|
Listen to this post:
|
Three World Vision employees are fired because according to World Vision they don’t believe in that Jesus is “fully God” or that he’s a member of the Trinity.
But inquiring minds want to know: what did they believe, what statement or statements of faith did they sign, and are the beliefs therein necessary and sufficient for being a real Christian? This time, we’re digging a little deeper.
Their website saith,
World Vision U.S. hires only those who agree and accept to its Statement of Faith and/or the Apostles’ Creed. (source)
Interesting! Note the “and/or” – employees must affirm either one or both. As we’ve noted before here at trinities, nothing in the so-called Apostles’ Creed requires belief in either the “full deity” of Christ (whatever that may mean) or any sort of trinitarian theory. Go ahead – click their link above and read it.
- Did the three fired employees disavow the Apostles’ Creed?
- Or did they affirm it?
- Suppose they accepted it with no reservations… doesn’t that mean they could not be fired? If not, why not?
- Or did they accept it with reservations?
Here’s the relevant portion of World Vision’s statement of faith.
- We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory. (emphases added, source)
I’m afraid this is typical American evangelical theological mush, featuring the weasel-words “in” (first sentence) and “deity” (second item).
The “in” phrase is current shorthand for some Trinity theory or other, but honestly, a resourceful unitarian could accept both of the above statements.
Our imaginary unitarian employee of World Vision could defend herself as follows:
Keep in mind that “person” means something like a mask, role, or personality – we’re not necessarily talking about the modern concept of a self. So, I believe in one God, the Father, who express himself in three persons. First, his own persona, as Father to Jesus and to all believers. Second, through the man Jesus, his special Son and servant. Third, through the guise of his own active power, which can seem like a third party. Do I believe in the deity of Jesus? Certainly. He’s the Son of God. He was sent by God, and empowered by God’s spirit. In all these senses, he was a divine man. And yet, he was a man.
Further, “one God, eternally existent in three persons” is probably most naturally understood as modalism – one self, acting or living in three different ways, in three different personalities. And a resourceful social trinitarian like Richard Swinburne could no doubt accept the formulas as well. The words in their doctrinal statement, then, fail to clearly express any precise views about God and Jesus. It seems to me that a lot of evangelical talk of the “deity of Christ” (or him “being God” or “being fully God” or “100% God” etc.) functions primarily as a sort of shibboleth, and that’s what is going on here. Their statement also owes something to a distinctively American anti-creedal tradition, which goes back to the founding of our country – but that’s a story for another time. The result is a distinctive sort of Christian tradition zealous to police itself for correct beliefs, but without interest in making precise distinctions.
Thanks to Google, a few more tidbits on our story, from a sort of newsletter by an interested (but uninvolved) lawyer:
Sylvia Spencer, Vicki Hulse and Ted Youngberg (the “Employees”) were all employed by World Vision. Like every employee, they attended daily devotions and weekly chapels held during the workday. However, at some point, the Employees stopped their attendance. World Vision interviewed each Employee as to why they stopped their daily devotions. Their responses were not recorded by the court, but World Vision concluded that each employee had they denied the deity of Jesus Christ. Even though the Employees denied this conclusion, World Vision nevertheless terminated their employment. The Employees sued World Vision for firing them, claiming that their terminations were based upon their religious beliefs. (source, emphases added)
This suggests that the three opted out of some required activities – something unclear in the CT story, which seems to add that they’d been given permission for some alternative. But more importantly – the three who were fired denied the denial? Really? (Imagined conversation: “Ya’ll are denying the deity of Christ!” “No we aren’t!”) What is going on here?
- Are they trinitarians who hold that Father and Son are numerically distinct, but claim that the Son is divine? e.g. Are they social trinitarians?
- Are they unitarians? Subordinationists? Jehovah’s Witnesses?
- Do they subscribe to kenosis theory?
- Are they dastardly liars, secret admirers of the Jesus Seminar, masquerading as evangelical Christians?
- Or do they neither affirm nor deny the vague thesis?
- Are the employees interpreting the statement of faith one way, and the management another?
- Or is the dispute about interpretations of the Apostles’ Creed, with World Vision taking the hopeless position that it clearly requires beliefs that Jesus is “fully God” and that he’s a member of the Trinity?
