Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and Sexual Morality

I was pretty involved with IVCF in college and have remained friends with the staff who mentored me during that time.  (For those unfamiliar, IVCF is a worldwide - though primarily within the US - Christian college ministry.)  Yesterday Time Magazine posted an article about a paper IVCF released that outlines the ministry's outlook towards the Bible's teachings on sexuality and is asking their staff who are not aligned to step down from their positions.  If you don't want to read the article, as a ministry, IV believes the historical/traditional (and I'd argue correct) understanding of God's Word that sexuality outside the boundaries of marriage - between one man and one woman - is sinful.  I think Christianity Today did a pretty great job of describing the situation.

What are your thoughts on this?  I think it's quite ridiculous to condemn IV for being led by "bigots" (as I am seeing on Facebook...) that requires its staff to hold to the same values they are meant to preach.  Ironically, not that long ago IV was among many college clubs/organizations being close to getting shut out of California colleges because there were attempts to force all clubs to allow anyone to be in leadership positions, i.e. a Christian club would be forced to allow a satanist to lead weekly Bible studies, etc.  And this was all in the name of "acceptance" and whatnot.  Quite idiotic IMO...  But now people are condemning IV for having a stance on a moral issue that is quite clearly outlined in Scripture.

I post this warily because I'm afraid it might turn into a gay-marriage discussion.  Let's please try to keep the discussion to the topic at hand, though I realize being aligned with their understanding of God's intent/desire for how humans interact sexually will play into our perspectives.

Bethel College over here went thru the same type of situation with it's staff, got some backlash for a few months and it went away.


IMO ANY organization that proselytizes a specific position SHOULD ensure that it's staff members adhere to those same positions, nor should anyone that doesn't adhere to this positions WANT to represent an organization that does, in ANY capacity...That's just common sense.

I really don't think it's their business. Should a drug and alcohol counselor be fired because the management found out they had a 6 pack after work and got drunk from it? I don't think so.

Apparently, this is about "the sin". Why only pertinent to the topic? If they're going to be removed for sin, then why not remove everyone for being a sinner?

In terms of removal, I disagree. Sanction them if they want to prove a point, but don't remove them for sin that's not directly involving the organization.

^They're not removing anyone for being a sinner... they're removing people who disagree at a core level of what is sin.  Going with the counselor metaphor, I think what they're doing is removing the counselors who think that alcoholism is not a problem: that being addicted to alcohol is not harmful.

I think it is a sign of the times. I know a lot of Christians that will rail against homosexuality and other liberal causes, all while dating and living with some one for years. I even knew a pastor that went on a vacation with his girlfriend down to Florida for a week or so. There were no separate rooms in that situation.

We believe Christ has the power to conquer death and hell, but not help us out of our sin. The prodigal son no longer has to turn and go back to his father, but waits for the grandfather to come and give him some more money to go on his way doing what he was doing in the first place.

It is entirely Biblical for a Christian organization to set standards that their staff should agree to. One of the gifts for the church of I Corinthians 12:28 is "administrations" or "governments". God has given us the ability to lead, and make decisions for, groups of people under our authority.

New Creation wrote:It is entirely Biblical for a Christian organization to set standards that their staff should agree to. One of the gifts for the church of I Corinthians 12:28 is "administrations" or "governments". God has given us the ability to lead, and make decisions for, groups of people under our authority.

I couldn't agree more!

Kerrick wrote:^They're not removing anyone for being a sinner... they're removing people who disagree at a core level of what is sin.  Going with the counselor metaphor, I think what they're doing is removing the counselors who think that alcoholism is not a problem: that being addicted to alcohol is not harmful.

Ah! I see. Well, whether they think it's a sin or not (which I don't understand why a Christian wouldn't think sex outside of marriage is a sin) I think the true variable is if they can teach it.

My Bible as Literature college professor thought most of what we went over was a load of malarkey, but he did a darn good job of teaching it in my opinion. Some of the people I deal with over the phone for my job are full of it, but no one would never know with how I talk to them...

I believe any organization should have the right to remove its leaders if those leaders are promoting ideas/values that are inconsistent with those of the organization.  NOW would remove any leader who promoted the idea that women should remain in the domestic sphere.  The NAACP would remove any leader who promoted the idea of racial segregation.  GLAAD would remove leaders that promoted negative stereotypes of gays.  This is really no different.

Exactly what m77 said.  I fully stand behind the right of any organization to run themselves according to whatever principles they see fit, and to hire or not hire whomever they choose for whatever reason.  This is what we used to call "freedom."  Of course, I recognize that this is on it's last wobbly leg in our country, but IMO it ought to be a self-evident principle.

ThomasEversole wrote:Ah! I see. Well, whether they think it's a sin or not (which I don't understand why a Christian wouldn't think sex outside of marriage is a sin)...

