Brian Lee on World Vision — An Examination of Lee’s Views

Referring to this article,

For World Vision, Is Sexuality More Important Than Theology?

Normally, I might fisk this article but as it is disconnected and barely coherent in terms of how the article flows I’ve decided to just make a few relevant comments.

1.) Rev. Lee opens with noting the “confusion between the universal good of humanitarian aid and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry.” Lee desires for the Church to have the “Gospel” while humanitarian aide can be taken up in the common square by Muslims, Hindus, and assorted faith systems all coming together. In such a way we would cease talking about Humanitarian aide as being “Christian,” opting instead to call it “common.” The problem with this is that Lee forgets that “Humanitarian aide” can only be defined by some standard and that standard is not common good feelings but God’s Word. If non-Christians were consistent with their own worldviews they would not feed the hungry and poor. (Has Lee read his Nietzsche?) As such this is one reason why theologically solid para-Church organizations should continue to exist, if the church as the church can’t do the work herself. Only in that way can we have a hope that the standard for “Humanitarian aide as a Universal good” will have the proper standard. I would submit that the real confusion would only begin if we gave up the relationship between Christianity and it’s Gospel (broadly considered) and humanitarian aid.

2.) Keep in mind that Rev. Lee as R2K does not believe any Institution or culture can be Christian. It is not possible. So, Lee’s problem with World-Vision is the same problem that he has with the idea of Christian Education, Christian Law, Christian families or Christian culture. R2K and their sycophants do not believe it is possible for anything to be Christian except the Church and individuals as abstracted from their communal realities.

3.) The problem with World Vision is that they never should have been considered either Christian or Evangelical to begin with, but not because it is not possible for other Institutions to be Christian but because they just were not Christian in their Theology. Of course, it was not possible for them to not have a Theology, and their Theology was and is modernist as seen in their hiring practices. Dr. Albert Mohler offered at this point,

No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.

This has been a problem with World Vision for decades.

So, our R2K aficionado the honorable Rev.Lee takes the worst possible example and tries to suggest that all Institutions have the same problem. Baloney. Institutions can be Christian without being Churches. To suggest that the Church is the only Christian Institution is just utter nonsense. We can concede readily and happily that the Church is a unique Christian Institution charged with Word and Sacrament but to suggest that no other Institution can be Christian because the Church is uniquely delegated to minister Grace is just not good Theology. R2K is full of not good theology. According to R2K Law, Education, Family life, culture, etc. can not be considered “Christian” because they do not hold the Keys as the Church does. This is a fatal flaw in R2K “theology.” The flaw is to insists that “Church” and “Kingdom” are exactly co-terminus. It’s just not so.

On this score Presbyterian A. A. Hodge offered,

“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness … The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.”

You see in Lee’s book, A. A. Hodge is confusing between the universal good of every human being in all their relations and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry. Lee practices a false dichotomy.

But allow us to add a Theologian from the Continental side of the Reformed expression,

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

Education, and Law (as only two examples) do not handle Word and Sacrament. Does this mean that Education and Law can’t be Christian? It means that to Lee and all R2K aficionados.

4.) Lee asks in his article, “Why should humanitarian aid be an exclusivist enterprise?” The question should be instead, “Why should anybody not Christian want to do humanitarian aid except that someplace in their Worldview they have some Christian capital that informs them that helping the poor and oppressed is a good idea. Lee believes humanitarian aid should not be exclusive to Christians but apart from the residue of a Christian Worldview why should anyone provide humanitarian aid?

5.) Lee spills electronic ink assuming that all because a Institution is Christian therefore it must be the same thing as God’s Church. This is a non-sequitur. Christian Institutions don’t handle the Keys and aren’t expected to proclaim the Word or handle the Sacraments. Only in Lee’s R2K world, where no Institution can be “Christian” unless it is also “Church” does Lee’s problems arise.

6.) Interestingly enough, along with Lee, I’m not a big fan of para-Church organizations, but I’m not a big fan for different reasons. The problem with para-Church organizations is that they are not accountable to a set body of believers. The recent World Vision fiasco would have been unlikely to have happened if World Vision had been under a Reformed Church that was thoroughly Biblical and Christians. That the Church, as the Church, should be involved in World Vision type ministries is seen in St. Paul’s work in collecting relief funds for the Jerusalem church for famine relief.

Rev. Lee’s R2K vision is not consistent with historic Reformed understanding of the relationship between Church and Kingdom. His is a completely innovative approach. Let the buyer beware.