Two questions for World Vision

World Vision has reconsidered a decision to hire people in same gender marriages.  "We have listended to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness," the agency said in the letter, signed by World Vision president Stearns and board chairman Jim Bere.

Enough people complained and threatened to pull support, so World Vision dropped a two-day old policy that would have allowed the hiring of those in same gender relationships.  In fact, Stearns said the board unanimously agreed to "stand on the traditional belief on the authority of Scripture."

World Vision president Stearns

I have two questions.  First, what led them to change their policy in the first place?  Did the board of World Vision consider the ethical and moral implications of excluding those in same gender relationships?  Did they pray together, read scripture together, and open themselves up to the leading of the Spirit in order to come up with the decision to allow employees in same gender relationships?  For two days the policy to hire those in same gender relationships was in place.  Something led them to this decision.  Unfortunately, it looks as though the threat of the loss of support and money has changed that decision.  The board prayed for years to make a decision, but in only two days, overturned that decision.

For the past year, since the St. Paul’s youth group joined with another church last year to do the 30-Hour Famine, my son has been asking to do it again.  The 30-Hour Famine is a program created and promoted each spring by World Vision.  Youth are encouraged to fast for 30 hours, to gather and engage in age-appropriate games and activities that raise awareness of world hunger, and raise funds for World Vision. When I told my son about this decision to not employ people in same gender marriages, without blinking an eye, he dropped his campaign to have a 30-Hour Famine and has agreed instead to try a different event in support of a different charity.  I'm confident the rest of the youth group will agree.

My second question.  In today’s world, how can we say that we are making decisions that “stand on the traditional belief on the authority of Scripture?”  Traditional means “a way of thinking, behaving, or doing that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time.”[1] Scripture has been used and interpreted in vastly different ways, for a long time.  Traditionally, it has been used to oppress women and children and the keeping of slaves.  Also, traditionally, scripture has been used to set slaves free and to uplift women and children.  Of which tradition does World Vision president Stearns speak?  Traditionally, scripture has been used to encourage inclusiveness, loving one another, compassion, justice, and peace.  Traditionally, it has also been used to exclude, judge an other’s actions, justify hate, and to uphold decisions that have no value in today’s world.  Will World Vision also encourage slaves to submit to their masters and women to submit to their husbands?  Will World Vision also decide that they won’t hire women as they should be at home caring for their husband and children based on the tradition of scripture?  Will the threat of pulling support and money, cause World Vision to rethink other policy?

Today my prayer is for those in same gender relationships.  I pray for those who still hear the message in our society that certain relationships are wrong and that God does not support certain loving relationships.  I pray for those who cannot love who they want without being judged and excluded.  I pray that we can all love and accept one another for who we are, no matter our skin colour, our accent, who we choose to love, our abilities, our age, or who we worship.  I pray there comes a day when we all feel loved and valued.

**I just read that the above is a World Vision US policy.  In Canada, provincial laws say that candidates for a job cannot be asked about sexual orientation, marriage or related issues.  World Vision Canada wants to reassure Canadians that "This is what is most key for us: When it comes to working with the poor, World Vision serves children, families and communities, regardless of whether they are aligned with our values or not."  This makes me wonder if World Vision Canada would ask these questions if they could.  What are their values?  Is this a practice of toleration?  World Vision Canada says they would value the opportunity for more discussion.  http://churches.worldvision.ca/our-christian-identity-responding-to-world-vision-us-hiring-policy-change/

The information in this blog on World Vision US came from an online article: http://www.timesleaderonline.com/page/content.detail/id/479500/World-Vision-reverses-decision-to-hire-gays.html?isap=1&nav=5021

---

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Who was the Beloved Disciple?

Do you ever have those times when you want to stick out your tongue, and then, in a very child-like way, say, “Nana nana nana?”

More than ten years ago, I took a course.  I don’t remember the name of the course or who taught it.  I don’t remember what book I was reading or what we were discussing at the time.  What I remember is offering a different interpretation to a gospel text and being rebuffed for it.  What I expressed was pretty much dismissed.  If you know me, you know that when I express my thoughts, I feel very vulnerable, and being dismissed in this way brought up feelings of foolishness and shame.  Hmmm.  No wonder I'm still holding onto it.

The text was from the gospel of John 19:25-27:

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” ²⁷Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

My question was around this disciple whom Jesus loved.  Maybe it was a woman.  The text mentions three women standing at the foot of the cross and then Jesus says, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”  Traditionally, people have referred to John as the disciple that Jesus loved.  John is also traditionally credited with the writing of the gospel. 

What if it wasn’t John?  What if the text is actually referring to one of the women standing at the foot of the cross?  After all, we know from the other gospels that all the male disciples ran and hid.  It was only the women who stayed with Jesus at the cross.  The passage refers to three women but it seems people would like to insert a fourth person, a male person.  Also, if it was John that stayed, why didn’t he also help with the burial of Jesus, along with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

The course I’m currently taking on the scriptures of the New Testament offered a reading by Sandra M. Schneiders, from a book called, “Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.”  Schneiders states that most people will say the beloved disciple must be male, because Jesus says, “Woman, here is your son.”  Schneiders has a different theory.

“First, most commentators agree that, whoever the Beloved Disciple was historically, in this scene the figure is not merely or even primarily an individual who is personally and priviately united to the mother of Jesus but a representative figure symbolic of some group that is to be united in a special way with her.  In that case the meaning of the verse is, ‘Woman, behold the one who is to be to you what I [Jesus] have been.”  Since Jesus is Mary’s son, the community represented by the Beloved Disciple becomes Mary’s new “son,” that is, shares the same relationship to her as Jesus had during his earthly life.”

Schneider’s ultimate theory is that the Beloved Disciple is not one person, but is representative of an ideal disciple, which could be either male or female. 

The article goes into much more detail about the Beloved Disciple, other unnamed disciples, the author of the gospel, and even a "redactor," one who may have modified the gospel later to make it more acceptable to the Greater Church of the time, specifically in removing women from key leadership roles.  I found it quite fascinating, especially since it confirmed my original suspicions, voiced and dismissed.  Now, it was only a guess at the time and I had no way of substantiating my theory, but I feel as if my original thought may not have been as foolish as it originally seemed. "Na Na Na Na Na Na."