Evangelical group World Vision joins 34 Brazilian left-wing groups to declare that homeschooling “poses risks” to children and adolescents

By Julio Severo

With the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and children unable to attend school in Brazil, many parents are opting for homeschooling. In reaction, Brazilian left-wingers prepared a manifesto on May 14, 2020 against homeschooling. The manifesto, entitled “In addition to being unconstitutional, homeschooling poses risks to children and adolescents, say 35 organizations in a technical note,” was signed by 35 Brazilian left-wing organizations, including World Vision.

The Brazilian branch of World Vision, which was founded by evangelicals, should fulfill an evangelical mission, and not ally with left-wing groups that constantly attack evangelicals and their values.

What are the complaints from the 35 left-wing groups, including World Vision, against homeschooling?

The manifest complains that “there is no legal support for the practice of homeschooling in Brazil” and that homeschooling “presents other serious risks for the protection of children and adolescents,” adding that “the risks are based on high rates of violence and sexual abuse and child labor occur within the family environment.”

The manifest explains:

According to data from the Ministry of Health, 68% of cases of sexual violence against children and adolescents occur in the home. And most victims of sexual violence are children and adolescents (0 to 17 years old) and female.

With data from the 2019 Brazilian Public Security Yearbook, the technical note shows that every hour, four girls up to 13 years old are raped. And that 66% of male children raped in Brazil are between zero and 15 years old.

The manifesto then blames all this sexual violence in the family environment, without explaining exactly what that environment is. The 35 left-wing groups see the family environment as a “serious risk” environment.

While the normal homeschooling environment is composed of conservative married parents (meaning they are not divorced or remarried because most homeschoolers are practicing Christians), the “family environment” vaguely described by the manifesto does not always have this conservative profile.

If the manifesto were honest, especially with the presence of a large evangelical group that has an international operation, it would praise homeschooling and denounce relationships outside of marriage. But the manifesto does the opposite: it uses the obvious higher violence of relationships outside of marriage, so defended by the left, but prone to abuse, as evidence that homeschooling would be bad.

Traditionally, the left defends relationships outside of marriage, with all its dangers and violence.

And the left traditionally attacks the traditional family, because a conservative married father and mother who educate their children threaten the hegemonic ideological indoctrination of the left in schools. For this reason, the left fights to take children out from families and place them directly under the left-wing indoctrination of schools. A child is much more likely to become a lefty by attending school than by studying in a conservative home.

The left finds easier to monitor and inspect children at school than in homes. One of these inspections includes the issue of physical discipline of children. According to the Spanking Law, passed by socialists in 2014, Brazilian parents are prohibited from physically disciplining their children for disobedience. According to this socialist law, such a discipline constitutes “violence.” So, when a socialist manifesto mentions “child abuse,” that abuse includes what without socialism is not abuse, but a natural right of parents.

The manifesto concludes:

Regulating the practice of homeschooling can aggravate cases of exploitation, abuse and violence against children and adolescents. “It is to prioritize the agenda of a minority — in many cases fundamentalist — to the detriment of the right of the majority. It is, therefore, extremely irresponsible from the point of view of not only education but also the protection of children and adolescents.”

The language of the manifesto, shamefully supported by World Vision, reveals the center of its concern by saying that the legalization of homeschooling prioritizes the agenda of a “fundamentalist” minority. This term is often used not to describe unhealthy family environments, but Christian families following biblical and conservative principles. In no way does homeschooling harm most people, as the document points out, because homeschooling is never imposed on anyone. But, of course, it brings huge losses to the left.

The manifesto considers the conservative home to be an unsafe environment — for socialist indoctrination, of course — and the school environment to be safe — for socialist indoctrination, of course.

