"I pray that each one of us will make it our practice, just like Jesus, to love the sinner and hate the sin in every aspect of our Christian experience."

That's right...love those sinning homosexuals but hate their homosexuality. Is that what you're going for?

Dr. King (the White one who did the introduction to the video) used an analogy of a doctor who is all grace but no truth. The doctor is so grace-filled that he tells all the patients that they are OK even though they have fatal diseases.

What a weak analogy for the way that the church should approach homosexuality! It suggests that homosexuality is like a disease to be cured by some doctor. Does that mean gays are supposed to go to Jesus to be healed of their gayness? It also makes grace out to be some sort of divine hoodwinking, some kind of hedging where truth is concerned, like truth and grace are in opposition.

My brother, who from the time he was very young had homosexual tendencies, would take serious exception to someone saying that he has a disease that Jesus is gonna cure. He has said that if there were a choice involved, he never would have chosen the derision and the rejection that he's gone through. No sane person would. He feels like if God was displeased with homosexuality, God wouldn't have allowed him to be like this. Certainly, God would have done SOMETHING after my brother's many, many prayers about it.

My brother checked out of the Adventist church because he was sick of being told God loves you (the sinner) but hates your sin (homosexuality). Frankly, the way the Dean at Southern Adventist University talks about homosexuality (let's be gracious toward your sin, but also tell the truth---it IS sin) is not going to encourage my brother or people like him to come back any time soon.

I'm still waiting for the church to go after the sin of obesity with the same fervor that it goes after gays. The Bible is clear that gluttony is an abomination and one could easily argue that gluttony puts way more of a burden on our public health system and kills many-fold more people than being gay - especially monogamous gays.

So, in that spirit, I'm waiting for the church to refuse to allow church office to overweight people, to preach about loving the fat person but hating their sin, kicking overweight people out of colleges until they can show they have stopped clinging to their sin and accepted Jesus, and refusing to allow fat people to teach in children's SS because of their example of willful sinfulness. We wouldn't want our children to get the message that being fat was an acceptable lifestyle now would we? Just think, with the emphasis on health in the SDA church, it could be at the forefront of this crusade.

And why aren't there long threads debating how we should be treating fat people in the church and whether being fat was a sin or not? And whether Jesus said anything about being fat or what current research suggests about obesity?

(To clarify just in case, I am, in no way, suggesting the church should actually do this. Just trying to point out the double standard.)

This morning I sit here at the National Cathedral working with many dedicated Christian ministers, some of whom also happen to be gay or lesbian. I get the distinct impression that while these SOR panelists are nice folks, they just don't work very often with openly gay Christian leaders.

Disregarding the fights over textual emphasis, cultural meaning, and moral priorities, at some level it requires a significant amount of hubris to tell loving, caring disciples of Christ that they are special sinners, that God hates their skin touching one another.

While folks who wag their finger at homosexuals like to obliquely pat themselves on the back for their moral clarity, it really doesn't take much to do that in private conversations, or at their churches, in Adventism, at Southern. I'd like to hear more about how they have taken this light, their moral witness into the world. When they attend professional meetings - SBL/AAR - are they this clear about what kinds of monogamous, consenting, adult skin touching skin God hates?

Remember, a generation ago just as many compassionate, clear Biblical arguments were deployed about God loving the sinners, but hating interracial monogamous, consenting, adult skin touching.

Alex,

"Remember, a generation ago just as many compassionate, clear Biblical arguments were deployed about God loving the sinners, but hating interracial monogamous, consenting, adult skin touching."

Sorry Alex, I don't see sound equivalence. I wake up Caucasian every day and my wife Asian without choice. I don't have to take a drink today if I have alcoholic propensities and I don't have to act out homosexual propensities genetic or environmental today.The latter two examples are of behaviors.

I see nothing prohibiting interacial marriage in the NT but I do see 1 Cor.6:9-11.

Beth,

Your point is well taken.It should also be offensive if people say it is "good" to be overweight.

I believe we all need to acknowlege what the Bible calls sin not only as it effects others but also ourselves.

The "poor in Spirit" attitude repents and seeks to grow through the Spirit. That person "walks" as justified in Christ.

What happens when none challenge sin anymore and we are all "just ok as we are"? What happens to repentance and growth? Why a need for the Grace of the Holy Spirit working in our life?

It shouldn't be fun that we point out the need for growth...but it is necessary.

PS. There is proportionality in how all sins are treated. Would you agree? Should Johnny taking 10 dollars from mothers purse at the age of 16 receive the same response that murder does? Are both sin?

Very well put, on the part of both of you, Beth and Brother.

