Rachel Held Evans recently wrote on her
CNN Belief Blog
about evangelicals and their response to Same Sex Marriage (SSM). In her
article she was bemoaning a decision by World Vision to reverse their decision
not to discriminate against employees in SSMs.
Is that confusing? Here’s what it means. World Vision had
adopted a position of not discriminating against their employees because of
their “sexual orientation.” Following concerns voiced to them from the
evangelical community, they reversed their position. Evans blamed the “reversal”
on an outcry from evangelicals, including Southern Baptists and the Assemblies
of God, who spoke out to encourage World Vision to reverse their stand.
She reported: “Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop
sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course.
“Within a day of the initial announcement, more than 2,000 children
sponsored by World Vision lost their financial support. And with more and more
individuals, churches and organizations threatening to do the same, the charity
stood to lose millions of dollars in aid that would otherwise reach the poor,
sick, hungry and displaced people World Vision serves.”
She went on to write: “…some people, satisfied with the reversal, have
called World Vision headquarters to ask, ‘Can I have my child back?’ as though
needy children are expendable bargaining chips in the culture war against gay
and lesbian people.
“Many of us who grew up evangelical watched with horror as these events
unfolded.”
Then she epistemologically whined about how poorly the homosexual community
is treated by evangelicals and questioned why evangelicals quote Bible verses
about homosexuality and exclude the passages that refer to taking care of the
needy. She asks, “Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted
uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty
so easily discarded?”
Her discussion quickly evolved into a discussion of the “gay marriage”
battle with Evans complaining that evangelicals’ “victory” is not worth its
costs.
OK, let’s make one thing clear. “…ANYBODY (whosoever) believeth in Him
should not perish but have eternal life.” That’s from John 3:16. Just as when
we argue that “ALL” in Romans 3:23 means “ALL,” we must also argue that “ANYBODY”
means “ANYBODY,” unless we think the Bible is inconsistent with itself.
It is not.
A person, a church or a corporation (World Vision) is not “Christian”
because it does or does not recognize Same Sex Marriage. It is Christian
because it places its trust in, and only in, Christ and His finished work at
the cross of Calvary.
Marriage exists in two worlds, the secular world and the Christian world.
The secular/ legal world does pretty much as it pleases with regard to
marriage. They call marriage what they want to call it, change its meaning
according to their most current linguistic trends and holds it generally in
disrespect. For centuries the secular/legal world followed the Christian lead
in dealing with marriage. That is no longer the case.
The Christian world considers marriage in a totally different light.
In the Christian world view, marriage is a sacred covenant made with God by
a man and a woman. Once they are united before God, they are made one by Him.
They no longer operate as separate entities. They no longer treat their
possessions as “his and hers.” They each give 100% of themselves to the other
expecting nothing in return. They understand that marriage is an earthly picture
of the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the church. They take
seriously Ephesians 5:21. (You had better read that verse. It probably will be
a surprise to you.)
At the risk of sounding political, I would like to point out that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America tells us that “Congress
(that is, the federal law making body) shall make NO law respecting an
establishment of religion…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the
Constitution is worth the paper it’s written on, that means that the federal
government cannot interfere with religious matters in any way whatsoever,
whether individual or corporate.
What World Vision decides to do about same sex couples is no business of the
federal government. It should not be the business of any columnist, either.
Since she enjoys the benefits of the very same First Amendment, though, she
should be allowed to write what she wants to, which she has done.
That being said, Ms. Evans has proclaimed, “I’m going AWOL on
evangelicalism's culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its
many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers,
misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.”
Sorry. That she cannot do. She cannot have Christ in her heart and call sin “not
sin.” She can (and should) help those who need help, regardless of their life
choices, but she cannot follow Christ by castigating World Vision for its
decision about its employees.
Notice that World Vision has not decided to stop helping the world. They
have only decided to make certain decisions regarding their own hiring
practices. So, what in the world is Evans complaining about? Does she think she
should be the arbiter of what others should do?
(Does this remind you
in any way of Hobby Lobby?)