Last week, in an extraordinarily deft, gracious, and thorough 20-page paper titled, “A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality,” InterVarsity Christian Fellowship affirmed its historic commitment to the Bible’s teaching on human sexual behavior. “Marriage (in the Bible) is defined as a distinctive union between one man and one woman, as husband and wife, in which they covenant with one another to lifelong devotion,” the paper argues.

It also notes, “Scripture teaches that same-sex sexual activity is outside of God’s will in the same way that heterosexual pre- or extra-marital sexual activities are. This teaching resounds from the strong and consistent affirmation throughout the Bible that the unique context for sexual practice is between a man and a woman in marriage.”

InterVarsity is also requiring staff who disagree with this set of affirmations to self-identify and leave the ministry.

Not a “New Litmus Test”

This is hard for many involved: Inter-Varsity staff who disagree with their ministry’s decision are no doubt pained by it. Yet two things have demanded Inter-Varsity’s actions: the potential legal threat from those seeking to compel Christian organizations to affirm anti-biblical views of human sexuality and sexual conduct, and also the confusion concerning the Bible’s teaching introduced by those wishing to conform Christian theology to the culture.

For example, former Wheaton College professor Larycia Hawkins, whose syncretistic approach to Islam resulted in her leaving Wheaton, commented that the “new evangelical litmus test will backfire. The evangelical crackup has fully commenced.”

The reality is that it is not a “new litmus test” but simply the articulation of the Bible’s teaching at a time when such teaching is under fire from some professing Evangelicals who dislike their faith’s limitations on sexual intimacy. The fact that Inter-Varsity and myriad other ministries and denominations are having to make such statements is not indicative of some sudden surge of sexual oppression within them but rather of a steady demand by those upset with what the Bible says to alter its meaning.

An aggravated Jonathan Merritt, writing in The Atlantic, suggests, “If public-opinion polls are any indication, a polarizing position like this may sharply limit the field of future supporters.” Maybe so. But the Bible is full of polarizing positions, like its claim that a refusal to trust in Christ means eternal punishment for one’s sins. If “limiting the field of future supporters” is the criterion for affirming Christian teaching, the people of the Book better get out their Exacto knives and start cutting-out large sections it from Genesis to Revelation. What’s left won’t be Christianity but it won’t be polarizing.

“It is not extreme to hold the conservative Christian position on marriage and sexuality,” Merritt continues. “But it is extreme to think that those who don’t, but are otherwise committed to your mission, should be fired. And while opposing LGBT marriage is not necessarily hateful, punishing those who support it can hardly be called loving.”

This is sort of like saying that if the captain of the Exxon Valdez runs his ship aground and causes untold environmental damage but still really likes sailing, he should be allowed to continue to be the ship’s pilot. Differing with a Christian ministry on a matter as essential to Christian faith as the very nature of human sexual identity, conduct, and relationship is not a secondary matter, nor is it “loving” to abandon life-giving if difficult truth because the proclamation of such truth might cause duress.

Pairing Truth With Compassion

I am not unaware of how painful these matters are. Knowing a number of young men who have come to me for counsel regarding various sexual issues, including same-sex attraction, it is undeniable that those who struggle need kindness and compassion, prayer and deep fellowship. What they don’t need is approval of wrong-doing. That is something other than love.

The sure, transparent, and lucid teaching of the Bible on human sexuality is not something that can be determined by popular consent or shaped by social norms. It must be presented with kindness and care, but to keep silent about it or, worse, actively misrepresent it, is a loveless and cowardly thing.

In the United States, we determine lots of things by popular will, but God is not a democrat. He does not invite revision of His truth based on our preferences, no matter how many of us dislike what He has declared. That’s part of what is meant by carrying a cross in order to follow our Master. InterVarsity has chosen the cross of truth over the expediency of public opinion.

Previously Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council, Schwarzwalder is a long-time member of the Evangelical Theological Society.