I was once an SDA editor/journalist and I remember writing an aweful article about the topic of homosexuality, which sounded very much like that of the SAU dean (and which, mercifully, was written long before it had a chance to be immortalized on the web.)

My problem was primarily that I saw this issue as a "topic" with an answer that tradition had made so obvious that I didn't need to think it through to arrive at the answer. I didn't know any gay people (well, actually, like most of us, I did without knowing it) and therefore it was easy to cleave them in two and assign one part to God and the other to the abyss. I spoke whereof I knew not.

But the world is moving forward on this issue, just as I have. I hope I would have been able to arrive at my current stand if I had remained in the church. As it was, it was leaving the church that made me rethink a lot of things. It is easier to think about morality and ethics outside of church, because you can no longer go hide behind traditional interpretations of the Bible. You have to look your fellow human being in the eye and explain why he or she is second rate and you'r not. It's amazing how cruel people can be when they think they have the support of God and Tradition.

Great point Beth. And, Pat, your response again illustrates that you view homosexuality and a homosexual orientation as a choice, which has not only been refuted by many, many, many personal examples but also scientifically.

I'm not sure there is a way to say this without sounding completely heretical, but sometimes we have to admit that the Bible cannot cover every detail of life that we face today. There have been many conversations about this topic that have done a good job pointing out the problems with the handful of texts that we have about homosexuality, and many people have reminded us that the Bible did not address homosexuality (most are addressing violent rape of child trafficking--situations where there isn't equality in a sexual relationship) as we know it today (the word didn't even exist and certainly the possibility of monogamous, committed same-sex relationships didn't exist). Even given all of that, I think this is a situation in which we have to admit we have to look at the trajectory of scripture as the specifics do not help.

There is much more of a Biblical (New Testament) argument to be made against women having equality much less a public role in front of a church than there is against monogamous, committed same-sex relationships. But of course it is no longer acceptable to argue for the subjugation of women based on the Bible (at least in the industrialized countries) just as it is no longer acceptable to argue against inter-racial marriage or for "compassionate" slavery using Biblical proof-texts. As our societal norms change, our interpretation of the Bible changes. It has always happened and is continuing to happen on this issue. That reality seems to frighten people a great deal.

When PUC hosted a panel discussion on religion and sexuality (they discussed sexuality as a holistic topic but also talked about homosexuality), I remember being very impressed by the conversation between the chair of the religion department and the chair of the behavioral science department. I'm probably doing them injustice in this paraphrase, but the chair of the religion department said that although in his reading of Bible he finds that homosexual activity is prohibited, he also finds that it is a minor, minor issue in the overall emphasis of the Bible's message. Clearly God has way more important priorities, priorities like caring for the poor, fighting oppression on behalf of the marginalized, and loving each other. The chair of the behavioral science department, who finds in his reading of scripture that loving, committed homosexual relationships are not a sin, commented that if the tenor of the conversation always had that emphasis, this issue within Christianity would largely be a moot point.

Is homosexuality the only condition where the phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" is more frequently used than any other? How can one "love the sinner" and yet "hate" his very being? This position ALWAYS implies an opinion that one's very being is a choice. None of use chose our race, our parents, our country of birth, or our sex. Yet, this phrase implies that only homosexuality is a mature choice (we don't allow infant baptism because they are not developmentally ready to make such an important choice. When does a small child decide his or her orientation? What gives us the omniscience to determine that homosexuality IS a choice?

Will someone please illustrate how "sin" can be separate from "sinner"? If we believe that there is no one sinless, and we are ALL sinners, when will anyone's sin NOT be hated?

This phrase, so glibly and mindlessly used, conflates "sinner" with "sin" as though a human can ever be separated from sinning. When is that possible? Are only some "sins" choices, while others are devoid of choice? Is it not fair to state that homosexuality is the most preeminent condition where "hate the sin but love the sinner" is used? Is there somewhere in the Bible where sins are rated on a scale that should be least hated to most hated? How many actions are classified as "abominations" in the Bible? Is there a pattern to be found there? Do we still regard all of those as "abominations" today? Why, or why not?

Some people gave good and thoughtful comments. Good thinking (mostly).

After watching all 90 minutes of the presentation, I have a few more reflections on the panel discussion. Of all of the panelists, Douglas Tilstra had some of the best insights to offer. Douglas Tilstra is the guy in the brown sweater.

He said that we don’t have the right to give the expectation that conversion will mean a change in sexual orientation. He also said that whenever we see people marginalized or dehumanized, we need to decry that, and that he worries we have become more issue oriented than people oriented.

Preach on, Brother Tilstra. Convert the other panelists.