Slap me and call me “Curious George”, but I’d like to know. If this denial-denial part of the story is true, this is a big complicating factor which CT never should have left out of its story.
Hi Dale,
the above link for the source of the World Vision statement has shifted – you could update the hyperlink to: http://www.worldvision.org/about-us/job-opportunities/working-for-world-vision . Also you can note that this page no longer saith “and/or” but simply “or”, implying some sort of a faith statement choice might be possible, which strikes me as a little unusual.
John
If Christian faith is a prerequisite for employment, they are hardly an equal opportunity employer, even if they do think they are, and it is legal.
Thank you for posting this. I was once called a liar by World Vision U.S. in response to an article I had printed in a newspaper. I can feel better about it, safe in the knowledge that they are slightly crazy.
Fortigurn,
Proper study of the Apostles’ Creed and any other ancient document must consider the original historical context, which evidently you say is a distraction. If you’re going to defend that the Apostles’ Creed is Unitarian, then that defense must consider all that was written in the New Testament, the Early Church, and the fact that the Apostles Creed stood side-by-side with the Nicene Creed in the Imperial Church. And you would also need to define your version of Unitarian Christology.
James,
There are several issues here. The first is that you’re reading the English word ‘worship’ and assuming that the underlying Greek word means ‘worship in the sense of devotion given to God’.
The Greek word translated ‘worship’ and used of Christ has a wide range of meanings which include prostration to a lord, and worship of God. There is a perfectly good Greek word which is used exclusively in the New Testament of devotion given to God. It is never used of Christ.
When I speak of ‘worship’ as applied to Christ, I mean the devotion given to him as the exalted son of God, not as God Himself. For the subject of worship and divine agents, see my previous post, #45.
All this is of course a distraction from the original subject, which is that the Apostles’ Creed is completely Unitarian. It speaks of God as one person, the Father. It says the Father is ‘almighty’. It says the Father created heaven and earth. It distinguishes Christ from God, speaking separately of Christ as the son of God. It does not say that Christ is ‘almighty’, nor does it say that Christ is the creator of heaven and earth.
“The problem is that you’re reading that as saying ‘Let all the angels worship him as God’.”
Fortigurn,
Please help me to understand your view. Evidently, you believe that there are biblical guidelines for worshiping Jesus while you believe that Jesus is a created agent of God. Is that correct? May I ask, What are the monotheistic guidelines in the Bible for worshiping an agent of God?
James,
The problem is that you’re reading that as saying ‘Let all the angels worship him as God’.
Fortigurn,
“Regardless of whether or not [I] think Jesus was worshiped” is not all an issue. The issue is whether the New Testament taught that Jesus was worshiped. And if somebody cannot say, “Let all angels worship him”, then they struggle with all the teachings in the New Testament.
And thank you for the review about divine agency.
Martin, R. P., & Davids, P. H. (2000), Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments (electronic edition):
James,
That still identifies God as one person, the Father. It does not say ‘I believe in God the almighty who is really God the Father almighty and God the son almighty (creator of heaven and earth), and God the Holy Spirit almighty’.
The fact is that the Apostles’ Creed is anathema to Trinitarian theology. It identifies God as one person, the Father. It identifies only the Father as the almighty. It identifies the Father as creator of heaven and earth. Trinitarians don’t believe any of that.
I believe you need a crash course in divine agency. Regardless of whether or not you think Jesus was worshipped, the fact is that the Apostles’ Creed does not identify him as God. There’s no escaping this fact. This is why Trinitarians abandoned the Apostles’ Creed in favour of the later Creeds.
Fortigurn,
Not all translations of the Creed say “I believe in one God.” For example, I recently reviewed a translation that said, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty.” So that criticism sounds arbitrary to me. But I’m glad that we agree that the Early Church was monotheistic.
Here are some examples of biblical verses that support the worship of Jesus: Matthew 28:9, Hebrews 1:6, and Revelation 5:13.
By the way, Zechariah said that YHWH would stand on the Mountain of Olives, which implied that the Messiah was YHWH.
James,
I know you didn’t. That’s why I said ‘You say that the Creed in some way indicates that it is actually Jesus Christ who is ‘God almighty’?’, and asked where it does so.
