Stanton Jones, CedarvilleOUT Come to Campus
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 4:04pm
Cedarville resident director Marlena Graves tells about how CU is dealing with students who struggle with same-sex attraction at Her.meneutics
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:14pm
#2
One Thing's Certain...
The Church (including independent, fudamental) must learn how to engage young people and counsel them through ss attractions. Recently, I've had several friends who grew up in Christian homes and attended Christian school and college "come out." And do so completely confident that it is consistent with their Christianity.
While the liberal church has been preaching a false message of God's unconditional acceptance of homosexuality, the conservative church, by and large, has been preaching the false message of God's unmitigated damnation of those experiencing ss attraction. It's time we speak truth and become a safe place for those struggling with any type of sexual temptation to be transformed by the gospel.
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:28pm
#3
Note the first comment on the
Note the first comment on the post to which Greg linked:
I was so happy to learn about Carl Ruby's acceptance of these people at Cedarville. As Vice President he has done incredible things on campus to help open students minds toward gay/alternative lifestyles.
During orientation/training for Resident Directors this last August, he required all of the RD's to gather together for an entire presentation of "Through my Eyes," a film produced by thr Gay Christian Network (gaychristian.net).
View the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBMbNSyqwkA
I'm so glad Cedarville is now embracing the realities of gay christians by supporting and loving all of those who are Christian--and gay.
Thank you Carl Ruby and other leaders at Cedarville for this and the many other supportive statements and efforts you are making on our behalf--now "that's SO Cedarville!"
I certainly hope this comment is not accurate.
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 11:58pm
#4
Student Handbook
On page 35 of the Cedarville Student Handbook (accessed from the Cedarville website) it states that "homosexual acts or behavior
or promotion of a homosexual lifestyle" could lead to dismissal because that incurs 25 demerits if the student is not repentant.
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 8:56am
#5
I read this statement from
I read this statement from the article (bold mine):
Eventually, the men said, they embraced what they saw as their “God-given” homosexual orientation, believing that since it is God-given, it cannot be wrong. All three said that they were committed Christians, leading happy, fulfilling lives.
And wondered a few things about this conclusion this groups holds (the conclusion that their homosexuality is God given).
1. What is their view of original sin and its consequences?
2. Is this derived from a neoorthodox or unorthodox hermeneutic and if so which and if not what is their hermeneutic if they have one at all?
3. Is this derived from the erring Calvinist overstatement or oft misapplication of "the sovereignty of God" which has bled into many Christian communities and now incorrectly functions as a default card for explaining away the existence of all kinds of human maladies?
These groups, these "Christian homosexual" groups, that attempt to forward the belief that somehow their orientation or desires are not ultimately theirs or the blame of their humanity but some other force or that its presence can and should be justified simply because of its presence is rather grossly shallow in light of comprehensive theological considerations. I am impressed that these people, these kinds of advocates, do not have a true theology and none of it with a few contextual or topical exceptions, could stand the rigors of genuine and thorough theological examination and discovery. They are filled with constant contradictions and exceptions.
This is not to say that there is not a point about acknowledging a believer can struggle with homosexual desires as we, believers, are subject to sinful desires of all sorts but the remedy they (the Christian OUT groups) seek is not simply to be heard but eventually to be accepted. So in wanting to be heard, for many of them, it isn't merely to be heard that they are struggling and they ask not to be condemned because in their struggle they are seeking a right life, rather that eventually they want their struggle acknowledged to the point that it is recognized as too great an imposition on them and we must understand this and their necessitated acquiescence to homosexuality.
And finally to them I ask, are you willing to hear us? Are you willing to hear what you keep on not wanting to hear (I speak of the advocates not those on the periphery struggling but desiring to be taught and helped) or is this, though you present it otherwise, really a one-way street? Because to hear us is to be forced to acknowledge that the platform on which you elevate your personal feelings and constantly and regularly disregard sound hermeneutics and theology in order for you to reconstruct the Bible and thereby justify your pursuit of this homosexual lifestyle tells me and many others that though you crave the ears of others, you have little, if any, time for the sound of voices differing from yours. And friends, such are not trustworthy or honest people in search of genuine dialog.