Pastor Nixon, at the left end of the table takes the award for most horrendous statement of the discussion. He quoted someone else, and then added that it was interesting. The quote was “Wouldn’t it be just like Satan to take the body’s life seed and deposit it into the body’s waste system as a way of throwing it up in the face of God.”

Honorable mention goes to Dr. King (the White one who moderated the discussion) for the way he framed the question: "Why shouldn’t a Christian just show grace and acceptance? (Those who struggle sexually have heard enough condemnation from the church)."

The young Campus Ministries leader who is a junior theology major set the record straight on homosexuality: "I believe it is a sin…along with gossiping and lying and all sorts of other sins and its something that God is asking us to surrender to him that he might cleanse us."

In fact all the panelists down to a man (evidently women aren't allowed to speak in church at Southern) agreed that homosexuality is a sin.

It brings to mind a conversation between another group of religious leaders and a marginalized man: "To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out (John 9)."

OK, so maybe women are allowed to speak a little bit. Of the 90 minutes of the discussion, about 5 minutes of that was females speaking. Of that 5 minutes, 3 1/2 of those minutes (at 72:20) were some lady during the Q&A part advertising a web site that provides lots of testimonies of former gays who tell about how the Lord delivered them from their homosexual tendencies. She then revealed that the main writer was a formerly gay Adventist pastor who got his religion degree from Southern.

Listening to her dither on about how great a resource this is and how everyone ought to check it ought suddenly brought clarity to why Paul suggests that women ought to be quiet in church :-D

Most stereotypically Southern question from an audience member: "If we allow recovering homosexuals to have leadership positions, what about recovering child molesters, murderers… where do we draw the line?"

Of course I like the Christological response to sexual sin. Both videos were interesting to watch. John Nixon did speak clearly of his real-world experience with homosexual parishioners. The panel even spoke forcefully at the end saying that Christians have a responsibility to fight for fair and just treatment for all persons in this country- that the church has failed in not taking the lead in fighting discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Daneen,

Perhaps you overlooked this in my comment, "I wake up Caucasian every day and my wife Asian without choice. I don't have to take a drink today if I have alcoholic propensities and I don't have to ACT OUT homosexual propensities ..."genetic or environmental"... today.The latter two examples are of behaviors.

AA says that alcholism is a "genectic propensity" or genectic related.

pat

Daneen said, and I's quoting here:
but sometimes we have to admit that the Bible cannot cover every detail of life that we face today...I think this is a situation in which we have to admit we have to look at the trajectory of scripture as the specifics do not help.

That's right, uh huh! Tell it like it is and make it plain!

The problem with saying homosexuality it a sin plain and simple is that we're saying - just like those Pharisees did -that homosexuals are steeped in sin from birth. A panelist in the discussion said that we are sexual beings. But in the case of gay folk, that means they are intrinsically sinful beings, that sin is built right into their uhhh genitals or brains or anatomy in general. Is that really the best that the church can come up with on this?

Alex,

Just finished the SOR discussion. Thanks for posting it.I found it to be with “Compassion and Clarity.”

pat

Daneen, you said clearly the point that I was trying to get at. I understand that calling the sexual acts by GLBs a sin is important to a large segment of the church. I also understand how they arrived at that conclusion and I honestly don't feel a need to convince them they are wrong. I disagree with their conclusion but, to me, in the overall scheme of things, it is a minor detail and certainly not worth the energy devoted to arguing it.

The problem seems to be how it has gotten blown up into this huge huge sin - so awful that we equate it with child molestation. And that is just wrong. Very wrong in my book.

Pat I completely agree that one could call all of it sin but understand it is proportional. That's kind of the point I was trying to say. There are sins worth devoting hours of agonized discussion over and others. . . not so much. Sins that destroy the community, families, and health, and others. . . not so much. Things that may be a sin but on the overall list of soul-destroyers wouldn't place in the top 10. I think the church would be light years ahead if it could only understand GLB love in that context.

As a church we could hold up the standard of sex within committed relationships, and warn our youth of the emotional and health risks of casual sex, whether gay or straight. And I think that would do much more to honor God's message personally.

What is this? The 5th discussion of these type of thing in the last few months?

Dont you love it when everyone gets a new chance to say the same old things again?

I posted this at the behest of a Southern Theology student who thought having video from further variety of perspectives would be of benefit.

Every once in awhile, someone complains that one or another issue gets too much attention here. Fair enough. Often this happens when a painful subject comes up. But the reality is that hot topics tend to stick out in our minds.

