Remove IV from your church's missions budget: Indiana University chapter of InterVarsity promotes sodomy (part I)...

IVCF'sSodomyAdvocacy (Tim: this is first in a series of posts [one, two, three, four, five, six, seven] responding to to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship's promotion of sodomy at a Indiana University campus forum they sponsored the evening of Monday, March 28, 2011.)

Back when David's and my father and mother, Joe and Mary Lou Bayly, were living on Mass. Avenue in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where they were InterVarsity Christian Fellowship's (IV) first staff workers in New England, it would have sickened them to know their children would live to see the day when IV was advocating sodomy in the Name of Jesus Christ and His Word. That's what happened this week here at Indiana University.

IV brought in a longtime IV staff worker (he recently left IV staff) to speak against homophobia at a special attention-getting series of public meetings and that man promoted sodomy in the Name of Jesus Christ, His Church, His Word; and certainly in the name of that parachurch organization known in this country as IV. They're the sponsor of Urbana and they own the book marketer that does the best job of promoting the feminist heresy within the Evangelical world, InterVarsity Press.

Weird, isn't it? I mean, that an organization and its publishing arm would use the Name of Jesus to obliterate the meaning of sexuality in society, the home, and the Church concerning the relationship between the sexes would then go on to work to obliterate the meaning of sexuality also in the matter of how body parts go together? Check out the caption under the pic: the Indiana Daily Student got this one right.

Honestly, I thought IV would try to keep these two parts of Gods' Creation Order separate so the scandal of giving in on the second would not undercut the massive progress they've made in destroying the first. Do you think people might be on guard now that it's obvious its full-out sexual anarchy IV's committed to? Or do you think IV will be able to finesse the matter, claiming it's a one-off and purely accidental that in this particular chapter and speaker, feminism and sodomy are both promoted?

Yes, yes, of course. I know IV's leadership will claim that this is an anomaly...

and should not be viewed as representative of the whole organization. Yes, yes, of course. I know IV's leadership will tsk tsk and harumph harumph and naughty naughty this thing.

But hey, actually it's no aberation, no one-off, no anomaly at all. If you attack God's Creation Order, what you're doing is attacking God's Order of Creation. Which is to say if you refuse to submit to God creating Adam first, then Eve; you'll also refuse to submit to God creating Adam and Eve rather than Adam and Steve.

You think I'm wrong?

Because of sodomy's yuck factor, it will take a little while. But just watch; the walls surrounding God's Order of Creation are in the midst of being torn down and by the time you wake up, your church's Missions Committee will be supporting "missionaries" who have moved on from the feminist rebellion to even greater wickedness. And because you refused to discipline them over the feminist rebellion, you'll have to swallow sodomy, too.

The Christian Reformed Church is all the lesson a discerning man or woman should ever have needed. Like Dylan (not Thomas, the other one) sang, "When you gonna wake up, and strengthen the things that remain?"


Dear "Monitor",

While we are not opposed to public exposure of public sin, I don't think this post is the proper place for you to do the work you're trying to do which is unrelated to Indiana University or Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship.

Sorry, but I've pulled your comment here. I hope you understand.


Bayly: Does this mean you're not going to discuss it? Rev. Patrick Edouard of the URCNA sexually assaulted AT LEAST four women in his congregation. If you're interested in the moral breakdown of the Church, this is as broken down as it gets.

Edouard was installed as a prince of the church. The victims are our sisters in our house. A crisis like this means interrupting regular programming.

I see nobody talking about it, except mostly non-Christians on local news sites, plus finger-pointing from gay and atheist bloggers. So the public silence from the Reformed is deafening.

Tim, since your brief is short on details, would you mind filling in what Campbell spoke about (I assume he's a homosexuality and church advocate) and whether IVCF was promoting/sponsoring this event? Below is a link to IVCF's position on homosexuality found on their website, just by way of comparison and contrast.


The link you posted goes to a restricted-access location ("Staff only").

And the cut and paste...

InterVarsity Homosexuality Task Force:
Theological Foundations

We take seriously the authority of the Bible over all of life since it provides a framework for our understanding of personhood, the integrity of relationships, and the appropriate use of all of God's good gifts. In discussions regarding sexuality, it is particularly important to examine the wider biblical context rather than focusing only on particular verses.

God's Intention

God created humanity, male and female. Gender is the good and purposeful creation of God, reflecting his image and bringing glory to him.

Persons were created by God with masculine and feminine gender, a corresponding and complementary male and female physiology, and the ability to engage in sexual relations.

Sexual intercourse is more than a physical act. It involves the whole person and belongs within the life-uniting context of heterosexual marriage.

The Fall
Sin has distorted our capacity to image [reflect] and to glorify God. Everyone experiences this distortion (fall) in every area of life, including sexuality.
Homosexuality is one among many distortions of fallen sexuality.

The specific causes of homosexuality are not yet well understood and may vary from person to person. The specific causes of homosexuality are irrelevant for determining the morality of homosexual behavior.
Homosexual orientation (that is, psycho-sexual attraction to persons of the same gender) is not the same as homosexual behavior. While homosexual orientation is not in and of itself sinful, it is a distortion of what God originally intended resulting from the fall. As such it is also a point of temptation and a possible doorway to sinful behavior.

All homosexual behavior is sinful and damages the practitioner's relationship with God, self and others.


Christ came into the world and died on the cross to redeem all dimensions of a person's life. Through Christ we receive forgiveness, renewal and reconciliation in our relationship with God, self and others.

By repentance and faith in Christ's work we appropriate God's gracious gifts in every area of life. As the great physician, Christ extends healing to all areas of sexual brokenness and sin.

God calls all of us to place our sexuality under the Lordship of Christ.

Homosexuality is not to be considered differently from other categories of distortion and sin insofar as Christ's redemptive work is concerned.

Our true identity is given to us by God's creative and redemptive activity and is not to be derived from how we view ourselves. We must not root our core identity in our brokenness or sinfulness. Therefore, homosexuality cannot serve as a basis of true identity.
We are fully human as gendered persons by virtue of our creation and redemption in Christ. Therefore heterosexual marriage and sexual relations are not essential to one's redeemed humanity.

Pursuing healing from homosexuality, like other areas of brokenness, includes acknowledging our sins and the ways we have been sinned against, repenting of our sinful responses, forgiving those who have sinned against us, receiving our true identity in Christ, and responding with a life of obedience to Christ. Because sexuality involves so many facets of life, healing is frequently an extended process.

God has provided the context for healing (including sexual healing) within the Christian community. It is the responsibility of every member of the Body of Christ to be a channel for God's truth and love.
Love is more than a theological agreement. It must be dynamic in our action. The call of Scripture to love both our neighbors and our enemies is a call not to write anyone off. Christians are to show God's mercy, grace, and compassion to all those trapped in any sinful lifestyle, those who interpret Scripture on these issues in a way divergent from our own, or those who do not want to change. Mercy modeled from the Christian community is a vibrant picture in the world of God's love for all.

The Promise

God's promise is that one day we will be fully transformed into the likeness of Christ, but we understand that until then we all await our final fulfillment and healing.

Homosexuality Task Force

October, 1995

What do you think about CSF's involvement with this event? I mean, they have obviously partnered with InterVarsity- do you not think it would be fair (and just) to keep them in mind when talking about the horror that this event has caused?

After reading IV's stance on this directly from their staff literature, I feel a great majority of what has been written in this blog is based on perception and not truth. Do you really believe that they are promoting sodomy...really? Could you possibly truly think they really are advocating for that?

IV has seen a great deal of students come to Christ through their strategic ministries. They reach out to people groups right here in the US that most of the conservative church is to scared to associate with.

Why would you call Churches to remove funding from an organization that is doing amazing work around the world? Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think you are rather uninformed when it comes to the actual work IV does, and the people that are involved in the ministry they do.

Unless your church is ready to fill the void that would be left by IV, I would suggest you strongly urge people to support those ministries IV is pushing that reach people that need Christ like everybody else, but very few besides IV are really reaching out to.

Hi Benjamin,

InterVarsity initiated, planned, paid for, hosted, and moderated the forum. Decisions about who would speak at the forum were dealt with by InterVarsity student leadership, local staff, and regional staff. The students who attended the forum were encouraged to also attend follow-up "investigative" bible studies with InterVarsity.

CSF was not represented publicly at the meeting. Neither my students who were present at the forum nor the student newspaper seemed to be aware of their participation. In fact, according to one student I talked to, some people in CSF leadership also seemed to be unaware of their participation.

All I've learned of CSF's involvement is that they allowed their name to be published on the promotional material--both on the brochures that were handed out on campus and the posters. And while that shouldn't be overlooked, it's also the kind of thing that can happen easily when you're dealing with campus ministries with high student involvement/leadership. Students easily and frequently misrepresent the ministries they're involved in.

So should CSF be kept in mind? Absolutely. But it's clear that InterVarsity was the driving force behind this forum and the sole "beneficiary" of it. The responsibility for the event lays clearly at their feet.

Dear Jacob,

Although I do agree with you in a lot a respects, I still have qualms about placing the responsibility solely on InterVarsity. As far as my understanding goes, CSF is a house of upwards of 60+ young students who come to "reach authentic faith" (quoted from their website) and yet their leadership team has deemed it wise to partner with an organization that promotes homosexuality as a sin. I feel like the fact that amongst all the Christian ministry groups on campus (Cru, BCM, Navigators, etc) CSF was the ONLY one who agreed to partner with them. That, in and of itself, should say enough.

I printed out part 4 of this series and read it to my wife as an example of an unusually clear-cut situation where a man of God courageously stood up for love of souls. Yet Steve says, "What? Where? No! How do you know?"

If we resist being warned even in a matter such as this one, what circumstance could there ever be where we would accept the word of warning and turn from danger?