As a homeschooling advocate in Brazil for over 20 years (I am the translator of the book They Way Home, by Mary Pride), the only risk I see is the hijacking of the homeschooling banner. In the administration of Jair Bolsonaro, many occult adherents hold important positions, including in the area of education. These occultists were appointed by Olavo de Carvalho, Bolsonaro’s guru. Carvalho is a member of the Traditionalist School, whose most prominent member was Julius Evola, guru of the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

Although Bolsonaro has been elected mainly by evangelicals, he chose to fill his administration with adherents of Carvalho, who use conservatism, including homeschooling, to promote his occult “traditionalist” agenda.

However, the manifesto attacks all homeschooling supporters in Brazil, whether they do it for Christian reasons or for esoteric and “traditionalist” reasons.

Among the 35 groups that signed the socialist document are:

* Geledés Instituto da Mulher Negra, a black supremacist organization that advocates abortion and homosexuality.

* Agenda 2030 Working Group in Brazil, a radically socialist group.

* Paulo Freire Institute, a radically socialist group.

* MST (Landless Rural Workers Movement), a radically socialist group.

* And World Vision.

How does a huge evangelical group like World Vision sign a document that attacks the conservative home as an unsafe environment — for socialist indoctrination — and the school environment as safe — for socialist indoctrination?

Thousands of evangelicals in the U.S. and other countries send donations to World Vision to feed children, not to feed left-wing anti-family fanaticism.

The natural family environment is the greatest protection for the child. To place the school, especially the public school, as a greater protection than the family is something that only socialists do, and something that World Vision is doing by joining 35 radical left-wing groups.

It is time for Christians who send their donations to World Vision to ask questions of this organization that should be at the service of the Gospel and the welfare of children, not the welfare of socialism.

Portuguese version of this article: Entidade evangélica Visão Mundial se une a 34 organizações esquerdistas para declarar que a educação escolar em casa “traz riscos” para crianças e adolescentes

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

A New Reformation to Counter-Attack the Great Gates of Hell?

Homeschooling in Brazil: Where Is it Headed?

An Undercover Agent of the Inquisition in Brazil’s Ministry of Education?

Socialist Theology in the Assemblies of God in Brazil

By Julio Severo

Socialist evangelicals in Latin America have become revolted that C. René Padilla, who was scheduled to deliver the main lecture on Theology of Integral Mission at FAECAD (Assemblies of God Evangelical School in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) in March 10, 2017, had his lecture cancelled. His lecture would be sponsored by World Vision Brazil.

In an article titled “Welcome to the Past! In Solidarity to Dr. C. René Padilla, Now Nicknamed a ‘Marxist Christian,’” published by the left-wing Latin American Theological Fellowship, Harold Segura decried the cancellation and assured that the Theology of Integral Mission has nothing to do with Marxism.

His article purports, according to his own words,

“To express that I am uncomfortable with the cancellation of the lecture and my uneasiness with the reasons that justified it. To cancel such lecture by labeling as Marxist a lecturer as Padilla is to ignore what Marxism is, is to ignore who René Padilla is and forget the way a theological reflection is done.”

Segura also said,

“I think that what happened in Rio de Janeiro is a sign confirming what we are seeing also in other Latin American nations: a resurgence of past discussions. The return of old Christian squabbles of the 1970s and 1980s, when TIM appeared. In that time, those daring to talk about social responsibility in the churches were labeled communists; those venturing to preach in defense of social justice were under suspicion of Marxist militancy, and those believing in preferential option for the poor were excluded for being undesirable liberation theologians.”

In his Twitter account, Segura showed solidarity to Padilla and also to the gender ideology, by saying,

“Do you know what is gender equality? UNESCO explains key concepts for discussing in a very informed way.”

Actually, UNESCO does not explain gender equality. UNESCO advocates and promotes it. In 2012, UNESCO and other UN agencies asked Brazilian president to criminalize “homophobia.”

The gender ideology is one of the main left-wing banners promoting the homosexualist agenda. But Segura does not accept the label “Marxist” even when he carries its banner.