Here's a rough list from our tag cloud of the topics covered in the last six months:

(La Sierra University) 60th-birthday abortion abuse accreditation activism ADRA adventism adventist Adventist educational mission Adventist Forums Adventist health reform Adventist higher education Adventist history Adventistm Adventist News Adventists Adventists in the news Adventist Today Advetntism AEGUAE Afghanistan Alden Thompson Alfred North Whitehead Alfred University Amazing Facts america Amish Amnesty International Andrews University angwin animals anthropology anti-modernism anticonceptivos Apostles apostleship Argentina Arianism art arte Arthur Maxwell Asia assault atheism Atlantic Union College atonement Aula7activa Aurora University B. Lyn Behrens barry black basketball basketball melee bbc Beatitudes beginning of life belief benefits of religion betrayal Bible Bible and personhood Biblical literalism Biblical translation Blog Bob Rigsby book club books Boston Brazil bubble Buddhism Burma Business C.S. Lewis Caesar Wamalika Carl Wilkens Carmen Seibold Catholicism chaplaincy Chattanooga China Christ's resurrection Christendom Christian charity Christian community Christian discipleship Christian heirarchy Christianity Christian mission Christmas Christmas movies Christology church church/state separation church management climate change coal college College Bowl columnists comix comments commercialization community community organizing Compassion Forum competition Comrades conference congregations conscientious objection cost of discipleship creacionismo creation creation care creationism creencias crucifixion cult culture Daily Show Dalai Lama Daneen Akers Darfur Darius Weems Dark Ages Darwin Darwinism David George David Larson David R. Hodge Day of Atonement; Adventism; Doctrine; 1844; Jewish Festivals; Passover; Christ; End Times death debt Delbert Baker deporte development Dietrich Bonhoeffer disciples' memory discipleship diseño inteligente distance education diversity divorce DMD Docetism doctrine Dominican Republic doubt Dr. King drama Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Easter eco-village ecology economics education Eighth Amendment election Ellen White Ellen White; Progressive Adventism; Fundamentalism emergent endowment end times environment Eric Webster eschatology Escuela Sabática escuelasabatica estilo de vida eternity ethics ethnicity European Enlightenment Eva Keller evangelicalism evangelicals evangelism everyman evolucionismo evolution Ezekiel faith fake news fall movies family farming film film club food foreign policy forgiveness forum france fraude científico freedom free will Fritz Guy fundamental beliefs fundamentalism Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Gary Land Gary S. Benson GC Leadership; Jan Paulsen; Twenty-eight Fundamental Beliefs; Human Sexuality; Sexual Expression; Sexual Orientation; Gender Issues; 2007 Annual Council Session; Position Statement on Homosexuality; An Affirmation of Marriage gender Geoffrey Mbwana Geoscience Research Institute global warming God God's character God's Chosen People God's kingdom God's love God's wrath God is Still Speaking; UCC; Adventism; Women & Ordination; Ellen White; Founders; Future of Adventism Gospel of Matthew Gospel signs grace Great Commission Great Controversy greed green Griggs University Hanukkah harvesting HBCU health care healthcare Heather Isaacs Royce heaven Hillary Clinton; 2008 Election; President: Obama; Hillary 2008; Women & Politics; Sexism: Racism historical fiction historical Jesus history history theodicy experiment HIV/AIDS holidays hollywood Holy Land homosexuality hope human rights humor Huntsville Police ideas Immaculate Conception innocence integration intelligent design intercessory prayer interfaith internet interview Iraq Islam Israel Israeli-Palestinian Crisis Jan Paulsen Jesus Jesus' baptism Jesus' Messiahship Jesus' miracles Jesus's teachings Jesus Difference John Cobb Jr. Johnny Ramirez-Johnson journal Journey to Jerusalem jubilee Judaism Julius Nam jury justice Karl Marx Katrina Emery Kenya Kenya elections Kenya unrest Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Kirsten Nixon Korean immigrants la-voice language Lao Tzu la sierra La Sierra University Last Supper law Lawyer Lent liberation theology libertad religiosa living sacrifices LLU local church Logan Smalley Loma Linda University lordship loss Madagascar Mahler manipulation marathon Marc Wagner Marianne Thieme marriage marshmallows Martin Luther King Day Maryland media media-tion media consolidation meekness memoir Memorial Medical Center Menorah Mercy Killing Michel Onfray ministry mission MissionServ morality Moses mujer music musicals Muslim myth Nathan Brown Nazism Netherlands Nevada caucus news Nicodemus Nietzsche Not For Sale NPR NRA nutrición Oakwood College Oakwood University Obama open open theism Origins outpourings of divine power Pacific Union College Pacific Union College Atlantic Union College Columbia Union College parousia passing pastors patience peace Peacemaking Heritage Series pensadores adventistas pensamiento perfection perfectionism PhD thesis philosophy Pitcairn poesia poetry politician politics pop culture poverty prayer president progress progressive adventism Progressive Adventism; prophecy protest PUC PUC apology PUC Cast puerto rico QoD Questions on Doctrine race racism Radical Orthodoxy Ralph Baze redemption Reign of God relationships relationship with Christ religion religious liberty remnant research retaining members Revelation Reviewing the Review Richard Hart Rick Rice Rolf Pöhler Romans 12 romney running Rwanda genocide sábado Sabbath Sabbath School sacrifice SAU science Scripture second death Secret of the Cave Seeking a Sanctuary self-supporting Selma Alabama sermon Sermon on the Mount Seventh-day Adventist education Seventh-day Adventist Higher Education sexuality signs silence sin sister cities slavery Social Entrepreneurship social justice songs of praise soteriology soul South South Africa southern Southern Adventist University Southern Adventist University; Adventist Forum; Adventism; College Students; Seeking A Sanctuary; Adventist Blogs southern california conference South Korea Spectrum Spectrum Liturgy spirit of prophecy spirituality spiritual journey sports STEP Stereotypes student activism students study suffering sun valley sustainability Tennessee terrorism the cross The Great Controversy theism theodicy theology Theology; Homosexuality; Adventism; Christian Community therapeutic effects of prayer The Ten Commandments the trinity Thomas C. Bowling three-school model time torture translation treasure in heaven true discipleship truth Twelve Disciples U.S. Constitution U.S. Supreme Court uaa Universidad Adventista del Plata university University of Eastern Africa US presidency Vaughen Nelson vegetarianism Virginia Tech Virgin Mary war web Weimar Institute Weymouth Spence women's ordination women disciples works world world religion Worship; Adventist Scools; Colleges; Universities; Students yancey Yemen Zechariah

