Moral confusion on World Vision

Arminian ethicist Randal Rauser, whose posts sometimes grace the Society of Evangelical Arminians, has weighed in on the World Vision debacle:

http://randalrauser.com/2014/03/stop-supporting-world-vision-on-the-ethical-vision-of-some-conservative-evangelicals/

http://randalrauser.com/2014/03/outraged-at-homosexuality-but-unaware-of-genocide-and-not-angered-by-poverty/

So why would Anderson suggest that Christians should stop supporting World Vision, a development agency dedicated to helping the world’s poor, with a special focus on children, community development and disaster relief
Of course, the conscientious evangelical Christian who is a child sponsor will face a rather embarrassing obstacle at the outset: would Jesus really want you to stop sending money to little Jennifer Ajego because of World Vision’s changed policy on gay unions?What strikes me is that there is no outrage among conservative evangelicals about the preventable deaths of thirty thousand children a day which is comparable to the outrage that sweeps like a raging Aussie brushfire at the very mention of homosexuality.
But let’s set aside genocide and talk, instead, about a more mundane reality: poverty. According to UNICEF:
About 29,000 children under the age of five –  21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths every year are attributable to six causes: diarrhoea, [sic] malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth. (source)

There are several problems with playing the Jesus card ("WWJD?"):

i) A few years ago, Rauser was plugging his attendance at the Logos Workshop:

http://randalrauser.com/tag/logos-workshop/

Here's the roster of speakers:

http://philreligion.nd.edu/calendar/annual-logos-workshop/logos-2011/

Consider how many hungry children you could feed for the same outlay? Would Jesus really want you to snatch food from the mouths of starving children to squander on the Logos Workshop? Would Jesus really want you to spend that money on combined airfare and hotel lodgings rather than sick, malnourished kids?

Likewise, Rauser uses his website as a billboard to hawk his potboilers:

http://randalrauser.com/books/

Just imagine how many hungry kids his devoted readers could sponsor if they stopped buying his books and donated the money saved to World Vision? How many children must starve to death so that Rauser can sell another book? Would Jesus really want you to spend your disposable income on Rauser's books rather than World Vision? 

Here's another shocking fact: Rauser is a seminary prof. Just think how many kids you could save from death by malnutrition if the budget of Taylor Seminary was diverted to the world's poor, with a special focus on children. Every dollar spent on Taylor Seminary is a dollar taken away from poor Third World children. What would Jesus do?

ii) Does Rauser think Jesus needs World Vision? I mean, couldn't Jesus simply do it himself? He has the ability heal at a distance, and replicate food to feed thousands.  

Fact is, feeding hungry children isn't a personal priority for Jesus. If it was, there's be no malnourished kids. Millions of kids die annually from preventable causes. Jesus could single-handedly prevent their untimely demise. But he doesn't. If WWJD is Rauser's standard for Christian conduct, then World Vision is guilty of acting contrary to Christ's own policy of nonintervention.

Now, perhaps we might say God has the right to obligate Christians to do things which he himself is under no obligation to do. That, however, is diametrically opposed to Rauser's analogy. 

Just in the last few days, at the very same time that conservative evangelicals have been rallying to punish World Vision, reports have been flooding out of a developing genocide in the Central African Republic. According to reports from the United Nations and several NGOs, the last few months have seen several thousand people murdered and more than one million displaced. Yet, I am quite sure that the average North American conservative evangelical is not even aware of this horrifying situation. (Genocide? Africa? Meh. Pro-gay policy at a North American evangelical NGO? Argh!!!!)

Is Rauser really that dense? What does Rauser think North American evangelicals can actually do to halt genocide in Africa? By contrast, we can do something about World Vision. Indeed, under pressure, World Vision reversed itself. What is Rauser's solution genocide? 

However, even if your decision won’t hit Jennifer Ajego directly and her village still survives your moral protest, there is one other uncomfortable implication of your moral stand: it represents the end of your relationship with young Jennifer. As Anderson recognizes, many supporters of World Vision develop close relationships with their official “sponsor children”, writing letters and sending gifts over the years. 

i) Of course, for every child you sponsor, there are many more children who have no sponsors. If you were to cut ties with World Vision, and sponsor a different child through a different Christian charity, isn't that a wash?

ii) If you're already sponsoring a child, you could maintain that relationship, but refrain from sponsoring any new children through World Vision. You could sponsor new children through a different Christian charity. Does Rauser think World Vision is too big to fail? 

