Arminian ethicist Randal Rauser, whose posts sometimes grace the Society of Evangelical Arminians, has weighed in on the World Vision debacle:
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:
Here's the roster of speakers:
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:
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
"Once again, this is referring to how Christians are to treat fellow Christians."
ReplyDeleteAre you focusing just on the 2 verses Rauser offered, or are you also implying he could not have offered any other verses commending altruistic/charitable support of non-Christians to bolster his point because Scripture does not support such a notion?
Secondly, I am not sure your reply on the divorce issue fully engages his point. He was saying Compassion supported staff that were divorced and remarried, even in cases when the grounds for the divorce was not adultery/sexual immorality, which Jesus says is the only acceptable grounds. So both parties are living in continuous adultery in that case since the original divorce was never on valid grounds.
Good Question Cletus,
DeleteI don't think Steve is suggesting that there are not any verses commending support of non-Christians or even enemies (cf. Romans 12:20). Just that the Christian altruistic priority is often overlooked... and that Rauser really should have done his homework.
As regards those alleged 'illegitimate grounds' for remarriage? Those grounds are irrelevant. As Steve insisted, in that situation the sin of remarriage is merely punctiliar rather than ongoing.
That is to say that they sinned only once in re-marrying. Their adultery is not continuous. Following their re-marriage they are committed to monogamy (and ongoing natural relations) once again.
Yet the sin of homosexual marriage is ongoing. They are now committed to an ongoing, unnatural relationship...
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"Are you focusing just on the 2 verses Rauser offered, or are you also implying he could not have offered any other verses commending altruistic/charitable support of non-Christians to bolster his point because Scripture does not support such a notion?"
i) It's not my job to make Rauser's argument for him. If he has other verses which could make the same point, the onus is on him to cite them.
ii) Generic verses commending altrustic/charitable support of non-Christians won't suffice to prove his point, given that he framed his argument with specific reference to what *Jesus* really wants us to do. So he needs a statement from Jesus.
iii) Biblical verses commending charity typically refer to support for fellow members of the community of faith, viz. poor Christians, Jewish widows and orphans. "Altruism" is broader and rather vague.
iv) B.C. Hodge (Theological Sushi) has argued that charitable support for non-Christians is wrong given limited resources. That takes away from supporting fellow Christians. We could debate the merits of his argument, but it's not off-the-wall.
v) Given that Rauser denies the infallibility of Scripture as well as the infallibility of Christ, even if he could successfully prooftext his claims from Scripture, that doesn't prove his position is true.
"Secondly, I am not sure your reply on the divorce issue fully engages his point. He was saying Compassion supported staff that were divorced and remarried, even in cases when the grounds for the divorce was not adultery/sexual immorality, which Jesus says is the only acceptable grounds. So both parties are living in continuous adultery in that case since the original divorce was never on valid grounds."
i) I'm engaging his point by correcting his false premise. The fact that (ex hypothesi) the original divorce was biblically unlawful doesn't mean the couple is living in continuous adultery. The divorce was sinful. It's not even clear that remarriage is an additional sin, separate from the sinful divorce. But even if remarriage is sinful, it would be the one-time sin of consummating the second marriage. Divorce and remarriage ipso facto dissolves the former marriage, regardless of the grounds. By contrast, a homosexual relationship is continuously sinful.
ii) Christian charities aren't normally in a position to know that applicants are divorced and remarried, much less the grounds for divorce. And as far as that goes, applicants can always lie.
By contrast, a homosexual relationship is facially (in the legal sense) wrong. You don't need to know anything about their background to know what they are doing is wrong.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point "Just that the Christian altruistic priority is often overlooked" and that Randall was sloppy using those particular verses. There are spheres/hierarchies of priority, although I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
" Those grounds are irrelevant. As Steve insisted, in that situation the sin of remarriage is merely punctiliar rather than ongoing. That is to say that they sinned only once in re-marrying. Their adultery is not continuous. Following their re-marriage they are committed to monogamy (and ongoing natural relations) once again. "
But if someone is divorced on illegitimate grounds and remarries, they commit adultery as Jesus says. I do not see how that is limited to only the act of divorce/remarriage and not ongoing in the remarriage. The remarriage is grounded in sin (adultery) - it will continue in that state until rectified. I do not see how Jesus' statement indicates a one-time "blip" that is then forgotten and irrelevant afterwards.
Steve,
i) Agreed
ii) A statement from Scripture not from Jesus' mouth must imply Jesus does not endorse that statement? This seems like an artificial hurdle. But it would not be hard to offer such verses from Jesus regardless.
iii) "typically refer" does not mean "always refer" so there seems to be a concession in the qualifier. If there's a distinction between broader altruistic support and narrower charitable support, and if both are commended by Scripture, I'm not sure how the distinction affects Rauser's point.
iv) If it's always wrong given limited resources, then if Scripture holds the distinction above between broader altruistic and narrower charitable support, it wouldn't make sense - Scripture would only commend the narrower charitable support. Further I wonder if Hodge offers any historical support for his interpretation. I'm under the impression that the majority of Christians throughout history have not argued in such a reductionistic manner. But yes, it's not off-the-wall at face value.
v) But if the people he is addressing his criticisms do hold to the infallibility of Scripture/Christ, then his point has merit and holds. The stance of the messenger isn't inextricably tied into the point of the message.