As one can see, in reality, there are hundreds of issues at which we've nipped, and there will be thousands more. No one is forcing anyone to comment here, but those who comment are helping all of us to see the world through someone else's eyes - a sometimes rare and precious contemporary miracle. I'm not sure how we solve painful, multi-sided issues, but I know that keeping silent or pushing issues under the bed, doesn't often make them go away.

I welcome written posts at: alexander[at]spectrummagazine[dot]org

This is a community effort and I need your help as we all work together - in good faith - to broaden and deepen our understanding of truth today.

Pat, thanks for the thanks! : )

I appreciate your perspective and you do raise a fair point about those verses.

On the other hand, according to a quick scan of this racist Bible study, there are some pretty arresting verses in the Bible used against interracial marriage.

And for a long time, these were deployed in similar hermeneutical ways - a chapter and a couple of verses - much more openly in Christendom.

http://www.crutchercpa.com/interracialmarriage.htm

Note those Ezra verses.

Comments from the gentlemen on the extreme right also sounded extremely odd. Something to the effect that by homosexual intimacy one was sinning against his own body.
Is that inferring that any sexual release that is not met through heterosexual, married intercourse is somehow different physically?

Long before Augustine, and even in OT times, the "wasting of seed" was seen as an abomination because the people had been given specific orders to be fruitful and multiply and any intimacy that frustrated that command was sinning (which is how the RCC arrives at contraceptions being sinful). The church fathers, in addition to Augustine: Tertullian, Origen (who performed self-castration) viewed any form of sex as sinful and should be engaged in very sparingly, as did EGW. Sex was an evil introduced by Eve and she has been damned ever since. The fear of sexually sinning has been a pervasive influence in the Christian church.

Another commentator spoke of giving up tobacco and being still tempted after many years. What a trivialization to compare one's orientation from birth with the smoking habit--which no one was born with.

Homosexuality was never mentioned by Jesus; the Ten Commandments never mention it, only adultery. The church position on that has drastically changed in the last 100 years; at one time it was sufficient ground for a member to be terminated. Also, the term "living in adultery" was the same as "living in sin" as homosexuality is today. Yet adulterers remarry and does anyone believe that they are living in sin by remarrying?

Christians should heed Jesus' words and since he never spoke a word against homosexuality; nor did Paul recognize then that homosexuality was usually an orientation from birth and not a choice anymore than the choice of one's skin color or eye color.

The popular Greek homosexual relations were usually a form of pederasty and there was no indication that these were exclusive homosexual relations as many of those practicing pederasty had wives and families.

I'm no professional in this matter but from what I've read, heard and watched I see at least 4 different sources from which a homosexual person can emerge:

1. Genetics
2. Reaction from Sexual and/or other abuse
3. Long-term restriction to same sex groupings
4. Curiosity and experimentation

It appears that some are lifetime orientations, some are short-lived and some apparently can be changed supernaturally. All of this, before a sexual act is even preformed, makes this a hugely complicated issue.

