
Because his default position is to be against whatever conservatives are for. It is what the BGCT ingrains in libs.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Lots of the organizations that we partner with around the globe have child sponsorships. Just got back from Guatemala and am now sponsoring a little one through Hope of Life , International.
I think the sponsorships are just another way for us as Christians to do what God has commanded when it comes to the poor, the widowed and the orphaned.
Perhaps liberal Christians who don't take seriously what the Bible says sin? Just a thought ...
Yeah, because it's only "liberals" embarrassing Jesus. "Conservatives" would never do anything like that.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Sure we would, all the time. But we rarely refuse to call "sin," "sin."
Nope, try to be against nonsensical made up crisis.
You could not be more wrong. You talk like you know things and in fact you don't. Calling the BGCT liberal makes this abundantly clear.
It would be like me saying BCNM has sold its autonomy to the SBC for a few more NAMB dollars - no wait that actually happened. So it wouldn't be like that at all