Wednesday, July 09, 2014

John Piper, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and Aesthetic, Cultural, Entertainment, and Attire Consistency

What great arguments John Piper gives for avoiding television shows like Game of Thrones!  For decades, we haven't had cable, so we couldn't flip to it or couldn't watch it without effort, but the fictional historical period would have piqued my interest before reading of the perversity of it.  Piper reads the slide toward Gomorrah and here throws obstacles to slow it.  Christians shouldn't be watching it.  But why?

I'm right with Piper on being against television shows like this.  I applaud him again.  He reads like a separatist in this article, making certain types of arguments you'd hear from a separatist or a fundamentalist. He's preaching personal separation.  The truth honors God.

Piper's article doesn't define nudity.  He assumes everyone knows what it is.  Does everyone?  I don't think so.  Scripture doesn't use the term "nudity," whether KJV, NASV, or ESV.  It uses "nakedness" (ervah) which is merely shameful exposure of the body.  Is that nudity?  It's not a subject evangelicals talk about much.  They admit it's out there, but they won't tell you what it is -- too afraid perhaps.  Is the true problem only someone having all his clothes off and showing his vital parts?  He doesn't say.  He assumes we know.  He doesn't make a solid argument even against nudity, whatever it is.  He tells us not to look at it, even that it is sin, but he doesn't tell us what "it" is.  Some might think that these -- defining nudity and what is wrong with it -- don't matter, but they really do.  When these are not defined and reasons given, then people take it into their own hands.

John Piper sounds like he's being tough on Game of Thrones and the like.  He doesn't like that stuff himself. He won't watch it himself.  Besides not liking it and not watching it and giving people reasons for not watching it, he and evangelicalism treat dress and entertainment like a liberty issue.   They don't draw lines on this. Even here, Piper won't say you "can't do it."  These things are non-essentials to evangelicals and increasingly more with fundamentalists.  If a fundamentalist talked about a television show like this, many men will say that he's not being gospel centered or that he's diminishing the gospel by emphasizing a non-essential.  When John Piper does it, people agree with him, and give him a pass, perhaps because he has a well of good will for what he accepts from other people.

I looked at the Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN website to see programs at Piper's church, surfing to the youth and then camp section.  There was a video promoting Bethlehem's camp. On the video, there were visuals of many girls wearing shorts all the way up to their crotch area. There were photos of girls with swimsuits.  I didn't keep investigating, but this is where the evangelical standard becomes very subjective.  Is this a biblical standard or a preferential one?

Piper sees a problem.  Evangelicals do.  You can see it with their reaction to same-sex marriage.  They are rethinking their doctrinal statements, their covenants, and even their stands on separation.  But they don't have a biblical, defensible standard.  They don't offer a definition of modesty or nakedness.  Drawing the line at "nudity" isn't scriptural.  The Bible doesn't use the term.  If they were consistent, evangelicals should be angry or upset, because Piper is going beyond scripture with this standard, but we all knew evangelicals were being selective with this terminology.  It's not a biblical, but convenient.  Piper can erect a barrier to prevent further moral erosion without tuning in to God's position.

God is one, and He reveals one truth, one goodness, and one beauty.  The correct understanding of God is most important.  The gospel itself is all about God and not us.  We should, well, desire God.  And God isn't represented by the aesthetic, the culture, of Piper and evangelicals and fundamentalists like him or who identify with him.  They are actually a part of the problem, maybe the worst part of the problem.

Pornography is about lust, about defiling, about profanity.  It makes common what should be kept sacred.  Made in the image of God, we keep our clothing on.  In so doing, we keep our marriage covenant sacred.  Showing more body is that moral defilement that dishonors the imago Dei.  Evangelicals already do that with their music.  They already blaspheme God with the profanity of their worship.  They already cater to men's lust that way.  They take what is already more sacred, the worship of the church, and make it common.  They take holy words and defile them with sensual music.  This perverts a true understanding of God worse than the "nudity" does, and it happens in church, the holy congregation of the Lord.

Evangelicals opened up the movie house to Christians.  Evangelicals eroded stands against secular entertainment.  They already wouldn't make these applications of scripture.  It was part of their thinking about evangelism and how they could reach more people.  They reasoned, like liberals, that a certain sociology could help Christianity along. They already have relegated so much to the realm of the non-essential.  John Piper sits and accepts Mark Driscoll, a profane preacher with the Christian kegger parties. And now we're reaching these unacceptable depths to a generation like Piper, who was right there, a part of the cause, Piper has something to say to try to stop it.   That train has already left the station.