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 10:43am
#6
I applaud any attempt to
I applaud any attempt to raise our awareness of this important issue. Of course, I do not applaud anyone blurring the line about whether homosexual activity or lust is sinful. If we have the kind of church where people can be open about their struggles, then we will run across this in our ministries from time to time. Of course, some will never share their struggles in this area because, even though the church may be willing to still love them, family may not, or pride may stand in the way of an admission of the struggle.
Nevertheless, we need to get better about approaching this sin from the perspective of our Savior, who reminded us that only the sick need a physician. Church is for sinners to get help, not for the self-declared righteous to pat each other on the back for another week lived in sinless perfection.
Alex is asking some important questions. I want to comment on this one…
3. Is this derived from the erring Calvinist overstatement or oft misapplication of "the sovereignty of God" which has bled into many Christian communities and now incorrectly functions as a default card for explaining away the existence of all kinds of human maladies?
I think it more likely that this is an on-going symptom of the tendency in our society to embrace deterministic explanations in order to avoid taking responsibility.
While the liberal church has been preaching a false message of God's unconditional acceptance of homosexuality, the conservative church, by and large, has been preaching the false message of God's unmitigated damnation of those experiencing ss attraction. It's time we speak truth and become a safe place for those struggling with any type of sexual temptation to be transformed by the gospel.
Handerson, this reminded me of a letter to the editor I saw in USA Today shortly after one of the major denominations gave in on this issue. It was so good I clipped it for my sermon illustration file:
Although it troubles me, I'm not exactly surprised to see how the church today is being torn apart by the controversial issue of homosexuality ("Protestants face annual sexual divide, Cover story, life, Wednesday). As someone who lived a homosexual lifestyle for more than 15 years, I found the church to be either too judgmental and condemning or too tolerant and affirming.
The church on the far right believes we are all sinners but doesn't provide a safe forum for its members to discuss and confess any sin, let alone one as shameful as homosexuality. The church on the far left believes that the power of almighty God simply isn't greater than the power of individual sex drives, lusts, or urges.
In my opinion, both are false doctrines; neither offers any real hope or encouragement to parishioners who may be struggling with same-sex physical attractions they neither asked for nor wanted.
As for me, it was only by the grace of God, my faith in God, and the life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit inside of me that I was delivered from my sexual addictions and self-destructive behavior. It was God who saved me on the night I was going to kill myself - not the church.
Tim Howard
Beaumont, TX
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 11:34pm
#7
Clear terms are so important
What muddies the waters a good bit is that people use "homosexual" and "gay" in different ways.
1. With no distinction between attraction/temptation/orientation and conduct (whether of mind or body or both)
2. In reference to attraction/temptation but not to conduct
So one person says "We're welcoming gay Christians" and maybe means "We are welcoming those who experience ss attraction and trying to help them live godly lives".. but this is a very unfortunate use of terms because a great many people engaging in the lifestyle hear it as "See, I can be Christian and live this way with God's approval."
Add to the mix an especially insidious bit of Freud that is still alive and well: the notion that you have to obey your urges or your repressed desires will re-manifest as some kind of psychosis, maybe violently. So everybody assumes that if you have ss attraction, you have to live the homosexual lifestyle.
So Christian groups have to be so, so careful how they word things.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 7:25am
#8
Mike Durning wrote:
...this
...this reminded me of a letter to the editor I saw in USA Today shortly after one of the major denominations gave in on this issue. It was so good I clipped it for my sermon illustration file:
Although it troubles me, I'm not exactly surprised to see how the church today is being torn apart by the controversial issue of homosexuality ("Protestants face annual sexual divide, Cover story, life, Wednesday). As someone who lived a homosexual lifestyle for more than 15 years, I found the church to be either too judgmental and condemning or too tolerant and affirming.
The church on the far right believes we are all sinners but doesn't provide a safe forum for its members to discuss and confess any sin, let alone one as shameful as homosexuality. The church on the far left believes that the power of almighty God simply isn't greater than the power of individual sex drives, lusts, or urges.
In my opinion, both are false doctrines; neither offers any real hope or encouragement to parishioners who may be struggling with same-sex physical attractions they neither asked for nor wanted.
