March 26, 2014

IRD: World Vision’s Fidelity to Christian Teachings Deserves Thanks

IRD PRESS RELEASE | March 26, 2014
Contact:  Jeff Walton office: 202-682-4131, cell: 202-413-5639, e-mail:


“World Vision’s reaffirmation of orthodox faith helps to ensure it has a robust if not easy future ahead. God bless its faithfulness and ministry.”
-Mark Tooley, IRD President


Washington, DC—World Vision USA, the Christian international humanitarian organization, has announced in a letter that it is reversing a policy change announced two days ago to change its conduct policies to permit employees in same-sex marriages.

In the letter, World Vision’s president and board chair apologized and reaffirmed the group’s policy of “sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.”

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

“World Vision deserves thanks today for reaffirming traditional Christian teachings on marriage after announcing on Monday that it would dilute its marriage stance, which it now admits was a ‘mistake.’ Likely many thousands of its Evangelical supporters will be much relieved.

“Presumably World Vision, like other Christian organizations, is under tremendous cultural and financial pressure, perhaps even implied legal pressure, to surrender its fidelity to Christian teachings. Evangelicals and traditional Christians of all branches should pray for and affirm World Vision’s biblically informed ministry.

“Maybe World Vision in the future will lose corporate support. Maybe it will lose government support. All traditional Christian groups operating in the current Zeitgeist face an impending Winter of secularist hostility. But religious groups that surrender their core convictions almost always are diminished and become irrelevant.

“World Vision’s reaffirmation of orthodox faith helps to ensure it has a robust if not easy future ahead. God bless its faithfulness and ministry.”

12 Responses to IRD: World Vision’s Fidelity to Christian Teachings Deserves Thanks

  1. John Newsome says:

    The statement from the president had all the right words, but from previous statements he has made I am not sure it was a heartfelt statement. I am afraid it was just prompted or made because of money. My family regrettably canceled our support and will not return, instead we will look for another organization helping the poor.

  2. John Smith says:

    This change of heart, probably related to revenue threats, raises the hope that such a policy might be effective with the UMC.

    • theenemyhatesclarity says:

      John Smith,that is a very good point. Absent a miracle from God, the only way this crisis ends is by a collapse of the US UMC, or a “change of heart” by our leadership when our orthodox churches begin withholding apportionments.

      In Christ,

      The enemy hates clarity

  3. cleareyedtruthmeister says:

    Follow the money.

    I think money dictated the original change (the idea being that liberal donors would increase their giving) and is now dictating the reversal (with the realization that conservative donors contribute far more than liberals, and the withdrawal of their funding would be much more damaging).

    While I applaud the reversal, this episode has revealed Worldly Vision’s move toward cultural accomodation and away from orthodox Christianity (which is what it was founded on).

    I will not support Worldly Vision because the first change would have never been considered if the organization were still committed to principle. Samaritan’s Purse is a great alternative.

  4. Philip says:

    It’s an insurmountable fact that churches and Christians are divided on homosexuality. While the day may not come soon when all Christian embrace gay marriage, I am reasonably certain the day will not come again in which all Christians are opposed to gay marriage. With these considerations in mind, we are left with two options as God’s people: 1. Either we must allow each other enough grace and mercy to continue working together in our shared mission to make disciples and answer the cry of the needy. 2. Or we can refuse to work in any further communion and allow ourselves to splinter in such a manner not seen since the early days of the Reformation in which one or both sides no longer acknowledges the other as Christian at all. I, for my part, will always strive for the former. I pray none among us desires the later.

    • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

      I, too, hope that all can work together in grace and love.

      But, while Christianity advises love for all people, it does not condone sinful behavior. There is a difference between admitting we are sinful creatures in need of grace and endorsing sins for which we may have a strong predilection.

      From a Biblical perspective there seems to be no particular condemnation for same-sex attraction, but there is clear condemnation for homosexual behavior. It is simply not a debatable point (notwithstanding all the disingenuous mental gymnastics used to argue otherwise).

      Therefore, while there may be division among people, there is no division in either the Bible or historic teaching. We could have a more honest, productive conversation if people pushing for a change in sexual mores, to include marriage redefinition, would admit that.

      Does this preclude gay persons from working in Christian organizations? Of course not.

      It does, however, preclude Christian organizations from officially endorsing behavior that is clearly condemned by Scripture. There can and should be no division about that.

      • Philip says:

        Your contradicting yourself. You said we should not prevent gay persons from working in Christian organizations, but then turn around and say when a company allows gay persons to “work” for their organization (and that’s all World Vision did) then it means they’re endorsing it.

        • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

          No, that’s not what I wrote.

          Not all persons participate in sex, and that applies equally to gays. We are not barnyard animals with no apparent control over how we respond to our sexual urges. In contrast to what many people seem to think these days, sexual activity is not the end-all be-all of existence.

          Hiring a person to work for you does not imply that you endorse their behavior unless you have a specific policy stating that it does. Thankfully, HL reversed such a policy in short order.

          • Philip says:

            You said this shouldn’t preclude gay persons from working at in Christian organizations, yet you’re saying WV endorsed their lifestyle by agreeing to let the work there. A house divided against itself can not stand.

          • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

            No, I did not say that WV endorsed their lifestyle by agreeing to employ gay persons. WV endorsed their lifestyled by endorsing marriage redefinition (against the faith that WV ostensibly labors for).

          • Philip says:

            Under what conditions would you approve of WV hiring noncelibate gays? Are you saying they need to get rid of requirements around celibate or committed relationships entirely? Would you prefer they hire gays quieting and don’t tell anyone about it, like a lot of Christian organizations are doing? Or maybe you want to have your cake and eat it too by getting to say you have no problem with gays working for Christian organizations, while making near impossible for them to do so.

          • cleareyedtruthmeister says:

            The policy that WV previously had and that they just reinstated makes the most sense for a Christian organization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *