I do hope you’ll do the series. There’s certainly be a lot you could cover. But, apart from the issues of generosity & justice themselves, your narration of your experience made me think that it would be interesting to touch upon the ethics of ministry leadership and influence amongst young people. It’s one thing for me to give a stirring challenge to adults in my congregation. But, in the campus context, it seems important to consider more carefully the various power dynamics at play . . . theological and social.

I, for one, am deeply grateful for the campus ministers who loved and challenged me to sacrificial choices. But, I know a young ethnic minority woman in my who is the first person in her family to go to college. She was challenged to lay aside her career in order to pursue “ministry.” And she regrets it. I think it would be interesting and helpful if someone developed a code of ethics in leadership. Perhaps, this is not in the stream of what you were intending. Nevertheless, I think it would be worth some thought.

From my own experience IV—which includes two years on our coordinating team at UNC, plus going through the staff app process, only to decide to go to seminary instead)— I agree with much of what you’re saying.

I think there is definitely a degree of diversity within InterVarsity, generally, which does not exist within many evangelical organizations. Even the statement of faith’s not demanding adherence to “inerrancy” per se creates a level of freedom uncommon in evangelical circles, and I think it has allowed many students and staff to comfortably stay a part of IV after discovering more moderate positions on many issues. I’m sure that this has happened to some extent even with homosexuality. Although in my experience there was been a standard on this issue for some time, it is only more recently that it has been coming to light more often. I sort of imagine that staff already there are able to hold more diverse views than new staff coming on at this point, although I do not have any evidence of that. I do know that my more agnostic position was not welcome when I inquired about staff in multiple regions within the past year, although everyone was very kind and gracious in their response.

I do think that a “missional challenge” and not wanting to lose students is part of why InterVarsity has been quieter about this, but I feel rather uncomfortable with that. This doesn’t need to be their main issue, but if it’s something they really believe is important, it should not be a secret either. In my own chapter we had the problematic situation of several gay students on leadership (I was only aware of one at the time), either not completely aware that they were “breaking the rules” (because these particular rules were never discussed explicitly and they could sign the statement of faith) or having to live in painful secrecy. While it is painful and challenging to be more upfront with their position, it also saves students from the awfulness of being kicked off leadership (or hiding to avoid expulsion from leadership). I do think some chapters are becoming better at stating their position on this upfront as people consider joining leadership, which I know is problematic in some ways, but at least it’s honest.

While I think it would have been our chapter’s loss to not have some of those leaders involved, I think that the pain of exclusion is on average less than becoming super-involved in InterVarsity and THEN dealing with potential exclusion. This will limit who decides to get involved in InterVarsity in the first place, I’m sure, and probably offend other campus organizations. But I think it’s somewhat necessary. To be covert about something so potentially damaging to your relationship with students feels sneaky and mean. I think students appreciate knowing about differences of opinion upfront. If this is going to be a reason some decide not to get involved at all, then they deserve to be able to go hang out with PCUSA or UMC or some other student group where they’re going to be more welcome.

I do think it is compassion and concern which motivates this quietness about the issue, and I think there’s an attempt to minimize damage, even if a different sort of damage persists. I certainly don’t think it would be helpful to scream about this from the rooftops, but a calm transparency is valuable.

I understand that this may not seem to be as central as the creeds but still more important than modes of baptism. That’s a valid position. But I personally feel InterVarsity is not at all consistent. Racial reconciliation? Not the most popular issue, but a gospel non-negotiable, they say. (We experienced TONS of push-back about this in our chapter, but we still tried to promote it.) Women in ministry? An issue of freedom. I asked our regional director about the women’s issue, and despite his fierce egalitarianism, he said this was an issue for the church. As a parachurch organization, InterVarsity didn’t take positions on “doctrine.” I wasn’t certain the distinction between gender issues and racial issues and why one was “doctrine” and the other was something else, but I tried to accept the spirit of what he was saying, even if I disagreed with it. It was well-intentioned. But here, this is clearly a “doctrinal” issue, one which various churches take different stances on, using the Bible and their understandings of God’s purposes in the world as support. This doctrinal issue, however, cannot be an issue of freedom?

