Under the leadership of head of school Wayne Dykstra, Unity’s Sexual Orientation Position Statement provides backdoor authorization for LGBT promoting groups to start at Unity and then protects them from discrimination under the anti-bullying section.
“Upon initial reading the document it seems pretty good, the document appears to uphold a biblical view and seems to be against having this in our Christian school,” said a Unity parent.
How did Unity advance the LGBT agenda and fool so many parents? The answer lies with the use of culturally conditioned non-biblical language.
Randy Jacobsma, the Chairman of the Unity Christian board, assures Unity parents that this statement is Biblical in his cover letter — but it is not.
1) The document contains culturally conditioned non-biblical words, some examples listed below.
|Unbiblical meaning||Biblical meaning|
|Orientation:||Morally neutral inclination||Culpable thoughts, desires|
|Brokenness:||morally neutral handicap||Sin or Original Sin|
|non-heterosexual:||sexual alternative||sexual immorality|
|Contrary to God’s created order:||not as designed but not necessarily sinful||sinful perversion|
Also this document refers to the “Creator’s intent” or “God’s loving intent” which is also ambiguous terminology that has no theological basis. When the subject in view is our duty to God, especially in the area of sexual purity, the Bible doesn’t speak of God’s intentions, only His decrees, commands, law, and his will. We certainly might think that we can violate intentions with out getting in trouble, but not God’s commands!
Now that we are aware that certain definitions are malleable, a different meaning is apparent in Unity’s position statement!
Examine point D. under the section “In Truth We Affirm” and substitute the definitions above. (This is a key passage, as the title of the document is Sexual Orientation position statement. It is the only area that really addresses orientation.)
- That sexual alternative morally neutral inclinations are not as designed but not necessarily sinful and reveals the morally neutral handicap of our world. that morally neutral handicap does not give us permission to sin. (In practice/actions)
Biblical terminology reading:
- That sexually immoral culpable thoughts and desires are a sinful perversion and reveals the sin or original sin of our world. This sin (at the thought/desire level) does not give us permission to sin. (In practice/actions)
There you have it, who ever is defining the terms gets to decide what it means!
What is this Unity document saying that the Bible doesn’t?
This position statement separates the homosexual/transgender practice of the person from the sin itself at the level of “orientation” or the desires of the heart of the individual.
The unbiblical members in the CRC make an unbiblical distinction when it comes to the sin of homosexuality that they don’t do for any other sin. Is there any other sin that we treat this way?
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man.
Adultery, both practice and desire, are committing adultery in your heart.
Murder, both practice and desire, are committing murder in your heart.
Unbiblical CRC group says only homosexual practice, the physical act, is sin. When you read this document, again note that only practice is called sin.
In this document it gives protected status to the homosexual/transgender group, when the Bible says it shouldn’t be named among God’s people as fitting.
Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.
On page 3 of the document, it deals with the disciplinary procedures. According to the last paragraph, if you engage in non-heterosexual activity, that would mean the physical homosexual sex acts, that would be subject to disciplinary procedure. But the following statements show that you are subject to discipline only if you go against this new position statement, which does not call the homosexual orientation sin. It then goes on to confirm that even if a student makes a prideful statement against someone’s homosexual orientation or one’s position on sexual orientation, that you are subject to discipline. (Does this include any student who simply quotes Bible verses that go against someone’s ‘homosexual orientation?’) This protects open, unrepentant homosexuals whether individually or in groups at Unity Christian High School.
On page one of the document it says “all members of the Unity family… are struggling with their sexual identity.”
If you think this won’t happen at Unity Christian, look at what is happening at Northwestern College — which is where the foundations of OC Pride were developed (according to the Sioux City Journal).
Questions for Wayne Dykstra:
1) According to the Bible, is homosexual orientation a sin? (by every definition this orientation includes but is not limited to, desire for same-sex sexual activity)
2) Who came up with the document’s assertion “All of us within the Unity family…struggle with our own sexual identity”?
3) Do you struggle with your own sexual identity? (Note, definition of sexual identity is how one thinks of oneself in terms of to whom one is romantically or sexually attracted.)
4) Were there pastors or elders involved with this document? Did they agree with the ambiguous terminology? The sexual identity part? Surely some must have objected to this document, how did you deal with that?