He decries the defeat of several left-wing governments in Latin America, and he recognizes that most these governments were promoting the gender ideology. He recognizes that Socialist President Dilma Rousseff was impeached especially by the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus, among several reasons, over the gender ideology.

He sees these defeats as throwbacks to the Theology of Integral Mission (TIM). While he tries to defend TIM as a non-political theology, he cannot help lamenting over the political defeats of the Left in Latin America.

About 50 years ago, C. Peter Wagner warned in Latin American evangelical congresses that TIM was Marxist. In 1969, when participating in CLADE (Latin-American Congress of Evangelization), Wagner distributed his book that affirmed that the mission of the church is to prioritize personal salvation and warned of the dangers of leftist theology. He gave his book because evangelical leaders were beginning to praise TIM.

In the 1st Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in 1974, while Padilla was leading efforts to promote TIM, Wagner was leading conservative efforts against TIM.

Nevertheless all resistance decades ago, TIM grew internationally. Today, thanks to John Stott and his incredible work of make-up and enabling, TIM dominates Lausanne as an elegant social theology. Wagner’s resistance has been forgotten and TIM Latin American theologians have prevailed.

In 2014, Lausanne paid Wagner’s resistance back in the same coin, by holding in Brazil a meeting of Lausanne leaders against Wagner and his apostolic movement. The meeting was led by TIM leaders, especially Rev. Valdir Steuernagel.

In my 2013 e-book “Theology of Liberation vs. Theology of Prosperity,” there is a special endorsement by C. Peter Wagner, where he said,

“It is very important to be aware of the inroads that Marxist ideology has made into some branches of Christianity. In Latin America the nice-sounding concept of misión integral (integral mission) has turned out to be a thinly-disguised platform for leftist politics. Julio Severo understands this and he skillfully exposes these potentially harmful ideas in his book, Theology of Liberation vs. Theology of Prosperity. In it he helps bring forth the reality that even deeper and more permanent social change from poverty to prosperity can be effectively produced by proclaiming and practicing the biblical doctrine of the kingdom, opening the door for the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. This is a book that I highly recommend!”

For information on how to get the e-book “Theology of Liberation vs. Theology of Prosperity,” click ON THIS LINK.

Wagner’s warnings 50 years ago and today are very important. If TIM has nothing to do with Marxism, why do its adherents defend the gender ideology and the left-wing governments in Latin America that promote this ideology and several other anti-family ideologies?

Padilla’s lecture on Theology of Integral Mission at FAECAD was publicized within its institution in a very subtle and discreet way.

By the explosive reaction of TIM adherents, I suppose the lecture was cancelled.

Marcos Habib, a Brazilian who introduces himself in his Facebook as a “follower of Jesus Christ” and “communist militant,” said,

“There is again the litany of conservative ministers against the lecture at FAECAD (Assemblies of God Evangelical School) with René Padilla. Shi***ng boring people. They do not know the Theology of Integral Mission, but they criticize it as if they did it. What these people really want is to control church-goers. When there are church-goers engaged, there is a church fighting for the emancipation of the oppressed and the poor. Who is Julio Severo??? A talker, spoilt and a sh**.”

Rev. Mateus Feliciano, a theologian and TIM advocate, sent me a private message asking me to remove articles against TIM and Padilla; if not, he would report me. And in his Facebook account he asked publicly,

“Gang, I ask your assistance to remove a post of religious intolerance and deceptive information here in Facebook. Please, read this post and report!”

Religious intolerance because of a Christian view disagreeing with socialism and TIM?

Yet, my warning probably came too late. In his article of solidarity to Padilla, Harold Segura assured that in February 2016 he delivered the main lecture at FAECAD. He spoke about the Theology of Integral Mission and ecumenism.

I had thought that Padilla would be introducing TIM for the first time in the Assemblies of God. Segura has already done it. Padilla would only reinforce the initial introduction. TIM is already present in the Assemblies of God in Brazil through their most important theological institution.