I just want things to be the same across the board. Decide on racial reconciliation, women, and homosexuality. Or decide on none of them. Or come up with a better explanation than “We are parachurch, so we don’t decide those things.” Clearly, there is some picking and choosing going on. Again, I’m sure it’s well-intentioned, but I think it has more to do with what InterVarsity feels to be the limits of evangelicalism, what they can “get away with” with donors and students, etc. than anything else. It represents heartfelt convictions, but it is entirely inconsistent. I think in the coming years it will be important for the movement to figure out what levels of freedom in theology and practice are actually acceptable, and as an org, they have the right to be as narrow as they want! But it will mean they are less ecumenical as a result—it’s inevitable.

Just my take! ;-)

As a friend of IV and former staff person, I perceive that they are struggling with two tensions. One is that they may have internal tensions to manage. Because they have not been the kind of evangelical organization that has wanted to make homosexuality a primary issue, there has developed a degree of theological diversity in perspective amongst their ranks (students, field staff, management, and donors). So, I think they may have a unity challenge.

Secondly, my perception is that they face a missional challenge. I think they have officially affirmed the church’s traditional view on sexuality. But, as you noted, they aren’t wanting to push that view as a primary matter of faith, at least not in a strident manner. If they were as direct as you’re calling for, I think they may fear losing students, not donors (primarily). And to be clear, I don’t think they’re concerned about numbers as much as missional traction. So, it’s easier to make an argument about not letting Wiccans lead . . . which most people agree is silliness.

Of course, one might ask: If sexuality is not a primary determiner of orthodoxy (in the way that say, affirming the Apostle’s Creed is), why put up such a big fight? And I think the answer is that many evangelicals are struggling to find language or models at adequately reflect the importance of sexuality in the Christian life. We (and I include myself here) don’t want to make one’s views on sexuality a “measure” of orthodoxy. But, neither does it seem adequate to say that our views on (and practices of) sexuality are adiaphora.

I don’t mind your asking at all, and I don’t feel you’re being argumentative! So no worries.

I guess I feel like if there is no evidence that something is possible, it’s wrong to encourage people to try to do it. Right now it seems some people know their sexual orientation from a very young age, while others “discover” it later (usually around puberty or soon after). But we don’t see any spontaneous changes. Which means, at the very least, changing one’s sexual orientation is something that seems to require a good deal of effort and intentionality.

We have a bit of a challenging situation in terms of objective research in that few people who aren’t religious WANT to try to change their sexual orientation, so there is a great deal of self-selection going on in the Jones & Yarhouse study. The people participating are clearly religious and motivated by religious beliefs and probably some accompanying guilt, shame, etc. I think religious motivations are extremely powerful, and if anyone were to try to trick themselves into thinking they’d changed more than they had, religiously motivated people would be the ones to do so. This makes it hard to determine what real change has occurred… as well as making it tricky to know if change would be possible, generally, or only with a special religious subgroup.

I haven’t read the Jones & Yarhouse study, but I’m extremely skeptical about it. It seems these two scholars from conservative Christian backgrounds are the only people concluding that sexual orientation is mutable. This seems unlikely aside from bias. And even if I weren’t so skeptical, that is only one study. Science demands repeatable experiments with the same results. Before stating for sure that even the most convincing study is right, we should wait and see what future studies conclude. There’s always the chance that the first study was a fluke.

It’s for this reason that I think that for someone—right now, in the absence of convincing scientific evidence—to encourage a gay person to attempt orientation change is to tell them to do something akin to Amy Carmichael’s praying to God to change her eye color (if you’re familiar with that story). It’s clearly not something outside of God’s power, but we have no reason to suspect God might answer such a prayer and we know no way to do it through our own efforts. I think in this situation it’s fair to say it “can’t” be done—because we have no real reason to think that it can. If we one day discover otherwise, we will change our story. In the meantime, to encourage someone to seek change which may not even be possible is, like I said, irresponsible and immoral. As the APA statement I posted notes, programs intended to “change” sexual orientation often do a great deal of harm to individuals, which must also be a significant consideration in our advice to others.

I’m not sure this is a clear explanation… I would certainly never tell someone, “We know without a doubt that this can’t happen,” because that’s not true. But I still think saying it “can’t” tells the truth in this situation—like it would have been honest to say that you couldn’t change your eye color before colored contacts. Does that make sense?