This is indistinct. What do you mean by ‘implied’? Where are such implications to be found? If the ancient community says they worship God, the Father (one person), as God almighty, why do you say they really worshipped two or three, or however many more you want, as God almighty?
Completely monotheistic.
Why would you assume that? Where is it referred to anywhere in the Bible?
Here’s where you’re actually choosing to pay no attention to what they actually wrote. They wrote ‘I believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth’, and you are telling them ‘No, no that’s wrong, that’s not what you believe, you believe there is one God, the Father almighty and one God the son almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and there is only one God’.
I agree. The same applies to a Trinitarian reading.
Thank you, Fortigurn.
I didn’t say that the Creed clarified that, but the ancient community from where the Creed came implied that Jesus is God Almighty. For example, I hope that we agree that the Early Church considered itself monotheistic, at least mostly. Is that correct? (I assume that some were bitheists, but the apostles appeared strong on monotheism.) And I assume that most in the Early Church worshiped Jesus. Do we agree on that? Now here is where I’m thinking in modern concepts: Good monotheists worship nothing less than God Almighty. Therefore, the Early Church that produced the Creed believed that Jesus was God Almighty.
I understand that a resourceful bitheist could agree with the Creed, but as far as I understand, that would have taken the Creed out of context of monotheism.
James,
Well let’s see what the Apostles’ Creed actually says:
* I believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth
* I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord
You say that the Creed in some way indicates that it is actually Jesus Christ who is ‘God almighty’? Where does it indicate this?
Oops, make that “believers who were monotheists.”
Ah, done in by “in.” Okay.
Anyway, I also believe that that the Apostles’ Creed needs to be read within the context of believers who were monotheism and the worship of Jesus, which was the original context of of the Apostles’ Creed. And given that context, the Apostles’ Creed implied that Jesus is God Almighty, or as some say, “fully God” as opposed to a secondary polytheistic god. May I ask, Dale, do you disagree with me?
James, the word ‘in’ is a problem here. This means that ‘God’ is one being within whom three ‘persons’ somehow reside. This does not look like the orthodox trinity.
I disagree that “‘one God, eternally existent in three persons’ is probably most naturally understood as modalism.” Or do you believe that “one God who is three persons” is probably most naturally understood as modalism? If both of those statements look like modalism to you, then we have a huge differences in interpreting English. And if only the former looks like modalism, then I have no idea ow you see this. Could you please try to explain this to me?
Come on guys, there’s no need for this. 🙁
You are superior, Forigurn, have a nice day.
Thanks Helez, I’m aware of that so I don’t ask you questions which are predicated on you sharing my beliefs. It saves time all round.
Great, we’re all on the same page now. Let’s move on.
😀
Fortigurn, neither Dale nor I are Christadelphians.
Helez, I was making my position clear. Is it clear?
No Helez, I think Fortigurn was simply making his position clear.
Fortigurn, I know that. Was that supposed to be an answer to my questions? Or are you just doing your typical ridicule?
Dale,
A sine qua non of being a literal father is being responsible for bringing a child into existence. This took place both in the case of Adam, and the case of Christ. I don’t see that there’s a difference here. You suggest that Adam was created ‘wholly by God’, yet that Christ was ‘the product of Mary and God – her egg, and a sperm created ex nihilo’, but Adam was created from the dust of the earth, meaning he wasn’t created ex nihilo either. That doesn’t make Adam the son of God and the earth.
Helez, neither Dale nor I are JWs.
I’m guessing that Kenny’s baffled by your insistence on God being the literal father of Jesus. I actually don’t think that’s what you mean… I think you mean that in your view, Jesus must be the “son of God” in exactly the same sense as Adam was. But, he isn’t – Adam was wholly made by God, whereas Jesus in your view is the product of Mary and God – her egg, and a sperm created ex nihilo, right? In your view, God is literally the father of neither one. But why, in your view, must the meaning of “son of God” be exactly the same in these two cases?
Kenny, see the first comment on this post.
Further to my point above, it seems that your theology does not affirm Jesus as the Son of God at all. Instead, you are basically saying that Jesus’ relationship with the Father merely resembles the relationship of a son to a father.