Segura informed his readers that he is travelling to São Paulo, Brazil, to speak at the congress Integral Mission: Ways and Perspectives in the 21st Century. The congress is happening this week.

According to Segura, this major TIM congress will be sponsored by World Vision Brazil, and will have several speakers who are TIM advocates, including René Padilla, Ariovaldo Ramos, Ed René Kivitz, Valdir Steuernagel (whom he called a friend and former director), Christian Gillis, Carlos Pinheiro Queiroz, Ziel Machado and Regina Sánchez.

Ariovaldo Ramos, one of the main TIM advocates in Brazil, is famous for having defended socialists Hugo Chavez and Dilma Rousseff. Why then try to say that TIM has nothing to do with socialism and politics?

TIM adherents praise Marxists and advocate Marxist politics, including the gender ideology, but do they refuse the label “Marxist” for their theology?

Valdir Steuernagel is a powerful leader in the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession in Brazil (ECLCB).

ECLCB has international liberal leaders. Rev. Walter Altmann, a former ECLCB president, is the moderator of the World Council of Churches and he is an international theologian renowned for defending Liberation Theology (LT).

Steuernagel is known in Brazil as a TIM activist and internationally known for his leadership roles in the Lausanne Movement and in the World Evangelical Alliance.

From this pro-LT and pro-TIM liberal environment, what can result? A homosexualist theologian called Andre Musskopf.

With Altmann, ECLCB is in the Liberation Theology forefront.

With Steuernagel, ECLCB is in the Theology of Integral Mission forefront.

With Musskopf, ECLCB is in the Gay Theology forefront.

Of course, Steuernagel is not more prominent in TIM advocacy than Calvinist Ariovaldo Ramos and Caio Fábio.

TIM has no problem to walk hand in hand with Liberation Theology and Gay Theology.

Yet, if you cannot call TIM and its adherents socialist and liberal, so it follows that you cannot call ECLCB and its leaders liberal and socialist.

If Segura, Padilla and other liberal evangelicals want to defend the gender ideology at ECLCB and other liberal denominations, they will be warmly welcome there.

Yet, why do they insist in conquering the Assemblies of God, the largest evangelical denomination in Brazil?

Portuguese version of this article: Teologia socialista na Assembleia de Deus no Brasil

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Theology of Integral Mission

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

C. Peter Wagner, Pioneer in the Apostolic Movement and Pioneering Fighter Against Theology of Integral Mission, Goes on to Glory

Do Not Be an Enabler of Evil! Lessons from Lausanne

Lausanne, Theology of Integral Mission and Israel

Karl Marx’s Spirit in Lausanne: Theology of Integral Mission

Theological Faggoting: Liberation Theology and Theology of Integral Mission Environment Producing Gay Theology in Brazil

Brazilian Pentecostals: Church Growth Endangered by Socialist Embrace

Liberation Theology and Neo-Pentecostalism: A Leading Challenge to the Evangelical Churches in Brazil

The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America

Why Does The Christian Post Espouse Leftism in Brazil?

By Julio Severo

The U.S. version of The Christian Post rightly addressed the recent World Vision flap on gay “marriage” by quoting prominent evangelical leaders. Their responses were mostly conservative. The first World Vision (WV) stance favoring this faux marriage was universally disapproved among conservative Christians. Its repentance was welcome.

In no way, the Christian Post condemned these conservative leaders and their views.

In a strange twist, the Brazilian version of The Christian Post decided not only to publish nothing from its U.S. version on the WV flap, but it also addressed it from a liberal viewpoint. The only article by the Brazilian Christian Post on this issue was “Obsessão evangélica sobre homossexualidade está fora de controle, relata autora” (Evangelical Obsession about Homosexuality Is Out of Control, Says Author), by Luciano Portela.

The author is Rachel Held Evans, who in a recent CNN article said, “I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked” on gay “marriage.”