I just ask that those involved remember that these are all children of God, very much like you and me who, for the most part, would not have chosen this lifestyle had they had a say in the matter. To compare them to pedophiles or murderers assumes they are sinners before there is even a sexual act, which isn't biblical.

Alex, I also have to thank you for posting this article brother. It’s encouraging to now at least see both sides of the issue that happened at Southern fairly represented. You definitely hit the nail on the head with this comment:

“This is a community effort and I need your help as we all work together - in good faith - to broaden and deepen our understanding of truth today.”

This site wouldn’t be called “Spectrum” if only one side of an issue was constantly being presented, right? Also, I thank you for upholding the blogs guidelines by removing the person personally attacking one of our Professors instead of discussing the issue. I don’t mind people using pseudonyms as long as they stick to the issue but, when this gets used to attack someone personally, I see it as cowardice.

That being said, I’d like to throw in a site for continued discussion on this topic:

www.victorjadamson.com

This is the website of a pastor who is an ex-gay and author of the book: “That Kind Can Never Change!” Can They…?
I agree with Gaylene that I have heard different reasons for why people become attracted with Homosexual inclinations. Yet, some would doubt that there are any people out there who have been Homosexuals (be it through heredity, abuse, restriction or choice) and have changed. Here’s one.

Even though I haven't been in the shoes of someone who is currently fighting this struggle, as a fellow sinner saved by grace (and to anybody facing this issue or WHATEVER challenge you may be struggling with), let me say that the Church is a place where broken people go to find comfort through fellowship. I know that such a seemingly weak conservative response is leaving me open to attack by others who might want to knit pick my words instead of looking at point I'm trying to make but I don't care. It’s TRULY a shame our Church can’t be more honest and open about the struggles we each face because I feel that would foster more understanding and unity amongst God's people but any change doesn’t come by people leaving and pointing fingers from the outside, it comes through being in the trenches with the rest of us and grappling with the issues head on. It might take time but I'd like to get to the point where our SDA Church (both "liberals" and "conservatives"...which when i think about it, are the names you could describe the Sadducee's and Pharisees respectively in Jesus' day) resembles the Early Church in Acts 1: "In ONE Accord!" I’d like to finish with a memorable line from Pr. John Nixon:

“If there’s any sin that Jesus Christ can not cure, then He is NOT the Son of God.”

My faith is grounded on the belief that He IS the Messiah. Period. May the Lord Jesus Christ richly bless you all as we strive to understand God and each other more!

I would first like to say thank you to Alexander and Spectrum for posting this at my request, and while I do not agree with all the comments that have been posted, I am certainly thankful that we have an arena in which to consider each other's perspectives on this issue.

There are several areas I would like to touch on. As I have read some of the postings I have seen an emergence of the idea that those of us who believe that homosexual practice is sinful do not equate other acts of transgression as being equally sinful. Examples that were given in other postings were those of how obesity is overlooked in the church and that adulterers are allowed to hold office and seem to go on with life as usual after they have sinned. One thing that any fair-mined person must admit is that there are no obese people or adulterers going around trying to convince the world that their sin is not sin. Every obese person I know, personally, recognizes that they have an issue and I have been able to encourage several of my friends to yield that indulgence to the Lord.

I have also known several people who have committed adultery and afterwards repented and renewed their relationship with Jesus. I admit that this is anecdotal evidence, but I do not see the Bible making the sin of adultery any less sinful than the act of homosexual intercourse. The difference I see in our society is that those who engage in homosexual intercourse want their sin declassified as such. I'm sorry, but we do not have the authority to declassify sin. That prerogative belongs solely to God. As I stated in the letter that Alexander posted for me, Christ loved sinners and called them to "go, and sin no more" thereby showing His condemnation and hatred of their sinful deeds.

How do we address those who may have homosexual tendencies from birth? I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not agree that sin has degraded the image of God in the current state in which we find humanity. I firmly believe that God did not originally create mankind with a propensity to sin either in the flesh or in the mind. Nor did He create some of us with desires for the same sex. The Bible would not condemn something that God had ordained from the very beginning. The possible genetic inclination that some now have to homosexuality, alcoholism, pedophilia, or even depression is an obvious result of the degrading effects of sin on the human genetic code after thousands of years of exposure to sin. I would go even one step further and say that each of us, myself included, wear and live the effects of that sin exposure each day in one form or another. This degraded image of God that now bears the results of millenniums of sin yearns to be restored to the beauty and magnificence that God originally intended it to bear. The apostle Paul was very clear when he said that this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:53). Just because we all now find ourselves existing in this shell of former Edenic glory does not justify living in open sin in our present world. We should all long to put off our corruption.