Many fundamentalists, especially young ones, won't admit what I'm writing here.  This is the truth, but they cannot declare the emperor's nakedness.   Evangelicals go after all the doctrinal issues, but that is not the downfall of Christianity.  They have a conduct and an aesthetic that is not becoming the gospel or sound doctrine.  It changes the meaning of the doctrinal and practical terms.  They won't do anything about it, because their enrollments are shrinking and they've got to meet the payroll.  They look for a "centrist" point of view, as I heard it from Steve Pettit in this summer's BJU town meeting.  Pettit can't say something is wrong with Northland because he won't do that about a parcel of land where he parked his trailer after a long trip and his children ran on to said property with sheer joy.  A place where they had such a good time can't receive criticism.  Pathetic.  This is where we are at in Christian discernment today, and it is Piper and those with him that brought us and helped bring us there.  Game of Thrones itself departs from "centrism," a center point, which happens to be continuing to move to the left.

There is so much wrong, but I'll leave you with this to think about.  If you can't see it or admit error, you are a contributor to the slide.  May God have mercy on you.

24 comments:

Bill Hardecker said...

FWIW: Piper stepped down from "pastoring" Bethlehem B.C. in 2012 and moved to TN in 2013.

It is interesting for him to argue against a tv show, but what about Lecrea? (the rap artist that he invited to Bethlehem BC while he was pastor). What about his involvement in the annual Passion Conference (heavy on "holy hip-hop" and CCM)? And what about him inviting Rick Warren in 2010 at the Desiring God national conference, and then defending Rick's book in the 2011 regional Desiring God conference?
Oh, but he does say to stay away from the tv show - - gotcha, well, not really.

JOHN GARDNER said...

"They won't do anything about it, because their enrollments are shrinking and they've got to meet the payroll. "
Bullseye!
I think big salaries, big buildings, and/or big tech, etc. is a HUGE driver of the problem.

We meet in a house and no one is paid. We aren't perfect but free.

Doulos said...

God bless you for seeing it and for saying it. Allow me to repeat it.

"They won't do anything about it, because their enrollments are shrinking and they've got to meet the payroll. They look for a "centrist" point of view, as I heard it from Steve Pettit in this summer's BJU town meeting. Pettit can't say something is wrong with Northland because he won't do that about a parcel of land where he parked his trailer after a long trip and his children ran on to said property with sheer joy. A place where they had such a good time can't receive criticism. Pathetic. This is where we are at in Christian discernment today..."

Anonymous said...

I don't see Steve Pettit staying long at BJU. I heard a sermon online by Pettit from the 2014 FBFI meeting where he said that it was good to be back in South Carolina and that he missed good southern gospel music. I'm sure many of the pastors and the BJU Bible staff were squirming in their seats. Pettit needs to be careful what he says.

Don Johnson said...

Kent, criticizing Steve Pettit is fair game, but the criticisms must be accurate. I'm surprised you allowed the "Anonymous" post to stand, and the criticism takes his comments out of context. What he said was that he had some room for Southern Gospel style - and he re-emphasized "some" - because the songs did speak of the gospel and joy in salvation. But he also made it clear that we need much more serious music than that.

As I said, criticize all you want, but don't stoop to taking things out of context.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. I'd challenge Anonymous to put his name in his posts.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Don,

Have you heard all of the Pettit music? Do you know what he plays and likes?

Did you like the town meeting? Did you like what Pettit said?

Don Johnson said...

I haven't listened to the town meeting as yet, so I'll have to do that. I interviewed him for P&D, will publish it shortly, and I knew him in grad school days.

No, I haven't listened to all of the Pettit music. I am not much on music, personally. I have criticized him for his use of some songs, but overall I'd say he fits in the framework of most fundamentalists in his approach. While I have my own point of view on music parameters, I don't think they should be absolutely hard and fast for everyone I fellowship with. In other words, within a generally conservative framework, there are some differences in individual application.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kent Brandenburg said...

Don,

I can await your listening to Pettit. I would like to give it a scriptural critique. It should be obvious to a scripturally thinking person the problems. You need to hear what he said about Northland and what he said about the churches in the area where he wouldn't go to church.

Regarding Pettit, he uses Southern gospel music, so I don't how that is controversial. He has tamed it for churches, but he said in the meeting itself that he likes bluegrass, so Southern gospel is not stretch. I don't know how that is controversial. It sounded legitimate to me, non-controversial in the sense of its truthfulness, not an attempt to embellish.

Doulos said...

Pastor Johnson,

Please, if you have time, also listen to the faculty/staff town hall meeting
http://bjunews.com/2014/06/18/heres-leaked-audio-of-steve-pettits-first-facultystaff-town-hall-as-bju-president/

The issue here is found in what you said, "but overall I'd say he fits in the framework of most fundamentalists in his approach."
He fits in the framework of most fundamentalists because fundamentalism has shifted so much. Pettit hasn't shifted. BJU/fundamentalism has. Years ago, Pettit would have not been considered for BJU president based on music alone, as well as other views he holds.

Pettit was not eagerly welcomed into many fundamentalist churches with his "sanctified" CCM. BJU and the FBFI stood firm on CCM. BJU has shifted, so now Pettit is okay.

How far are we willing to go? It is not only music that is the concern here. May God have mercy on us indeed when we can listen to these meetings and hear words like centrist, building bridges, platforms for ministry...when we hear no alarm or warning for BJU to not become another Northland.
This indeed is a new fundamentalism. Maybe we should shift our framework, but we must be honest and admit that we have shifted.

"In other words, within a generally conservative framework, there are some differences in individual application."
Again, how far are we willing to go. There is every effort to be culturally appropriate even to the point of making a bullet point of it in their strategic plan--with the backing of the Board as well as with Pettit's endorsement.

Stephen's last chapel message opened the future as he advised students to not argue about music in the dorms...the Gay Chapel week recommending that students mentor homosexuals in the dorms...intercollegiate sports with participation in cross country--busing students to view the immodesty...and all for some nebulous platform of ministry, having group hugs, group prayers, and group ministries with all manner of groups that would make Billy Graham proud and Dr. Bob Jr. ashamed.

Instead of dressing appropriately meaning dress as nice as you can for a given situation, it now means to NOT dress as nicely as you can for a given situation-with students cheering and applauding in chapel with announcements of more relaxed dress standards. Things are upside down, and we won't even acknowledge it.

Again, God have mercy. BJU has chosen its direction with the FBFI's stamp of approval...how far will we follow to fit into a "conservative framework of most fundamentalists".

Pretty far I imagine. Those who faithfully warned us of Northland's steps on the slippery slope REFUSE to trace like steps that can be found at BJU.

"Pathetic" is the word, indeed, Pastor Brandenburg.

Don Johnson said...

Hi Kent

Well, I stayed up to listen to the session. Let's put it this way - if it was me, I would be more blunt on some of those questions. However, I am not responsible for a multi-million dollar ministry either. (Not that the dollars matter, per se, but the responsibility does.) So I am not surprised at how he answers some questions carefully.

I happen to know that Steve was very disappointed with the Northland changes, reacted to them immediately, and left as soon as he fulfilled previous promises to them. I don't think he needs to criticize them at every opportunity. I thought his answer in the town hall was fine.

As to his comments on the music... In his first comment about bluegrass at an Artist Series he was making a joke. I think he enjoys a looser style to some extent than I would. However, this isn't really new in fundamentalism. I used to attend a certain church in Greenville when I was first a student there. The music was definitely not BJU Sunday morning style. The place was a happening place, very Southern, very fundamentalist, and not my personal cup of tea any longer. So my point is that there is an agreement among fundamentalists on the idea that music has meaning, that some music is never appropriate for Christians, that associations matter and so on. However, as we apply that understanding, we do not all make the same applications. Within certain parameters, I am comfortable with that. Obviously, at some point I would break it off with others over music, but I don't insist that they apply the concept identically with me.

If I may, a response also to "Doulos". Brother, I think you would be better served to post your real name on the internet. I'm willing to take heat for my positions, and have lost support over it. So be it. I think you should be up-front also.

I think that some of the things you have said are misrepresentations of past statements at BJU. You said "the Gay Chapel week recommending that students mentor homosexuals in the dorms"... I'm pretty sure that's not what was said at all. I will check up on it, I have two daughters who are students there. But I am pretty sure you are distorting whatever was said.

There have been changes at BJU that I am not happy with. I have occasionally spoken to the powers that be about them, and I have occasionally mentioned them on my blog. I am hopeful that I will be less disappointed with the current administration than I was with the previous administration, but time will tell. I'm pretty sure that Steve will be fine. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

David Ericssohn said...

(Sorry if this is posted twice. It's not clear to me if the first post went through.)

When subjects like this come up, I think back to when I was a junior high or high school student in a fundamental christian school, which was in the 80s. There was always a problem with some of the kids listening to rock music (Christian or otherwise) and similar genres, which were preached against a fair amount, and there were rules against singing or humming them. So, you got in trouble back then for singing the tunes from those genres in school. Now, you have schools encouraging us to sing the tunes coming out of those genres, all the while repeating emphatically that they haven't changed. The same thing happened with women wearing pants or shorts (modesty in general, really). The same thing happened with ecclesiastical and personal separation.

Here's the crux of the problem with these shifts to me: Does truth change? No. Does God change? No. Does Jesus Christ change? No. If we are clinging to those things, then we won't either. So there is a serious credibility issue here when the same people or groups preached in the past against a music genre they now use (cleaned up or otherwise). If avoiding the genre like the plague was superfluous in the past, then explain why, but in the current environment of change-without-explanation, it merely looks like Rom 12:2 conformism to me. What other important stand today will fundamentalists abandon in the future without explanation? Fundamental leaders are merely demonstrating that they are not trustworthy.

The core problem with today's typical fundamentalist and with leaders like Piper is one and the same: When you abandon foundational biblical philosophies, your arbitrarily drawn lines are mere whims. So why not change with the culture as long as you're an arm's length away?

Kent Brandenburg said...

David Ericssohn,

I'm right with you. You've nailed it with this comment. It should be obvious to everyone.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Don,

I can say that from a pragmatic standpoint, that I understand your take on Steve Pettit. I get the politics. But that is exactly why I wouldn't run for elected office. That is not; however, how a place that purports to train Christian leaders should operate. We live in a different climate today, I know. You can't say, slay them hoof and thigh, and not have that come back to bit you big time as far as your PR, your numbers, the enrollment, etc. You'll get punished by today's generation. Well, I'm from some other generation punishing. There are less of me, but I'm going to give my push back too, so that anyone will know it isn't just that crowd that pushes. He's going to have to make a choice. I don't think giving in is the way to go. And being public is better. We should push our position, not stand back and let the other side be the loud voice.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Don,

One more thing, I have allowed certain people to come on here with handles. I feel the pain of Doulos. I relate to him very much.

Oh, and on music, the music at BJU is changing. We can say that they are still in the acceptable boundary or say that this is bad. I say it is bad. Steve Pettit sells bluegrass on his website. That wasn't a joke. The joke was that he likes it and BJU won't have a bluegrass concert -- chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.

Perhaps I'll write a critique of his townhall style meeting at some point, but maybe not.

Point of interest, was Pettit saying that 17% of BJU students come from 10 churches. Wow. Those churches I'm guessing exert a lot of control.

Anonymous said...

"A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things."

Just follow it and you will know why. Its love of it and love of the world through existentialism philosophy of self rather than the biblical truth of the servants of Jesus Christ being known as men that are "always delivered unto death" through suffering, affliction, anguish and such like things to the furtherance of the true gospel of Christ.

This Christianity in America is incapable and will not stand for anything that is right, but rather will continue to compromise to the point of total apostasy and will finally return to the great whore of Rome.

Don Johnson said...

First, on handles... I allow folks to post on my blog with handles also, as long as I know who they are. I still think they should post with their real names. You should be willing to back up your opinions with your name.

Second, on genre. The genre hasn't changed at all. The music from questionable (at least) sources has been translated into an acceptable genre. I don't agree with that practice at all, I'm critical of it. But let's not overstate the case in criticizing it.

Third, on a point where you and I strongly disagree, changes in dress standards are not tantamount to changing Scripture or proclaiming that God has changed. God is for modesty, but there is not a specific dress code in the Bible. (Yes, we've all gone through the "that which pertaineth" argument, we know what it is, we disagree on meaning. I don't intend to get drawn into that debate.)