In this article, she condemned conservative evangelicals as Albert Mohler and the Assemblies of God denomination for their opposition to the initial WV pro-gay “marriage” decision.

Evans’ liberalism is obvious. In her personal blog, she said, “As I advocated for the election (and re-election) of President Obama, I confess I grew somewhat embarrassed by the pro-life cause.” Of course, Obama is an avid advocate of gay “marriage” and abortion.

Evans is a columnist in the leftist The Huffington Post. She is scheduled to be a speaker at the Festival of Faith & Writing, April 10-12, 2014. The event, which purposes to train a new generation of Christian writers, will be held by the Calvin College, which is connected with the Christian Reformed Church.

Portela, the journalist of the Brazilian Christian Post, kept quiet about the endemic liberalism among many American Calvinists in his “Evangelical Obsession about Homosexuality Is Out of Control, Says Author.”

He also kept quiet about the church affiliation of Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision. Stearns attends the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A (PCUSA).

Most Brazilian evangelicals, even Presbyterians, do not know that PCUSA is pro-sodomy, liberal, anti-Israel, pro-abortion, etc.

A time ago, a Presbyterian minister in Brazil told me that he did not know that PCUSA was so liberal.

If Portela did not quote prominent U.S. evangelical leaders and their views on the WV gay “marriage” flap because Brazilian readers are not familiar with them, so why did he choose an American liberal author who is less known?

Brazil has its own liberal problems among evangelicals, including the Brazilian branch of World Vision, whose director, Ariovaldo Ramos, said,

“Everybody who, in everyplace, fights against poverty, for the human liberation, for justice and rights available to everybody had, in Hugo Chávez, a reference of commitment to the poor and the oppressed.”

He also said,

“The best we could say of someone is that, because he lived here, the world became better! We can say this of Hugo Chávez!”

Apparently, some form of liberalism has hit the Brazilian Christian Post, which has published articles by Rev. Johnny Bernardo, who has a long history of affiliation with the Communist Party of Brazil and recently supported the decriminalization of marijuana in Brazil.

Portela’s article “Evangelical Obsession about Homosexuality Is Out of Control” is not a condemnation of a liberal American author and her radical agenda, but of conservative evangelicals who are fighting to preserve their churches of the deluge of progressive obsessions.

Cristianismo Hoje, the Brazilian version of Christianity Today, retweeted the article, increasing still more the doubts of readers who see its difficulty of clearly condemning the apostasy of those who call themselves Christian and support the so called gay “marriage.”

“This whole situation has left me feeling frustrated, heartbroken and lost. I don’t think I’ve ever been more angry at the Church, particularly the Evangelical culture in which I was raised and with which I for so long identified,” wrote Evans about evangelical leaders who opposed to the WV’s initial pro-gay “marriage” stance.

“I confess I had not realized the true extent of the disdain and stigmatization many Evangelicals have toward LGBT people, nor had I expected World Vision to yield to that disdain and stigmatization by reversing its decision under financial pressure. Honestly, it feels like a betrayal from every side.”

For a “Christian” author who is not frustrated and heartbroken over Obama and his pro-abortion and pro-sodomy agenda, it is natural for her to want World Vision to remain faithful to progressive principles, including gay “marriage.”

This is a betrayal of the true Gospel. But who said that progressives have this Gospel? Gay “marriage” will never be a betrayal of the progressive gospel.

Why is the Brazilian Christian Post siding with it?

Christian Post should do a necessary work of exposing U.S. Protestant liberalism among Brazilian audiences, and vice-versa.

Brazil needs less, not more, liberal evangelical examples.

Portuguese version of this article: Por que o Christian Post adota o esquerdismo no Brasil?

Source: Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

After Pressure, World Vision Reverses Policy on Hiring Gays

Homosexual “Marriage” and the Last Days

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide

Leading the world by evil example: Obama and gay “marriage”

After Pressure, World Vision Reverses Policy on Hiring Gays

By Julio Severo

After a backlash from Evangelicals, World Vision, an international nonprofit ministry, has reversed its decision to allow those in same-sex marriages to be employed.

