World Vision USA, the US branch of the global organization, early this week announced that it would accept into employment Christians in legal same-sex marriages whose denominations consider such marriages to be legitimate. And then, two days later, it reversed its decision, apologizing for having departed from its stated commitment to biblical principles and its commitment to marriage as a bond between one man and one woman.

There is much to be said about both substance and process in what was done and reversed. Here just three brief points:

1. This high-profile decision and reversal by this very high-profile evangelical Christian service organization should be a catalyst for other faith-based organizations to consider carefully what their foundational religious beliefs entail for understanding what marriage is, what constitutes acceptable and flourishing intimate relationships, what standards employees should be held to.

2. World Vision USA’s initial decision to accept (certain) persons involved in same-sex marriages as employees was no departure from the principles involved in religious hiring-a freedom World Vision has been strong and faithful to defend in courts and in legislatures, and to the federal government. The religious hiring freedom does not require a religious organization to adopt any particular policy concerning how it evaluates religion when selecting employees. The freedom only–but essentially–places the decision about how to use religious criteria in the hands of the religious organization, removing from government the right to second-guess such decisions by the religious organizations.

3. World Vision USA justified its initial decision by pointing out that it hires staff from a range of Christian denominations and that those denominations hold a range of different-sometimes conflicting-views on critical matters of religious doctrine (indeed, some of those differences have led to bloodshed between different groups of believers in the past). But, the organization said, just as contrasting views on evolution are immaterial in judging the suitability of applicants for World Vision employment, now contrasting convictions about what marriage really is would be irrelevant in evaluating applicants. Such matters–evolution, what marriage really is–are issues in the rightful purview of churches and denominations and need not be considered relevant for the mission and work of faith-based relief and development and child welfare–World Vision USA’s areas of service.

Yet World Vision does understand that doctrinal issues cannot necessarily be declared irrelevant in evaluating employees and applicants: indeed, not that long ago World Vision USA fired three employees for no longer agreeing with World Vision’s core theological convictions and–successfully–defended its decisions in the federal courts in a major religious hiring case. For faith-based organizations that actually take religion seriously, it is no small matter to declare certain issues either mission-essential or not relevant.