Another area that I would like touch on is how the SAU School of Religion (SOR) handled this matter publicly in the classroom and one-on-one setting. I am a senior theology major there and as such I have know the professors and the dean of the SOR for some time now. I also attended both panels on campus. As you may imagine there was passionate debate from both sides of the issue in the days that followed the first panel. I felt like the students who held the first panel did a pretty good job, but I went away feeling that the Biblical perspective needed better presentation. While there were many who felt that enough had been said, there were just as many who desired for more to be said, and I was among them. As the topic came up in class I was very pleased with the way that the professors handled the matter. There was a deep sense of wanting to speak words of truth mixed appropriately with love. Not once did I hear any of my professors speak harshly or negatively about the panel discussion in class or one-on-one. The only cries of anger came from some students who felt that the Biblical truth on the matter had been soft-peddled to the masses. I am actually very proud of the fact that I am going to be an SAU SOR graduate very soon, and I feel it to be an intense honor to have received my theological training from SAU's SOR faculty.

Lastly, I want to say that we have an obligation as Christians to approach this subject, as well as all others, with the utmost love and kindness. I would echo the words of Dr. Doug Tilstra and say that we should decry the dehumanization of any group of people whom society attempts to marginalize in any form. At the same time, I want to be able to stand before the Lord and know that I loved people enough to tell them when their lifestyle matched the Biblical definition of sin in any form when such was the case.

I would not be where I am today if someone had not loved me enough to tell me about my sin. I pray that we each one, myself included, will always have the courage to lovingly point out sin for the express purpose of bringing about redemption in the lives of people whom Christ died to save.

May the Lord bless you all as you seek to serve Him in your own lives. Thank you for allowing me to express some thoughts here.

The comment made by John Nixon:

“If there’s any sin that Jesus Christ can not cure, then He is NOT the Son of God.”

When is that curing supposed to occur? Before the 2nd Coming? Any time before that? Is that bordering on perfectionism where there will be a group who are sinless before the 2nd Coming, or when?

Did Jesus cure all those he met and his followers while here on earth? Saying that Jesus is able to cure all sins, seems to imply that: 1) we may not be properly defining sin; or 2) if sin is to be here until glorification, why has Jesus not chosen to cure us of all sin?

How is "sin" different from sickness or disease which God has never promised to remove. If Jesus has the power to cure us of all sin, then is the reason we still are sinning, because we choose not to be cured?

Maybe it's a good thing that I've been out of touch with the internet for the last couple of weeks, because I do feel the temptation to say what I've said before, only louder - as if maybe this time someone will finally hear!

I've listened to most of the panel discussion, and found myself wishing I could have been in conversation with the panel members. For one thing, I disagree so entirely with Dr. Leatherman's presentation of the biblical texts, and I would like to challenge his viewpoint, particularly his assumption that Paul understood homosexual orientation as we do today. His understanding and interpretation of what those texts say are very different from my understanding and interpretation of them.

I think I'll limit myself to responding to Gaylene and Nelson, as your posts show how difficult it is to talk about this issue because of different understandings of the terms used. In my understanding, only people with a lifelong attraction to the same sex, with a corresponding lack of attraction to the opposite sex, can be defined as having a homosexual orientation. Prisoners and soldiers, experimenters, and those who have been sexually abused, who engage in same-sex behavior as a result, are not homosexuals. And let me add that the idea that most homosexuals are so because of sexual abuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny, when you think of the large majority of those who have been abused but aren't homosexual!

I have talked with "Victor Adamson" and while he has married heterosexually and has children, that is not evidence that he has changed his orientation. There are thousands upon thousands of homosexual men who have been married and had children. True, he has left the promiscuous, drug-filled lifestyle he once lived, which is certainly for the better. He has changed his behavior, but not his orientation. His philosophy and approach is similar to that of Colin Cook, who was so heavily promoted by our church a couple of decades ago, but who is now divorced and disgraced. Not to say that "Victor's" experience will turn out the same way, but they both talk about "claiming" Jesus' heterosexuality as their own, rather than becoming heterosexual. To be honest, I don't believe there are any true homosexuals who have changed their attractions; some have simply learned through long years of practice to suppress them. I have heard many, many stories by wives of gay men (and a few by husbands of lesbians) about the big part that is missing in a marriage where your partner is suppressing his true attractions.