Organization board leaders said in a letter to supporters Wednesday that they had made a “mistake” by changing its policy.

“We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we have caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to Biblical authority,” the board said in the letter.

The quick reversal was result of a firestorm of heavy criticism from Christian leaders.

These leaders denounced the charity’s decision to hire applicants in same-sex marriages. World Vision’s president, Richard Stearns, had said the move was not “symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity.”

But Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, president and CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, dismissed Stearn’s reasoning.

“World Vision maintains their decision is based on unifying the church — which I find offensive — as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the Church,” Franklin wrote on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website.

In addition, the head of Assemblies of God in the U.S., George Wood, had called for its members to shift their support to other charities. He said, “Far from promoting Christian unity, the policy change enlists World Vision on the liberal Protestant side of the same-sex marriage debate as opposed to that of Pentecostal and Evangelical churches in the U.S., not to mention Pentecostal and Evangelical churches worldwide.”

Stearns said the board of World Vision had been praying about the decision for years, and the result was to allow “married” gay Christians. But in the letter to supporters Wednesday leaders admitted they had not sought enough counsel from their Christian partners.

“As a result, we made a change to our conduct policy that was not consistent with our Statement of Faith and our commitment to the sanctity of marriage,” they said.

“While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect,” they said.

A fifth of the World Vision funding comes from the U.S. government. But most of its funding comes from Evangelicals and while they are a majority of donors, World Vision will have a hard time accepting items from the gay agenda.

Yet, what will happen if the U.S. government, which has been an avid advocate of the homosexual imperialism, increases substantially its funding?

Then, as now, we should increase our pressure. It is exactly this pressure that made World Vision reverse its foolish decision allowing “married” gay Christians.

A little pressure could also help World Vision in Brazil, whose director, Ariovaldo Ramos, said,

“Everybody who, in everyplace, fights against poverty, for the human liberation, for justice and rights available to everybody had, in Hugo Chávez, a reference of commitment to the poor and the oppressed.”

He also said,

“The best we could say of someone is that, because he lived here, the world became better! We can say this of Hugo Chávez!”

Now the director of World Vision Brazil would be wise to imitate its U.S. sister organization and reverse his stupid praise for a Marxist strongman and his stupid support of Marxist causes.

With information from CBN.News, ChristianPost and Ariovaldo Ramos’ public statements.

Portuguese version of this article: Após pressão, Visão Mundial revoga política sobre contratação de homossexuais

Source: Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

World Vision to Hire Married Gay Christians

Homosexual “Marriage” and the Last Days

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide

World Vision to Hire Married Gay Christians

By Julio Severo

The prominent Christian relief agency World Vision said Monday it will hire Christians who are in homosexual marriages, a dramatic policy change on one of the most divisive moral issues facing Christian churches.

World Vision President Richard Stearns told that his organization will be changing its employment policies with regard to individuals in a homosexual lifestyle.

The organization previously required its some 1,100 employees at the American branch to abide by a policy that required fidelity within marriage and abstinence outside of marriage, and only recognized marriage between a man and a woman. However, now World Vision is allowing gay Christians in legal homosexual “marriages” to be hired.

The agency’s new hiring policy was first reported by Christianity Today magazine.

In short: World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently “tearing churches apart” over homosexual relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches on theological issues, and focus instead on uniting Christians around serving the poor.

World Vision philosophy: For the sake of the poor, homosexual and non-homosexual Christians should get united.

Based in Washington state and started by evangelicals, World Vision now has an international operating budget of nearly $1 billion and conducts economic development and emergency relief projects around the world. Last year, the charity reported receiving 18 percent of its annual funding from the U.S. government, which requires any group that receives federal funding to end any hiring restrictions on gays and lesbians.

