Featured World Vision Endorses Homosexual Marriage

No wait, I don't get it. You think that talking about the BCNM covers up the liberalism of the BGCT? Really

 

Really? Hm ... let's see ...

• Moving ever more swiftly toward separation from the SBC toward the eminently liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• Limiting input and participation in BGCT administrative moves by laypeople, pastors, and member churches
  [*]Writing a vision statement that embraces liberal theology and thought
• Robbing SBC seminary funds from directive to those seminaries and spending them on other BGCT budgetary items, while placing itself in competition with SBC seminaries by endorsing more liberal theology in other, non-SBC affiliated and decidedly liberal seminaries the BGCT has chosen to support
• Most tellingly, rejection of the BF&M 2000 because it names the Bible as the authoritative, accurate and trustworthy Word of God and emphasizes the value of the Word over the opinion of man

Seems pretty liberal to me. But that's another thread, isn't it? So perhaps you'd like to start that discussion elsewhere.

 

They will know us by our calling of sin, sin.....is that how that passage goes?

 

Nope, you too are wrong.

Moving from SBC or SBC moving from BGCT?
What liberal theology?
Churches get to send money wherever they want
Rejection is of the 2000 BFM is conservative

Sure

 

I see you choose to ignore Paul's directive to "speak the truth in love." Given your support for the BGCT, that's not at all surprising.

 

BGCT isn't liberal, BCNM isn't autonomous

 

Particularly that last one. Hilarious!

 

Not ignoring Paul, just understanding him through Jesus

 

I know, right! So crazy, it's true!

 

Well, you got the "crazy" part right. :thumbsup:

 

I'll take this as the start of you coming around to my way of thinking - baby steps!:thumbs:

 

Uh ... no. Not even. Nice to know you're an optimist, but that'll never happen. :laugh:

Brothers in Christ can disagree and still love one another, though. That's the great thing about being in Him. :thumbsup:

 

After World Vision, evangelicals debate boundaries over sexuality [LINK]
By SARAH PULLIAM BAILEY

That's 10,000 kids no longer receiving support because "evangelical" Christians refuse to accept the apology of an organization that made a grave mistake.

We showed them, we did!
What an example we are. :tear:

Rob

 

Can you BLAME them....

....after all, the handwritting's on the wall! Sooner than later, being tax exempt will come down to accepting everyone, regardless! Theyare watching state by state change. And they have probably felt the sting in the pocketbook, as more Emergent Church goes, those who will be giving to organizations like theirs, are growing tolerant of gays.

WV made the same move the Boy Scouts just made. The same move the Girl Scouts made years back. And the same move many mainstream churches in America and througout Europe are making in order to keep their ministry relevant, up to date, on focus with current trends, and to make sure they remain profitable as a non profit! :smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

The letter from World Vision on its reversal [LINK]
March 26, 2014

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.
**********************

The decision to support a child is a commitment to a relationship.
To back out of the relationship because of a poor administrative decision on the part of the organizations leadership punishes the child for someone else's error.

Rob

 

I agree with this, which is why I did not considering dropping my current support although I was #^$$ off about World Vision's decision. My plan was to email them my disappointment and my intention not to sponsor anyone new after my current sponsored child reached her age limit, but they reversed their decision before I got around to it.

 

Save the tear. This is the equivalent of infidelity, and while forgiveness is given when asked, trust takes time to rebuild. If they were even temporarily that bad a judge of the results of such action, how can we trust they won't fall again, and how do we know such bad judgment doesn't extend to the financial side of the ministry? We don't.

We have to stand back and watch, pray and hope. That's what we would do with an errant spouse who confesses and seeks forgiveness. It is what we must do with World Vision.

And before anyone jumps on it, the comparison is absolutely, 100% valid.

 

The blame is not to be laid at the feet of those who no longer trust this organization. The blame is to be laid in full at the administration of this organization. Their poor choice and public decision is at fault and nothing else.