Bottom line for me, criticize BJU and Pettit all you want. But be truthful in your criticisms. Don't overstate the case. Your criticisms lack credibility otherwise.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Don,

I really did just poke the BJU thing into this article. It was mainly about the consistency with Piper and evangelicals and now fundamentalism.

I'm not trying to get into a prolonged discussion, but just to understand you, because you are a guy that would say. Are you saying that the standard of modesty, let's say, circa 1900 or even circa 1950, were subjective? They were not guided by any objective scriptural standard? When they said something was immodest, it was relative to the tradition or the norm of the day?

I don't believe that.

And I wasn't bringing Deut 22:5 here on this post. I didn't bring in anything from scripture on the modesty issue, but the bible does guide modesty. It does draw lines, and they should be followed. I'm not going to write about it again here, but it does. If not, then you've got no argument for why your women shouldn't wear a mini-skirt.

Doulos said...

"You said "the Gay Chapel week recommending that students mentor homosexuals in the dorms"... I'm pretty sure that's not what was said at all...But I am pretty sure you are distorting whatever was said."

The following is part of a document was made available to faculty/staff/students on the campus intranet last December. This clearly describes keeping the homosexual roommate in the dorms to mentor them.

"6. How do you deal with a roommate that is a homosexual or is struggling with same-sex attraction?
Answer: In responding to any situation or person, remember that the answer will never involve adding another sin to the picture. Therefore, you must not respond in pride or fear, which can lead you to ignore your roommate and/or his struggle, to expose his struggle to those who do not need to know, or to presume that he is physically attracted to you. Instead, you must respond to him with love. That will take the form of Philippians 2: 1-4, where Paul commands you not to be self-focused but to humbly consider your roommate as more significant than you. When that is your mindset, you will lovingly confront, kindly offer assistance to get help, and cautiously avoid being a source for stumbling."

Doulos said...

FBFI 1980

80. 12 REGARDING MUSIC

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship rejects the sensual trend of the religious music of today because it contradicts and nullifies the
spiritual emphasis of the preaching and teaching ministries of the church. We oppose the superficial and carnal fruit produced by this
music in the lives of both those who perform it and those who are exposed to it. We speak specifically of religious music which is
overtly rock, country, and "pop" in style. Such music is basically rhythmic, sentimental, and emotional in character and the text
generally emanates from a weak or distorted interpretation of the doctrines of Scripture. This above-described music is typified by the
publications of Bill and Gloria Gaither, Benson Publishing House, Andrae Crouch, and other ecumenical and charismatic musicians
who base fellowship and cooperation upon things other than the truth of God's Word. We oppose this music that incorrectly places the
emphasis upon the physical instead of the spiritual and that has roots in the world instead of the Bible.
-----------------

FBFI Resolution 1997
97.10 Regarding a Commitment to Godly, Christ-honoring Music:

The FBF rejects the notion that music is not a matter of separation. Clearly, we would separate from a pastor or church that used rock
music either to attract a crowd or-God forbid-in worship. Therefore, we recognize that it is a separation issue. The encroachment of
"CCM" or Contemporary Christian Music as a musical genre has been ignored too long. It is wrong to judge motives subjectively, but
it is essential to discern the implications of methods, particularly in music. Fundamentalists should be able to agree that we must be
committed to Godly, Christ-honoring music. With sufficient prayerful discussion with Fundamentalist musicians, and necessary
study of the subject by our preachers we will be able to move toward a consensus of what is meant by 'Christ-honoring' music in
practice. We call for Fundamentalists to cease defending tastes in music as a matter of "preference" and begin to expound the
principles whereby those who need guidance on this issue can be truly helped. We assert that those who boast of their "balance'
and 'objectivity" while rejecting the teaching of biblical principles concerning music are compromising the means whereby this issue
can be resolved. Neither tradition nor taste are the issue. The Bible communicates principles of music that is acceptable to God that
can and should be known and taught."

Now BJU has the Getty name (the hottest name in the industry) on the chapel screen.

https://www.gettymusic.com/about.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgLLF9Zq_NQ

But maybe I'm overstating my case that BJU/FBFI has shifted.





Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks Doulos.

Don Johnson said...