As for me, it was only by the grace of God, my faith in God, and the life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit inside of me that I was delivered from my sexual addictions and self-destructive behavior. It was God who saved me on the night I was going to kill myself - not the church.
Tim Howard
Beaumont, TX
Good letter, Mike. Thanks for sharing this clipping with us!
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 9:56am
#9
I can see both sides of the problem, but
Sin is sin...for someone to admit that a personal struggle or particular fault is sinful, is the mark of a born-again believer IMO.
The Holy Spirit is there right alongside the flesh-containing-the-old-nature. It doesn't matter what particular sin, there will be WAR. if there IS no war, then I'd be highly suspect of that person's salvation.
We as "Christians" ( I started using quotes a short time ago to inject a deliberate sense of sarcasm regarding the world's tendency to yank the one true Faith off its pedestal and bring it down to the level of just another religion ) need to remember these passages in Galatians:
Galatians 6:1-2, but remember...Galatians 5:16-26
I briefly had a spout of "ss attraction" in my life, but KNEW it to be of Satan. The more I fed the Spirit, the less it became until it went away altogether. I had opened the door to pornography in my late teens and haven't been able to slam it totally shut to this day, but with God's help it will eventually be sealed...even if it takes my death and resurrection in a new untainted body to do it.
BUT...this is entirely different than accepting the total trash reasoning that because one has these temptations, it must be "God-given". According to the Bible, one CAN'T have his cake and eat it too. A true believer, changed by God miraculously, would NEVER accept sin of any kind as "oh well, it must be something God wants me to live with"...bah, hogwash!
I say to those experiencing sexual sin, GET IN YOUR BIBLE and let the Spirit do His work, and STOP LISTENING to those that advocate some modern psychological approach to what's going on inside of you. God's perspective is the only one you can trust if you're truly His child.
Remember "...of such WERE some of you.." not of such ARE.
As for Cedarville, I applaud what seems to be honest treatment of real problems...if they capitulate over to something akin to the United Methodist Church or Episcopal Church, then I'll pronounce them "apostate" and move on. 
BTW, I agree whole-heartedly with the letter above. This, among many other reasons, is why I left the visible church and retreated to my Bible and tight fellowship with a few believers.
I wish things were different, but we ARE in the last days after all.
*sigh* Sorry about my seemingly disjointed reply, heh.
Dave.
__________________
Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...
1 John 2:27-29
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 3:45am
#10
Dave G wrote:
BTW, I agree
BTW, I agree whole-heartedly with the letter above. This, among many other reasons, is why I left the visible church and retreated to my Bible and tight fellowship with a few believers.Dave.
Dave,
Thanks for throwing us all away--those of us in the visible church that is. Leaving the visible church because of all of its problems hardly seems to be the answer to all those problems. "The church we love is as flawed and messed up as we are, but she's Christ's bride nonetheless. And I might as well have a basement without a house or a head without a body as despise the wife my Savior loves" (Kevin DeYoung in "Why We Love the Church," p. 19).
Tim Davis
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 7:11am
#11
Throwing You Away? No, just taking the Bible seriously.
Actually,
I decided to obey the Lord totally in the matter of Biblical separation.
I have determined that truth is paramount in my relationship with God, and it's far too easy to compromise that in favor of unity. Too many people I've run into, it seems, are willing to accept and live with gross error if only to get a warm fuzzy.
To me, the "denominational division" is a combination of two things: wheat and tares together leading to truth mixed with error, and frankly, unbelievers THINKING they're saved, when God hasn't really done anything miraculous in their lives.
Maybe later, when God has taught me more and my patience level rises...but for now, I'll stay away.
Respectfully in Christ,
Dave.
__________________
Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...
1 John 2:27-29
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 10:41am
#12
What Bible Seriously?
Dave,
What Bible are you taking seriously? Did Paul throw away the visible church in Rome because of their problems? Or how about Corinth? Or Galatia? Or Ephesus? Or Philippi? Or Colosse? Or Crete? Did the author of Hebrews abandon the Jews who were struggling? What about James, did he abandon his readers? Did Peter spend two letters instructing the readers to abandon the visible church? I think it was maybe John who told his readers to abandon the church because they were not of him--no wait it was the other way around those who abandoned the church were not saved (1 John 2:19). Did Christ instruct John to inform the seven churches of Asia Minor to abandon the visible church, if so I apparently missed it.