You'd be surprised...  Just on Sunday, the pastor quoted some statistics on modern "evangelicals" and one of them was that an extremely alarming amount (I want to say like 60% but I could be wrong...) believe that Jesus is a created being.     His point was that so much of modern Christianity is focused on feeling love and joy, being "good," etc. that the core foundational teachings are being lost.

ThomasEversole wrote:... I think the true variable is if they can teach it.

My Bible as Literature college professor thought most of what we went over was a load of malarkey, but he did a darn good job of teaching it in my opinion. Some of the people I deal with over the phone for my job are full of it, but no one would never know with how I talk to them...

That's a very good point, though this is a slightly different situation I think because it's not just about teaching, it's about mentoring and pastoring the college students.  The staff at IV do relatively little teaching compared to shepherding, mentoring, praying with, and struggling with the students through difficult times.  It's at such a pivotal time in the students' lives and I think pretty crucial for the staff to be well grounded doctrinal-wise so they can best help these students along.

messiaen77 wrote:I believe any organization should have the right to remove its leaders if those leaders are promoting ideas/values that are inconsistent with those of the organization.  NOW would remove any leader who promoted the idea that women should remain in the domestic sphere.  The NAACP would remove any leader who promoted the idea of racial segregation.  GLAAD would remove leaders that promoted negative stereotypes of gays.  This is really no different.

Word.

Kerrick wrote:
It's at such a pivotal time in the students' lives and I think pretty crucial for the staff to be well grounded doctrinal-wise so they can best help these students along.

Are any of these not a doctrinal issue but a temptation one? Being asked to step down because of what they did is quite different than being asked to leave because of what they believe.

Kerrick wrote:You'd be surprised...  Just on Sunday, the pastor quoted some statistics on modern "evangelicals" and one of them was that an extremely alarming amount (I want to say like 60% but I could be wrong...) believe that Jesus is a created being.     His point was that so much of modern Christianity is focused on feeling love and joy, being "good," etc. that the core foundational teachings are being lost.

yep, the core focus of modern "Christianity" is basically YOU.

though it's not really surprising. there's a guy named Chris Rosebrough that reviews bad sermons @ www.fightingforthefaith.com. I have heard so many bad sermons, that is why I have stated before that bad theology is the majority in the church today...pretty much goes along with end times teaching...

Almighty God wrote:“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
— 2 Timothy 4: 3-4

You know, its funny because people often say that Christians don't "practice what they preach", and here you see they are saying they don't want us to practice what we preach. Sounds like they are promoting a double standard.

Blake wrote:You know, its funny because people often say that Christians don't "practice what they preach", and here you see they are saying they don't want us to practice what we preach. Sounds like they are promoting a double standard.

This is a brilliant observation. They get mad when we preach and then fail, but when we preach and don't fail, they get mad all the same.

Kerrick wrote:What are your thoughts on this?

It's quite refreshing to see a Christian ministry not turn a blind eye to a problem in its ranks. The article threw out some shocking stats stating a large number of evangelicals as being in favor of homosexual matrimony. I don't know if the numbers are correct, but they resonate with my experiences in discussing the issue with others who claim Christ. The reality is that this is just another face of apostasy. I'm glad that IV is committed to the gospel. As for those who would call them 'bigots' for standing for God's truth, they show a great deal of ignorance and misapprehension of God's Word. There will be a day of like bigotry when God separates between the sheep and goats yet you can't call it bigotry as God is holy.

If people are critical of IV on this, good. Let them take notice and know they are on the outside. The greater crime would be to allow them a false sense of assurance of faith.

Reading this is both disturbing and refreshing. Not just the stance of IV, but also the fact that you guys see the problem and support them.

"Bigot" is getting a cheap word for me nowadays. There's not really a Dutch equivalent (at least not used in the same context), but it's used negatively for people I sympathize with.
And yeah, it's a cheap word when it's been thrown mindlessly at people who do not consider same-sex marriage an actual marriage.

Its good to see groups like IV obey the will and word of God over the will of sinful men...




Luke 11:28New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

²⁸ But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”





Acts 5:29New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

²⁹ But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.

Further development:
http://theresurgent.com/the-society-of-biblical-literature-is-now-banning-christian-organizations/

I just read that article.  Interesting.  I'm not familiar with the Society Of Biblical Literature.  Anyone know anything about them?  Are they just some obscure left-wing "Christian" group or something more substantial?

Kerrick wrote:I just read that article.  Interesting.  I'm not familiar with the Society Of Biblical Literature.  Anyone know anything about them?  Are they just some obscure left-wing "Christian" group or something more substantial?

I haven't heard of them either, but it's one of those names that sounds familiar. They've been around a long time.
https://www.sbl-site.org/aboutus/history.aspx