Stearns felt that the new policy of his organization is not an endorsement for homosexual “marriage.” He said, “I want to be clear that we have not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.” So if a local liberal church chooses to send a homosexual to work in World Vision, it is ok for them.

World Vision requires employees to affirm, through the agency’s statement of faith or the Apostle’s Creed, that they follow Christ. Stearns said the agency will continue to follow that policy. So it will be enough for gay employees to remain faithful to this statement of faith. World Vision says it hires staff from many Protestant denominations with different views of homosexuality.

The staff of World Vision draws from over 50 Christian denominations, some of which have allowed homosexual “marriage” within the church, included the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Stearns cited the multi-denominational nature of World Vision employees as a reason for the switch.

In a new release, Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, stated:

I was shocked today to hear of World Vision’s decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God.

World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church — which I find offensive — as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church.

From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin.

Apparently, the U.S. World Vision is not alone in its involvement in controversies. The director of World Vision Brazil, Ariovaldo Ramos, was involved in the controversy of having praised Hugo Chavez and his “service” to the poor. Ramos has also lamented publicly the death of the Marxist strongman.

Everything for the sake of the poor.

With information from The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christianity Today.

Portuguese version of this article: Visão Mundial vai contratar cristãos gays “casados”

Source: Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

Homosexual “Marriage” and the Last Days

Brazilian Evangelical Caucus Condemns Venezuelan Dictator for “Homophobia”

By Julio Severo

Rep. João Campos (PSDB-GO), who heads the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus in the Brazilian Congress, introduced a proposition against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Nicolás Maduro

The proposition, which condemns the dictator for “homophobia,” was passed unanimously March 4 in the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the Brazilian House of Representatives, where Pentecostal minister Marco Feliciano is the president.

As reported by GospelPrime, Campos’ proposition came in answer to the recent demonstrations against the permanence of Feliciano in the HRC presidency. The demonstrations have been provoked by the ruling Workers’ Party and other socialist parties that are favorable to the Maduro dictatorship.

“I think that this committee has the duty of manifesting its view by rejecting this prejudiced and bigoted behavior,” João Campos said.

The proposition condemns declarations by Maduro which, if made by Feliciano or Pentecostal televangelist Silas Malafaia, would have been unceremoniously condemned by the Workers’ Party and by the mainstream liberal media as blatantly “homophobic.”

Opportunistic Communist “Homophobia”

In a speech against candidate Henrique Capriles, the dictator hinted that his political opponent in the elections for the Venezuelan presidency was a homosexual. Last March 12, Maduro said in Caracas: “Yes, I do have a woman, did you listen? I like women.” Next, Maduro kissed his wife. The intention was clearly to indispose the opponent with the more conservative feelings of the voters.

Capriles, 40, is single. At that time, he responded, “I want to send a message rejecting the homophobic declarations of Maduro. It is not the first time. I believe in a society without exclusion, in which nobody is excluded by his views, his beliefs, his sexual orientation.”

The Workers’ Party and its allies did nothing to condemn the “homophobia” of Maduro. The Dilma Rousseff administration didn’t send any protest memo to the Venezuelan government.

The situation of Capriles is very similar to what Gilberto Kassab suffered in the mayorship election of São Paulo in 2008. His political opponent was Marta Suplicy, a Workers’ Party member, whose electoral TV show asked: “Is Kassab married? Does he have children?” The man responsible for the question—aimed at neutralizing the chances of candidate Kassab—was Workers’ Party political advisor João Santana.

According to Reinaldo Azevedo (columnist of Veja, the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine), Santana is now an advisor for Maduro in Venezuela.

Woe to Marco Feliciano, Silas Malafaia or Yours Truly if any of us say that a candidate is disqualified on the basis of sodomy.