If truth is what is driving you away from the visible church how can you truthfully be obeying the Scriptures command not to forsake the assembly (Hebrews 10:25). In fact, church means nothing if not a visible assembly (the root idea of the Greek term is a called out assembly). And who is the elder/pastor/shepherd of your collection of a few close friends (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1) and who are the deacons (1 Timothy 3). Who has been gifted to be the public herald (pastor/teacher) that Christ gave to the church for the specific purpose of building up of the body. Maybe you are ignoring the gifts God has already given--the church with all its warts and its divinely chosen, though flawed leadership--so that you might never learn how important the church actually is. How is it that you are under the authority of Christ's church in matters of church discipline if you are not part of a visible church (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5). And without any measure of church discipline how is it that you are safeguarding the Lord's Supper (which happens to be a "church body" thing--1 Corinthians 11) assuming you are obeying the Lord totally by observing it as he instructed? Or how about Baptism?
Finally, Dave how is it that you can ignore the Lord's (Master's) instruction on the subject in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43? If you equate the parable to the church age, and not all do, then it is the Lord who instructs the harvesters (the angels) to leave the tares in His church lest their removal uproot the wheat. If the Lord is satisfied at the moment with a combination of wheat and tares in His church without abandoning it, then how can you be more Christian than Christ by claiming to submit to Him? This is not an argument for acceptance of sinful behavior or empty professions. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that the Lord of the Church has suggested there will be wheat and tares in His church and this reality did not cause Him to give us instruction to abandon the visible church.
Dave, I'm not trying to attack you, but the premise of your argument which is that it is ok to abandon Christ's visible body. To abandon Christ's visible body is simply put to abandon Christ who has purposed to be glorfied IN HIS CHURCH (Ephesians 3:20-21).
Cyprian--Outside the Church there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
Calvin--If God is Father the church may also be Mother
Westminster Confession--The visible church...is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation
Stott--I trust that none of my readers is that grotesque anomaly, an unchurched Christian. The New Testament knows nothing of such a person. For the church lies at the very center of the eternal purpose of God ("The Living Church" p. 19).
Paul--I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:14-15).
Truthfully in Christ,
Tim Davis
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 11:02am
#13
Great Post Tim
Great Post Tim
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 11:10am
#14
Thanks Tim
That was quite moving.
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 11:44am
#15
Excellent
Tim,
Preach it and I will turn the pages. The NT epistles know nothing of an unchurched Christian. The warning in Hebrews 10 is consistent with the other warnings in that book of potential apostasy for abandoning the NT church. What Dave advocated what not biblical separation, but unChristian isolation. He needs to find a good church and join it. If he is looking for a perfect church, don't join it lest he ruin it.
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 1:46pm
#16
Response to Dave G
Let me encourage you, Dave, along with these others, to find a good local church that will support your Christian growth. But I want to express my appreciation for your boldness in admitting your struggles, and your steadfastness in resisting temptation.
Other than your statements about abandoning the visible church, I think you said a lot of important things that got lost in the discussion about that one issue.
I will pray for your continued victory in your struggles.
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 4:55pm
#17
Work on fixing
Dave... yes, find one that looks most fixable and get involved helping it. Or turn the group you have into a real church. It isn't possible for a member of Christ to obediently cut himself off from the body, imperfect though that body always is.
(It's not like your church has to be part of a denomination or anything. Just part of the body, obedient only to the Head.)
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 8:19pm
#18
On the topic of homosexuality and the church
An article was posted over at the crosswalk website today titled Evangelicals and the Crisis of Authority that addresses this topic in reference to recent happenings at Calvin College.
** Forum Director: Added link to article ***
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 10:57pm
#19
0.o
Wow, got someone's attention finally it seems, eh?...LOL.
I figured it would.
First of all, Christ's Body is NOT the visible church, it's the WHOLE church, visible (to the world) and invisible...I guess I'll start using the phrase, "outside the camp"..