Yet that is not what Scripture says. Scripture says that Jesus is the Son of God. This is clearly a major sticking point for Trinitarian Christology, and one with serious theological consequences. If Jesus is not God’s Son but merely shares a relationship “resembling” the human father/son relationship, we are left with a Trinitarian Christ who cannot legitimately claim to be the Son of God.
Interesting.
OK Kenny, if you’re committed to that logic, let’s see how it holds up.
According to your argument we can say that your relationship to me resembles the relationship of a son to a father because we share the same nature and sons have the nature that they do because their fathers have that nature. Ergo, you are my son. Is that cool with you?
Now let’s unpack this a little further.
Scripture tells us that Adam was the son of God. Why? Because he shared the same nature? No, that was obviously not the reason because Adam did not share the nature of God. So we’ve immediately established that your sonship theory cannot explain why Adam is described as the son of God. Clearly we need a better explanation.
Here’s a suggestion: look at the Bible’s description of relationships between fathers and sons, whether figurative or literal. Check them for the lowest common denomination and tell me what it is. Hint: the lowest common denominator is not a shared nature.
Dave – I think we can all agree that the ‘Son of God’ language is metaphorical. For instance, God surely lacks reproductive organs. The question is, in what ways is the relationship of Christ to God like the relationship of a son to a father? Many of the ancients (especially Athanasius) thought that the following two parallels held: (1) sons have the same nature (belong to the same species) as their fathers; (2) sons have the nature (belong to the species) that they do because their fathers have that nature. This is what these people thought it meant to say that Christ is the Son of God. Orthodox trinitarians can and do hold that Christ’s relationship to the Father is like the relationship of a son to a father in both of these respects. Now, in the case of biological fathers and sons, the ‘because’ in (2) is a simple causal relationship, taking place in time and space. Orthodox trinitarians deny that the relationship of Christ to the Father resembles the relationship of a biological son to a father in this respect.
I agree with Dale that it’s a bit of a stretch to read all of this into the Apostles’ Creed. All I am saying is that, as I said in the first place, this isn’t completely absurd. I do think that the issue about entailments is relevant, because I think one could defend the claim that, for instance, given the other commitments of those who used the Apostles’ Creed in the early church, they could only have consistently affirmed that Christ was “God’s only Son” if it was interpreted in a way that broadly resembled the view of the councils. One could also argue, as Edgar mentioned, that given the cultural background of the Gentile Christians who used this Creed, it would have been understood in a fairly robust sense, like the one I’m suggesting. One could defend this claim in either of these ways, but it would take a lot of work; it’s the sort of thing one defends in a book, not in a blog comment. So I claim that it’s not “completely absurd” to say that this is what the creed means by “God’s only Son,” but it’s far from obvious that the claim is actually true.
Kenny:
That argument works perfectly for people who believe (a) Jesus’ existence had a beginning in time, (b) his deity is the result of his production by the Father, and (c) he is therefore a “second god” alongside the Father.
Justin Martyr, Origen and other subordinationists have been quite happy with all of this (Origen famously said Jesus is not autotheos). But it is not what Trinitarianism teaches.
Trinitarians cannot claim that Jesus shares the nature of the Father by virtue of being His Son, because that would require an ontological relationship which Trinitarianism rejects as heretical.
Pingback: trinities - No Trinity, No Job – Part 1 (Dale)
I agree: there is probably a lot more to this than has come to light.
Sic’m, Curious George.
Here is some information from one of Geza Vermes’ books:
“To a Greek speaker in Alexandria, Antioch or Athens at the turn of the eras, the concept huios theou, son of God, would have brought to mind either one of the many offspring of the Olympian deities, or possibly a deified Egyptian-Ptolemaic king, or the divine emperor
of Rome, descendant of the apotheosized Julius Caesar. But to a Jew, the corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic phrase would have applied to none of these. For him, son of God could refer, in an ascending order, to any of the children of Israel; or to a good Jew; or to a
charismatic holy Jew; or to the king of Israel; or in particular to the royal Messiah; and finally, in a different sense, to an angelic or heavenly being. In other words, ‘son of God’ was always understood metaphorically in Jewish circles. In Jewish sources,
its use never implies participation by the person so-named in the divine nature. It may in consequence safely be assumed that if the medium in which Christian theology developed had been Hebrew and not Greek, it would not have produced an incarnation doctrine as this is traditionally understood” (Jesus
in His Jewish Context, page 66).
