Thoughts on the World Vision Fiasco

Rather than get dragged into an attempt to convince the other side of my position, I'd like to share to some thoughts on why many evangelicals like myself are upset (there's more to it than you think) and a surprising area we might be able to agree upon.

From what I can tell, World Vision claims to be a Christian organization and did not allow staff to be in any kind of LGBTQ relationship until Tuesday morning.  To begin with, if they were not a Christian organization, like the Red Cross, United Way, Peace Corp, very few people would have cared if they made that change.  There's no way to get around Apostolic teaching that "homosexuals (people that practice homosexual lifestyles, not those who simply struggle with homosexual desires) will not inherit the Kingdom of God".  It baffles me how Ben Corey can claim to believe in the "affirmation of the inspiration of scripture and that the original autographs were inerrant" which includes Romans 2, and I Corinthians 6:9-11 and support homosexual relationships. That's like a pimp going home at night and adding an "End It" logo to his Facebook page.  There's no way you can get around it.  You cannot translate it away, claim it's a bad manuscript, claim it's Old Testament and does not apply to the church, or claim that it's a personal opinion of Paul's. People that do this will perish.

Next, they changed the rules on Christian workers and supporters already with World Vision.  We assume they would follow apostolic teaching when we saw them claiming to be committed to following scripture and holding this policy.  How does an evangelical worker or supporter feel when they change the rules without notice.

Finally, for all the talk about letting children starve from the liberals, they have never stopped to ask how this discussion might go between World Vision and the people they want to help.
     WV:  We're sorry, your supporters have stopped
     Poor African that believes homosexual behavior is wrong:  Why?
     WV:  We have started to allow people that claim to be gay and Christian to work for us.     Evangelicals no longer feel they can work with us.
     Poor African that believes homosexual behavior is wrong:  Stunned, awkward silence followed by some uncomfortable questions.
Looking at what's happened in Uganda, the way African Anglicans have split from their 1st world counterparts on this issue, and how African Methodists have stopped the "Reconciling Movement" of the UMC in its tracks, I'm not convinced they would have seen those being faithful to scripture as the bad guys.

Now, an area that we can agree upon is hiring non Christians, specifically LGBTQ people.  I would have no problem with my church contracting an LGBTQ architect for a building expansion, accountant for an audit, or building contractor.  Ironically, I would be deeply bothered if they hired an adulterer but that's another topic.  However, because of what Paul says that "homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God", there is no way I could be a part of a church with an LGBTQ staff member.  I have good friends that I love deeply that disagree about having heterosexual sex outside of marriage.  This same passage also says "fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God".  If they were to tell me they want to keep having sex outside of marriage while following Jesus, should I extend the right hand of fellowship to them and recognize them as Christians?

Are the Father and Son Equal?

In ancient times, the Arians, and in modern times, the "Jehovah's Witnesses" have attempted to argue against the doctrine of the trinity by claiming Jesus is inferior to the Father.  Their argument is built around the following scriptures:
John 14:28 wherein Jesus ends by saying, "the Father is greater than I" and John 5:19 where Jesus claims the Son can do nothing without the Father.  The rest of scripture aids us in understanding these:
1.  In John 1:1-14, we learn that the "word was God" and that it "became flesh" and dwelt among us.
2.  And, in case someone wants to make the argument that Jesus only had some of the divine nature, Paul writes in Col 2:9 that all of the divine nature dwells "fleshly" in Jesus.
So, now we face an apparent contradiction in scripture.  Is there a way to reconcile this?  Yes.
In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul states that Jesus was in the form of God but emptied himself by taking the form of a human servant.  So, we now have a being that is both human and Divine.  His finite human nature was inferior to the limitless divine nature of the Father.  His divine nature could not have been because it was, according to Paul, the entire divine nature.  He had everything the Father did.