We are the sons of those who stoned the prophets of old. Lord have mercy on us.

When you state "Yet Steve says", I am not sure if you are referring to my post or not. If so I have trouble seeing what my post has to do with what you have written here. Could you please be more clear?


I'm not about to become an apologist for CSF's name being on the promotional materials. But, being a campus minister on IU's campus, I know how campus ministry works. Although their name was on the promotional material, I don't necessarily assume that this was a decision of CSF's staff--especially when I've heard from a student living in the house who serves on the leadership that many of the leaders were not aware that CSF's name was attached to the promotional material and that they've had some sort of meeting discussing it.

The association easily could have happened because one undiscerning student had an ill-advised conversation with a buddy who is highly involved in IV. And you can see how InterVarsity would have been eager to get another Christian organization's name attached to it. Until I find out otherwise, I'm eager to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. And you can, of course, see why I would be eager to do that. Hope springs eternal.

The fact remains that CSF was not represented at the meetings by staff or student leadership and by all appearances, had no part in the actual planning of the forums. None of their students or staff directed or moderated the meeting. Nor did they have anything to gain from it--no students were directed to follow-up meetings with CSF. The IDS did not mention CSF's involvement. When I met with the undergraduate staff work for InterVarsity and asked him about how the forum came about, how it was planned, how decisions were made, etc., he never once mentioned involvement by CSF. He did mention his own involvement, the involvement of his students, and the involvement of upper level staff with InterVarsity.

Was it foolish for CSF to allow their name to be attached to it? Yes. Do they now need to publicly address the fact that their name was associated with the forum? Absolutely, and I hope they will. Do they bear some responsibility for what happened? Maybe. But I want to extend to the staff of CSF the grace I'd hope to receive had our name been falsely associated with such an event, and give them opportunity to address it themselves--something which it appears they might be doing.

For the record, I called CSF's office this morning and haven't received a return call.

@Steve (regarding comment #11)

I don't know what to say. In light of part IV you can still write, "I feel a great majority of what has been written in this blog is based on perception and not truth. Do you really believe that they are promoting sodomy...really? Could you possibly truly think they really are advocating for that?"

What wickedness could possibly merit a shepherd's warning, if not vulnerable souls being taught to embrace perversion to their own destruction?

Yet we should overlook this without comment because InterVarsity is "an organization that is doing amazing work around the world"? With only a fanged wolf here and there, aberrantly attacking the sheep?

From Christian Student Fellowship: "We were very surprised to learn that we were listed as sponsors of the event. The CSF staff did not give our permission. We were not aware of the speaker's stance on homosexuality and do not agree with Monday's talk."

This is exactly what I expected to hear from CSF, and it is their official statement. There's more behind this, but I don't have time to address it now.

Under these blog posts documenting InterVarsity's promotion of homosexual sin recently here at Indiana University, a man has posted the same comment multiple times--the same text. His comment makes assertions concerning the inner workings of IV and its employees. Knowing he is not a spokesperson for IV and that his information is factually wrong, I've removed his comments and will not allow him to comment further about this matter.

IV has employees and they are the ones who are in a position to address this matter. And what should they say?

They need to announce to the Indiana University campus that their speaker and staff workers were unfaithful to Jesus Christ and His Word in what they promoted and said. This is beyond question what should have been done last week, immediately after the offense occurred. The fact that it hasn't happened yet, a week later, is an indication of the deeper structural failures of IV's leadership. At this point, IV has had a week to clean this up and they have refused to act. Two veteran staff workers, two of IV's vice presidents, and the office of the president have been contacted multiple times, starting one week ago, with the request that this matter be corrected here at Indiana University. Calls have not been returned and the responses of those who have spoken for IV have only made matters worse, if the Bible is our standard.

I think I have read all of the parts to this series, as well as the subsequent comments, but in case I have missed something, please forgive me if this is redundant.
I assume that someone from the ClearNote camp has addressed this issue directly to someone at IV -- i.e. leadership at the IU campus and/or above? And if so, what has been their response?

p.s. the comment above mine was not there when I was typing my question. It appears that you answered my question as I was asking it.

HAHAHAHA! This is a joke right? I mean really. "Feminist heresy"? So which parts of the feminist movement are heretical? Women's right to vote? Equal pay for women in the workplace? Chains removed from women's ankles so they can actually venture out from the bedroom or kitchen?


Amen! My husband and I are also InterVarsity staff at a different university and we know the staff at IU personally and I can also attest to the fact that this event is not being portrayed in a truthful light in this blog. Thank you for standing up for the InterVarsity chapter.

So, Stephanie,

You are saying the brothers and sisters who were present and have reported on the event here on this blog - that they are lying (not portraying the event in a truthful light)? But you can judge from a distance and contrary to the published words of IV's own leadership what the facts of the event were?



You loyalty to your friends is admirable, so I hope you will also appreciate my own loyalty to my friends who have posted here - both the owners of the blog and several of the respondents.

Friendship, however, is not a valid way to judge truth.

Add new comment