See Job 38:4, 7
Dale,
I really want to avoid the whole hiring and firing issue concerning World Vision. Contrariwise, I would like to observe that the proposition “fully God” in reference to the Son of God seems fairly easy to parse or divine. It appears to me that Trinitarians are ultimately saying that the Son of God exemplifies or instantiates every property that the Father exemplifies or instantiates with the exception of a peculiar property (P), namely, divine paternity.
Second, Geza Vermes has produced some good work on the term “son” and how it was understood within the biblical context, long before Athanasius and Augustine.
Regards,
Edgar
Hey Kenny,
Thanks for the comments.
Sure, but this is hardly a matter of mere details.
If that’s their intent, they failed. As is pretty well known now, Jesus is rarely called “God” and the meaning of those passages is contended, sometimes as to translation, always as to interpretation. The “three persons in God” or “God in three persons” phrases just flat are not biblical. So if the desire is to avoid (controversial) theory, and stick to the Bible, this is a clear fail, don’t you think?
I think any “full divinity” idea is obviously not implied by that document. Part of the reason I think this, is that when something like the creed was coming into wide use in the 2nd c., logos theology reigned, at least among certain elites. Just as with the Bible, we shouldn’t just read whatever we like back into the text.
About the Son of God claim – I know that Athanasius insisted that Jesus must be a *true* Son and thus must share his Father’s nature and at least in some ways be “equal to” him. But I’m not clear about how early this inference comes in. JT – you out there?
I’d have to check this, but I suspect that sort of argument only became popular in the 4th c. Why? Because the “son of God” usage in the Bible is so much more liberal than that. You and I, by being Christians, and God’s children. Jesus is the unique son in the NT, but it far from clear that this implies an equality or numerical sameness of nature. Keep in mind that all manner of unitarians, subordinationists, and proponens of “spirit Christology” etc. don’t have any obvious problem with texts like Col 2:9.
That is a tough problem. But let’s be distinguish logical entailments from mere associations or common interpretations – the kind of mushy statements we’re looking at here rule out little. Sure, someone may *intend* them to rule out, e.g. phenomenal modalism, but they just don’t have enough content to do that, right?
Dale, Fortigurn, would your conscience allow you to be directly employed by the Catholic Church as, for example, an accountant?
Working as an accountant is obviously not wrong in itself. But would it make you an accomplice of something that is displeasing to God? (Question 2)
Does it to some extent matter how other people might see it that you are a direct employee of the Catholic Church? (Question 3)
Dale – On your point about the vagueness of the formulation, I wouldn’t think they would want a formulation that distinguished between, e.g., social trinitarianism, ‘Latin’ trinitarianism, and noumenal modalism. As you point out, they probably want to rule out phenomenal modalism, and it’s not clear that their formulation does that, but they probably don’t want to require uniformity on the details of the metaphysics of the trinity.
I think part of what goes on with a lot of these Protestant or ecumenical Christian organizations is that they are trying to stick close to the Bible. It’s pretty clear that the Bible says that Jesus is God (whatever the meaning of ‘is’ is in that statement!), and a case can be made that the Bible teaches that Jesus is ‘fully’ God in, e.g., Col. 2:9. But, as people have been pointing out since the fourth century, the homoousion is not to be found in Scripture. So probably these guys are trying to stick closer to Biblical formulations.
I don’t think it’s completely absurd to claim that the Apostle’s Creed carries an implicit commitment to the divinity of Christ. It does, after all, call him the son of God and, as many of the ancients pointed out, sons share in the nature of their parents. There is a difficult problem, however, with any standard of orthodoxy: if someone is required to affirm a statement, how far do we require her to affirm its entailments? Surely we don’t require someone to know and affirm everything the creed entails (after all, the creed entails either the truth or the falsity of Goldbach’s Conjecture!), but if someone is required to affirm that p, we would like to require them to affirm not-not-p.