Let me start by offering a caveat to those inclined to take Anderson’s advice. If you cut Jennifer Ajego and World Vision out of your charitable giving, be sure to cut Starbucks out of your coffee budget since they’ve been on record supporting gay marriage since 2012. (See here and here.) You see, it would look rather bad if you were willing to cut off the poor based on your high moral principles, but not willing to do the same for your favorite espresso beverage.
And be sure you do the same for Apple, Target, Disney, Ford, Levi-Strauss, Microsoft, Amazon.com, The Home Depot, Expedia.com, The Gap, Pepsi, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Macy’s, Walgreens, et cetera. Because how bad would it look to cut off Jennifer Ajego while still driving your F-150 and allowing your daughter to dress up as a Disney princess?

i) To begin with, Rauser's argument is circular. Private businesses aren't even allowed to oppose homosexual marriage. They are being sued or prosecuted if they do. 

ii) Ironically, Disney is Exhibit A of what happens once the homosexual lobby sinks its teeth into what use to be a family-oriented business. 

iii) The analogy is disanalogous. We are holding a professedly Christian organization (World Vision) to Christian standards.  

iv) Rauser is trying to play the hypocrisy card. But by that logic, unless Christians oppose every sinful business, it is wrong for Christians to oppose any sinful business. Unless I oppose Apple or Microsoft, I have no right to oppose a child prostitution racket. Is that Rauser's position? Does Randal himself operate that way? 

This raises an obvious question: just what is the gospel? In the words of Paul, “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2) According to Jesus, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40) So I take it that if you want to talk Gospel, works of righteousness carried out for the poor and oppressed in the name of the crucified (and risen) Christ brings us right to the heart of the Gospel.

That exposes Rauser's exegetical incompetence. Mt 25:40 refers to Christians supporting fellow Christians. 

As I noted above, Anderson suggests that one might shift their support from World Vision to Compassion International. This raises an interesting problem. You see, I spoke with a Compassion representative just this morning and she was unaware of any policy that precludes Compassion from hiring folks who have been divorced (for reasons other than covenantal unfaithfulness) and then remarried whilst the former spouse is still alive. This despite the fact that such behavior is, according to the very words of Jesus, adultery: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)
So far as I can see, then, it appears that Compassion is willing to hire people who, according to the very teaching of Jesus, are in adulterous relationships. I take it that the acceptance of adultery among one’s employees is at least as bad as the acceptance of monogamous homosexual relationships. Consequently, I would think that if we stop supporting World Vision, it is inadvisable to offer Compassion as an alternative.

Another example of Rauser's exegetical ineptitude:

i) There are Biblically permissible grounds for divorce and remarriage. There are no Biblically permissible grounds for homosexual relationships.

ii) Homosexuals are rarely monogamous.

iii) Divorce and remarriage dissolves the prior marriage. Even if adultery was the precipitating cause, remarriage is not continuously adulterous. The affair was adulterous. But once you divorce and remarry, even if adultery was the cause, the marriage itself is not an adulterous state.

If, before you became a Christian, you divorced and remarried, even if adultery was the precipitating cause, that doesn't carry over into your marriage after you become a Christian. You new marriage is not adulterous. 

The closing word goes to Jesus (Mark 9:38-41)
³⁸ “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
³⁹ “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, ⁴⁰ for whoever is not against us is for us. ⁴¹ Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.”

i) A final example of Rauser's persistent exegetical incompetence:

Once again, this is referring to how Christians are to treat fellow Christians.

ii) In addition, World Vision doesn't allow its employees to "give a cup of water" in Jesus' name. As the president of World Vision said:

Question: Are you trying to end poverty or evangelize Christianity? 

Answer:  We don't proselytize. We do not force our religious beliefs on anyone... 

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/05/ten_or_so_quest.html