Kent

Well, I won't go into lengthy detail on this modesty argument. But you ask, "Are you saying that the standard of modesty. let's say, circa 1900 or even circa 1950, were subjective?" Let me turn this around, Are you saying that the standard of modesty circa 1900 (or 1950) is THE biblical standard? Do the women in your house dress that way? I kind of doubt it, especially on the 1900 standard. So what changed? Were they wrong in 1950? Or does modesty involve more than merely clothing style? My point here is that the changing standards at BJU or any other Christian institution are not NECESSARILY evidence of relativism or any kind of abandonment of fundamental principles. The argument is far more involved than that.

Next, back to anonymous Doulos, you bring up the FBFI resolutions as if you hold a trump card. You do this to somehow suggest that what BJU/Pettit are doing (or have done) are somehow bringing the CCM genre into the fundamentalist orbit. You are alleging that since the FBFI has made no statement against what BJU/Pettit are doing or have done, they are tacitly endorsing said change.

First, what makes a musical genre? Is it the musical score? Is it the author of the score? Is it the author of the lyrics? Is it not style and arrangement that makes a genre? Is there not a vast difference between a BJU performance of a Getty song and a Getty performance of the same?

Now, I happen to agree that BJU should be criticized for this move. However, it is not on the basis of genre or style. I find nothing objectionable about the style. But I have a HUGE problem with the associations, with the implications of a failure to distance one's self from very questionable sources.

That's what I mean by you overstating the case. You can rail away about CCM at BJU, but the argument will fail and you will convince no one. That isn't what the problem is.

Last, I want to comment on statements you say are or were available on the faculty/staff intranet and other claims. I will look into it with sources I have have. I still think there is another side to the story. I think your sources are highly questionable and reflect a situation where someone should certainly be fired if they are leaking private documents etc. But I don't frequent the "leak" sites and discount the claims made in those circles. Who knows what is true or untrue? These people have twisted agendas and can't be trusted.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Anonymous said...

"That will take the form of Philippians 2: 1-4, where Paul commands..."

Those verses were written to the church and how the church is to respond one to another. That overused phrase of "love" towards a Sodomite is froward thinking instead of a godly rebuke against sin. You need to read Romans 1 over and over again.

The bigger question is: What in the world would compel a Sodomite to come to BJU??? And some here are trying to justify that the school is not headed for apostasy? Really?

Anonymous said...

"Now, I happen to agree that BJU should be criticized for this move. However, it is not on the basis of genre or style. I find nothing objectionable about the style. But I have a HUGE problem with the associations, with the implications of a failure to distance one's self from very questionable sources."

Well said that evil association is certainly an important issue, but there must be a consideration of where lines are drawn biblically to define in principle many "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11)" that do not honor the Lord. This principle involves the command written throughout the Pauline epistles for the church of being of "one mind" and that true love that the church should have one for another. That command cannot be fulfilled without "standards" agreed to by the church elders that is the only way holiness can exist and the power of the true church sustained. But then, BJU is not under the authority of ordained biblical elders that "oversee" the biblical standards that should govern its operation!

But, alas, the church is fragmented and therefore "every man did that which is right in his own eyes".

Jon Gleason said...

Hmm. Not sure what is going on at BJU on some of these things, don't know enough to know what I think about the new prez, but I wanted to comment on this.

"6. How do you deal with a roommate that is a homosexual or is struggling with same-sex attraction?
Answer: In responding to any situation or person, remember that the answer will never involve adding another sin to the picture."

Perfectly true.

"Therefore, you must not respond in pride or fear, which can lead you to ignore your roommate and/or his struggle, to expose his struggle to those who do not need to know, or to presume that he is physically attracted to you."

Perfectly true. Pride or fear does not help anything. Exposure to others who don't need to know never helps anything. Does this say don't tell authorities who should know? No, it does not. For that, we need the rest of the story, the context. But a student certainly should not go running out in the hall and tell the guy walking by.

"Instead, you must respond to him with love."

Perfectly true. Love is honest, and confronts sin, of course.

"That will take the form of Philippians 2: 1-4, where Paul commands you not to be self-focused but to humbly consider your roommate as more significant than you. When that is your mindset, you will lovingly confront, kindly offer assistance to get help, and cautiously avoid being a source for stumbling."

Perfectly true. If a professing Christian is experiencing this temptation, they need help, desperately, quickly. They are so stunted in the renewing of their mind that obviously something id deeply wrong. They need someone to get involved, with non-selfish motives.

Have we been given the entirety of the guidance here? What does the context say?