To me, the visible church ( which includes Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Methodist, etc. ) is mostly apostate, so I'll stay away from it as much as possible.
Secondly, to use Hebrews 10:25 to command church attendance is akin to using John 3:16 to show that God loves everybody, which He doesn't. In fact, He hates the *worker* of iniquity, not just the iniquity. Moving on...
I don't interpret Hebrews 10:25 as anything other than written to the HEBREW believers...if one were to make a case for it using passages in the New Testament, I can't find anything approaching the above verse reinforcing this "church membership" idea anywhere else. I mean, if it's SO important to belong to a visible church, why doesn't the Lord reinforce it in other epistles like He does with separation, righteous living and so forth?
Therefore I conclude for the saint of God: Is it important to attend "church"? Not in my opinion. Is it important to read one's Bible? Absolutely! Is it important to fellowship with other believers? I'll paraphrase for lack of an exact passage, because I'm writing this off the top of my head: ..."where two or three are gathered together in my name, there will I be..." Fellowship with other believers allows God to use the talents He's given us, as well as a great deal of other benefit. So I'll do that gladly.
Thirdly, Cyprian can say what he likes...there is no salvation outside CHRIST (see definition of Body above). Catholics LOVE stuff like what Cyprian said.
Calvin can say what he likes, as well. While I agree with most of his thinking on election, I don't agree with much more than that.
I also don't put any stock in books other than the Bible for matters of doctrine...NONE. See my sig...
"Unchurched"? What's a building got to do with it? There were no churches outside privately owned homes in the first century. Am I misunderstanding something here? Because I don't attend a central building all the sudden I can't be saved? Heh...not what MY Bible says. My Bible says the Ethiopian eunuch went away rejoicing after being baptised...nothing mentioned about joining a church...my Bible says that there were many men of faith outside so-called churches...Abraham and Lot for starters...what about those?
I will admit to difficulty in the matter of the Lord's Supper, but that can wait until I grow some more and God brings me together with other believers by His will.
Here's what I believe, after all I've read and concluded in His Word:
In Acts, because of all the people believing at one time (thousands added to the CHURCH), it is God's will when that many people get together that they have order...deacons, elders, and pastors were ordained (commisioned, set forth...same usage of the word in Acts 13:48 ...to keep it from becoming a fiasco. Large numbers of people without order is never a good thing. Since I meet in a small group, I conclude I don't need a pastor until and unless things get bigger.
I definitely don't need anyone to keep me "accountable", "on the straight and narrow", or anything else that a pastor might do. With respect, I don't need preaching to since preaching is for unbelievers and teaching is for believers...let's keep 'em separate, k? (grin)
Finally, I can't find a church in my area that takes things as seriously as I do...I don't celebrate "Christianized" holidays, I don't read any other Bible but the KJV, I believe in biblical election as pertaining to the individual saint, not this "corporate" drivel, I don't believe in "Christian Activism (hence I don't vote), I don't listen to "Christian Rock" or "Moody Radio" and I'm definitely not a "New Evangelical".
I know at this point I may come off sounding angry, but I'm not...I've taken a break from the visible church for several good reasons, one of which includes the answer to this question:
Why do todays' churches not fall very far from Momma Catholic's branches? Because they haven't "come out from among them" far enough.
I think it may be time for me to take my leave...could be I've registered on the wrong website, perhaps....perhaps not.
A Dieu,
Dave.
__________________
Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...
1 John 2:27-29
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 11:37pm
#20
**** Forum Director Comment ****
**** Forum Director Comment ****
Dave G's non-Church membership is off topic. Please drop it on this thread. Anyone can start another thread with the topic "Christians who are not part of an organized church"
(Any more comments about Dave G (or by Dave G) on this issue on this thread will be unpublished)
******************************
If I get the gist of her comments, Cedarville wouldn't let the Cedarville Out group have a forum on the campus, but they met off-campus yet she thinks that such meetings are necessary. It sounds like she is in disagreement with the school not allowing Cedarville Out on campus. I'm not sure that in counseling those struggling with homosexuality that counselees need to "hear both sides of the story." Where are Christians called to give the devil a hearing when deciding whether they will live righteously or not?