When degendering marriage through the legalization of same-sex marriage was being proposed by activists decades ago, those who opposed it were regularly told to settle down because the change would never impact them. It was a merely a private matter between two people. “How will my private same-sex marriage ever harm you?” we were repeatedly told. That was wholly disingenuous. 

A United States district judge ruled in November that World Vision, a global Christian relief ministry based in the Seattle area, has no right to hold its employees to biblical Christian sexual ethics.

In January 2021, World Vision withdrew an offer of employment to Aubry McMahon as a customer service representative upon learning she was in a same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage, of course, is at dramatic odds with Jesus’ clear teaching.

Rather than respecting World Vision’s right to adhere to the clear convictions of the world’s largest religion, McMahon took the Christian ministry to court.

Initially, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart sided with World Vision, agreeing in June that the organization has the constitutional right to make employment decisions in line with its designation as a Christian ministry.

Now this new ruling signifies a surprising flip-flop by the judge, declaring the case can proceed “to trial to determine the appropriate relief that should be granted”to McMahon by World Vision.

This ruling makes all Christian ministries who seek to live faithfully by the teachings of Jesus deeply vulnerable to the controlling power of the new sexual regime, regardless of how hard they try avoiding LGBT topics.

It is not a matter of how “kind” or “winsome” the ministry is. World Vision is as winsome a ministry as they come. It is whether you insist on adhering to a biblical ethic of sexuality and the family that makes all of us vulnerable. All Christians must appreciate that is precisely what this ruling signifies.

Judge’s Ruling

This federal judge ruled that World Vision rescinding its offer of employment to McMahon “facially discriminates on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status in violation of [federal] Title VII and WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination].”

The judge’s statement curiously admits that “the ministerial exception [of the First Amendment] ensures that courts ‘stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions.’”

Read More