Helez, I wouldn’t work in a World Vision department the purpose of which was to preach a doctrine in which I didn’t believe. But I don’t see that’s the case here. It looks like aid work to me.
Sure, there are going to be plenty of people who claim to Jesus that they did all kinds of amazing things in his name, and he is going to reject them utterly claiming he never knew them. That’s his prerogative.
I agree that there would come a point where a loyal worshiper of God should not join up as a member. I wouldn’t run out and join the Society for Krishna Consciousness, for example, so that I could have something in common with my Hindu neighbors.
But I might take a job from them. Being an employee doesn’t obviously commit one to everything the leadership believes, though – even when one agrees to work within the confines of a statement of values, and when one agrees to an extremely vague statement of faith. It’s hard to see, e.g. anything wrong with the employment Fortigurn mentions.
But about this case, of World Vision – these are (in your view, confused and misguided) worshipers of God and people trying to follow Jesus, doing good things in God’s and in Jesus’s name. It’s hard to imagine that God’s going to hold you blameworthy for working for them. You must think God is one mean doctrinal stickler – holding false theories is one thing, but merely working alongside people with false theories, to (largely) good ends? Maybe it’s a matter of conscience, but there’s such thing as having an off-kilter, over-sensitive conscience.
Fortigurn, Dale, to work with Trinitarians (or Muslims) is quite something else then to be employed by a religious Trinitarian organization that is devoted to a Mission that is partly “to bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.” Which, in their case, quite probably includes telling people that Jesus is God. See the difference?
You guys think it is acceptable for a true worshiper to be a direct employee of a false religious organization? (Question 1)
On your Red Cresent point Dale, I actually did some work for the Tzu Chi Buddhists here in Taiwan. I taught their college students at an English camp. These students were studying to become medical staff (typically nurses), and I couldn’t help thinking the more educated medical staff and nurses we have around the place, the better off we’ll all be.
Thanks Dale. I hesitated to speak for you, but sometimes its encouraging to know that some people have understood you, even if others haven’t.
Fortigurn, well put.
Helez,
Suppose you lived in Saudi Arabia, and had some rare skill that was needed by the Red Crescent – supposing that the Red Crescent was explicitly Muslim, and normally only hired believing Muslims. Do you think it would be a betrayal of the Christian God to work there?
I don’t. I think God would care more about the good they were accomplishing for natural disaster or war victims, etc., than about my being somehow sullied by the association.
If you agree, then all the more so, in the case of a Christian group with theology you disagree with – at least, when that group is accomplishing some obvious good.
I really have no idea what the views of these three fired employee are. But it is easy to see how they’d think it reasonable to continue working at World Vision, even IF in some sense the employees were not trinitarians.
Helez, Dale is using this situation to examine typical formulations of the Trinity. That is after all the focus of this site. He is not attempting to discuss the issue of whether or not it is valid for non-Trinitarians to work with Trinitarians.
His point that even a Unitarian could, with a stretch, agree with the World Vision SoF simply shows how badly the SoF is put together.
Hi,
I thought Christians were not meant to sue each other? But then Christians are not meant to burn one another at the stake. Is this a new inquisition?
Dale, you spent a lot of time analyzing how a unitarian might explain World Vision’s statement of faith, and still agree with it. But you seem to pass over the obvious intention of World Vision. They are a Trinitarian religious organization and apparently want Trinitarian employees that largely agree with their religious convictions. Why would a unitarian even want to work there?
Dale, I didn’t. My four questions were meant to bring some attention to possible principles that might (or should?) influence a Christian on his choice of work. You don’t think the questions are valid? Or, that the possible principles attracting attention by these questions can be applied to this case?
Err… comparing World Vision to “an abortion clinic, or a house of prostitution”… well, that leaves me speechless!
Helez, how much time have you spent in contact with JWs?
Some questions:
Why would it be acceptable for a true worshiper to be a direct employee of a false religious organization?
Wouldn’t he be sharing in their works and sins if he was a regular employee of an organization that was teaching or promoting false worship?
How would other people see this employee working for such a organization?
Could a true worshiper be employed in an abortion clinic, or a house of prostitution, even if his daily work there was merely sweeping floors?
DIY Trinitarianism. Never a good idea.
Comments are closed.