" The fact that (ex hypothesi) the original divorce was biblically unlawful doesn't mean the couple is living in continuous adultery. The divorce was sinful. It's not even clear that remarriage is an additional sin, separate from the sinful divorce."
How is the divorce without remarrying committing adultery? Jesus doesn't say someone who commits illegitimate divorce commits adultery, but someone who divorces and remarries.
"But even if remarriage is sinful, it would be the one-time sin of consummating the second marriage. Divorce and remarriage ipso facto dissolves the former marriage, regardless of the grounds."
I don't see how it follows it is a one-time sin. If one is committing adultery by remarrying via an illegitimate divorce, it seems that the state would be ongoing in that marriage.
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"A statement from Scripture not from Jesus' mouth must imply Jesus does not endorse that statement? This seems like an artificial hurdle."
Holding Rauser to the terms of his own argument is hardly artificial. He made Jesus the standard of comparison. That was central to his argument.
"'typically refer' does not mean 'always refer' so there seems to be a concession in the qualifier."
It's hardly incumbent on me to make Rauser's argument for him. I can't comment on unspecified verses. If he has other prooftexts to offer, it's up to him to present them. Then, and only then, can we evaluate his additional appeals.
"If there's a distinction between broader altruistic support and narrower charitable support, and if both are commended by Scripture, I'm not sure how the distinction affects Rauser's point."
Altruism isn't equivalent to financial support. There are non-financial forms of altruism. Moreover, I can't comment on vagaries. Rauser would need to spell out what he means, with corresponding verses, before I'd be in a position to assess his claim.
"But if the people he is addressing his criticisms do hold to the infallibility of Scripture/Christ, then his point has merit and holds."
If it's a purely internal critique. If he's only concerned with hypocrisy. However, he himself clearly thinks Christians ought to give to World Vision. So his own standards come into play.
"How is the divorce without remarrying committing adultery?"
I didn't say it was adulterous. I said it was sinful.
"I don't see how it follows it is a one-time sin. If one is committing adultery by remarrying via an illegitimate divorce, it seems that the state would be ongoing in that marriage."
i) I didn't concede that one is committing adultery by remarrying via an illegitimate divorce. I simply discussed that for the sake of argument.
Rather, one is committing adultery by having an adulterous affair.
ii) You seem to think that if the grounds for divorce are unlawful, then it's not a real divorce. To take a comparison, OT law distinguishes between murder and justified homicide. But even though murder is unlawful, both murder and justified homicide are homicidal.
Likewise, if a wife murders her husband, she's free to remarry. She's guilty of murder, but not adultery, even though she terminated the marriage by illicit means.
i) You're ignoring one of the distinctions I already drew. If the couple (or one party) contracted the second marriage before their conversion to the Christian faith, then God has already forgiven the unlawful divorce. It's not as if that sin automatically continues to taint their marriage.
Deleteii) If, in addition, they have kids by the second marriage, they can't very well disown their kids and revert to the status quo ante. We've crossed a line of no return. Likewise, one or both spouses might have kids from the former marriage. They have obligations to both. For better or worse, our actions may have enduring and irreversible consequences which make it too late to turn back the clock. We can't start over. We can only go forward from here on out.
Regarding your question to me Cletus,
ReplyDelete"I don't see how it follows it is a one-time sin. If one is committing adultery by remarrying via an illegitimate divorce, it seems that the state would be ongoing in that marriage."
Let's take a closer look at what Jesus actually said-
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
(Mat 5:32 ESV)
[FULL DISCLOSURE- I married a woman who was divorced on grounds other than sexual immorality...]
So, let's look at the verbal aspect of that particular verse here (prominent-Greek-guy Constantine Campbell is very helpful here in his book Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek). Let's examine the translation.
Now, I think you would agree with me that this committing of adultery is rather punctiliar, Cletus. As punctiliar as the moment of becoming ONE FLESH would be. What you seem to be insisting though, is that this is a repeated punctiliar. Repeated to the extent of being iterative- and this is true to some extent. The iterative ONE FLESH moments do indeed naturally and repeatedly follow from marriage.
But the extent that Jesus was insisting on seems to be to the punctiliar extent (as the disciples understood it at any rate) of actually getting re-married. A rather punctiliar one-time event. And the adultery in question appears to be just as punctiliar in extent (a "one-time" event)
Now, we can quibble about how punctiliar "divorce" actually is. Or quibble about how punctiliar "makes" her commit adultery actually is- but that doesn't change the context all that much. I don't think the context will allow us to insist on punctiliar and iterative lexume (presumably "marries" and "commits" respectively) conflation in the very same verse. I don't think that is a valid hermeneutic.
Allow me to give you a less incendiary example-
Jack threw (punctiliar) a ball and Jill caught (punctiliar) it.
It would not be proper to say that Jack threw (punctiliar) a ball and Jill continued (iterative) to catch it.
Similarly, to understand this verse the way that you seem to understand it- it would have to add, "And whoever continues (iterative) to be married to a illegitimately divorced woman will be ongoing (iterative) in adultery. Yet, I don't see any periphrastic construction suggesting that concept there. And a concerned Jesus would certainly have added that if such was the case... but faithfulness is a greater concern.
In this pericope Jesus could have very easily insisted that improperly married folks do another Ezra 10:3. But Jesus didn't defer to that scripture there and I suggest that you don't either, Cletus. Those were different times and circumstances (cf. Ezra 9:11).
Thanks for your interaction, Cletus.
BTW, Is there some connection between a Dam and a Brink?