But Nicolás Maduro and Marta Suplicy, with Santana’s assistance, get away with attacking their political opponents with insinuations of homosexuality. Of course, they wouldn't think of confronting gay activists’ demonstrations disturbing their meetings and accusing them of “homophobic,” “fundamentalist,” “bigoted,” etc.

The Workers’ Party friends have carte blanche to trample homosexuals who get in their way. But if a Christian opens his mouth to say that in the Bible God condemns homosexuality, they crush him.

The gay movement, behaving like a group of dim witted sheep, only bleats angrily at the victims pointed out by the Workers’ Party. No bleating at the Venezuelan dictator. No bleating at Suplicy.

The only public figure in Brazil denounced Suplicy for her inconsistences and opportunism was the late Clodovil Hernandes, the most visible homosexual in the country. But he was hated by the Workers’ Party and by the dim witted sheep, because he openly opposed hate crimes bills and gay “marriage.”

Good Intentions of the Evangelical Caucus Backfire

The intention behind the proposition of the Evangelical Caucus is to instigate the Brazilian Congress to counter the inconsistency of the Workers’ Party and other socialists, who condemn Pentecostal ministers like Feliciano for any view opposing to homosexuality, but they turn a blind eye to socialists’ attitudes that sully sacred homosexuality.

The intention is good and merits congratulations. But the implementation of it may backfire, because if Maduro can be condemned for “homophobia” for expressing rejection (or for outwitting) of the political opponent’s homosexuality, who can protect the Evangelical Caucus from propositions that likewise condemn what the Workers’ Party and other socialists see as “homophobia” in Marco Feliciano, Silas Malafaia and Julio Severo?

The Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus (EPC) proposition against Maduro can legitimate similar propositions against everyone in the front lines of the fight against gay agenda tyranny.

The ideal field for the EPC to show this Workers’ Party inconsistency—condemnation of Feliciano, but cover for dictator Maduro, is a denunciation from the floor of the Congress.

Showing solidarity to the communist tyranny or its victims?

Does Maduro deserve a negative proposition coming from the Brazilian Congress? Of course he does! A proposition condemning the Venezuelan dictator for his connections with the murderous communist government in Cuba and his tyrannical control over Venezuela would be most welcome.

Years ago, Brazilian Protestant leader Ariovaldo Ramos traveled in an entourage of allies of the socialist Brazilian president Lula to show solidarity to dictator Hugo Chávez. After the death of Chávez, Ramos thanked God “for the privilege of having lived together with this personality of my generation.”

Ramos, a former World Vision president in Brazil, also said: “The best thing one can say of a man is that, because he passed through here, the world is a better place! One can say this of Hugo Chávez!”

That is the same Ramos who represents the Brazilian evangelical left very well and who signed a public manifesto against Feliciano. With Gilberto Carvalho, a Workers’ Party strong man, he also recently formed a partnership with the Workers’ Party government on behalf of the evangelical population.

In Ramos, the people of Venezuela saw an evangelical leader who represented Brazilian evangelicals in the support of the communist tyranny that took hold in Venezuela.

Up to now the Venezuelan people have seen no sign from Brazil that Brazilian evangelical leaders disagree with Ramos and his deplorable support of the Venezuelan tyranny. No Brazilian evangelical representative traveled to the oppressed Venezuelan nation to show solidarity to the victims of communism.

I look forward for the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus, represented by its president Rep. João Campos, to launch a much needed, long-awaited campaign against this tyranny.

And I look forward for the Human Rights Committee under the presidency of Feliciano to do what it has never done when it was under the control of the Workers’ Party and accomplices: to condemn the systematic violations of human rights of Christians in Cuba, Iran and other nations ruled by tyrants friends of the Workers’ Party.

With information of Reinaldo Azevedo, UOL Notícias and GospelPrime.

Portuguese version of this article: Bancada evangélica condena ditador da Venezuela por “homofobia”

Source: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Article by Julio Severo published in the first issue of the official magazine of the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus

“What does ANAJURE exist for?” The Marco Feliciano case