I think it is a common mistake to compare a genetic tendency to alcoholism, which is so often used, with a homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is a hardwiring of the brain before birth, which cannot be changed, once it has taken place. It is an actual biological difference in the brain. I think a better comparison is to a man or woman who is biologically infertile and therefore cannot obey God's first command to be fruitful and multiply. Yes, it is the result of the sinful world in which we live, but we don't call those who are infertile sinners. I agree with Elaine, that it doesn't seem fair or compassionate to say the way a person is born is a sin.

Hello Carrol,

Just a quick note regarding Dr. Leatherman's discussion of his view of the biblical texts. I thought he made it pretty clear that in his view, the Bible doesn't deal with orientation (nor does Paul). When Paul writes, he's speaking of actions and not of orientation.

Did one of us misunderstand his perspective?

God bless,
Sean

I think the discussion concerning homosexuality is to narrow. It should be viewed from a broader context of human sexuality in all of its forms. When this is done I think everyone will see they draw the line at some point as to what they think is acceptable. Below is a list of sexual behaviors practiced in the world today. Where would you draw the line as too what is acceptable? I have avoided details for the sake of brevity and discretion.
1. Man and Woman one and only one permanent marriage
2. Man and Woman sexual positions
3. Man and Woman Character acting
4. Man and Woman sexual violence sadomasochistic
5. Man and Woman divorce and remarriage
6. Man and Woman polygamy married to more than one wife
7. Man and Woman plus girlfriend no marriage
8. Man and Woman fornication no marriage temporary connection
9. Man and Woman for sale prostitution
10. Man and Woman rape
11. Man and Woman Snuff
12. Man and Man homosexual
13. Woman and Woman lesbian
14. Man and Beast Bestiality cow, pig, dog, ape
15. Man transvestite cross dressing
16. Man transsexual sex change operation
17. Man genetic flaw hormonal no testosterone , chromosomal xyy
18. Man physical defect genitalia flaw
19. Man Training parents raised man as a woman

"... (f) No human evidence exists to date for a role of the neonatal androgen surge in the development of gender-related behavior. (g) While the evidence for prenatal androgens as the primary determinant of gender-related behavior is very strong, gender identity does not seem to be directly affected. Overall, the conclusions raise the question how the status of the androgenization of the brain at birth can be used for a prognosis of gender-identity outcome and guide gender assignment decisions. In the absence of reliable techniques of brain imaging of the newborn for this purpose, many have argued for using masculinization of the genitals as an indicator of brain masculinization. However, this approach encounters a variety of significant problems, applies at best only to selected syndromes, has only very modest predictive power for gender-related behavior, and is very problematic in the prediction of gender identity."

- Biopsychosocial Determinants of Gender, Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2006

Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, Columbia University

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_43/ai_n16107852

Darryl you make the point that it is important to both stand against sin and to show love towards sinners.

Here's the point I am trying to make. We don't marginalize obese people. They are fully welcomed into the body of Christ. They hold positions of leadership throughout the church, they instruct our children, they preach, they are ordained etc. We hand them desert at potluck with a smile. And I think that is as it should be.

Many Christian churches see the sexual acts of GLBs as such a bad sin that they do marginalize them. They insist that in order to be welcome in the church body, they must not be "sinning" - i.e. sexually involved. I liken that to insisting that obese people must no longer be obese before they are welcomed in the church. I am talking about how we treat those whom we believe to be sinning. What sins are so harmful that we confront and what sins are between the person and God? I am simply suggesting that a loving monogamous relationship between two adults of the same sex could fall in the latter category.

Are you willing to smile and share a hymnal with a gay couple? Have them over for Sabbath dinner? Let your kids play with their kids? Listen to their spiritual instruction if they taught SS? Listen to them preach? Ordain them? I would guess many straight Christians squirm at the idea because, deep inside, they think being gay is really bad. Straight Christians think, "Who are they to stand up and instruct me on spiritual issues when they are sinning so badly?" And, until that gay person changes, Christians are not comfortable around them. I argue that this attitude, if shown to an obese person, would be mean and wrong. And yet we show it all the time to practicing GLBs - and often even those not practicing.

Clearly, CLEARLY many people think that being a practicing GLB justifies marginalizing. And that is what I think is wrong. If the pro-sin/anti-sin sides could both agree that practicing GLBs should not be marginalized, we would have come a long ways.

JB wrote: 17. Man genetic flaw hormonal no testosterone , chromosomal xyy

XYY, is a genotype that leads to greater than normal production of androgens and phenotypes include very tall and slender as adolescents.

XXY, commonly call Kleinfelter Syndrome does not mean an absence of Androgens. Androgens are usually produced in smaller than normal quantities the phenotype is mostly male with some feminization.

X0/XY XX/XY Mosaicism can lead to various phenotypes including bilateral ovotestes and ambiguous genitals.

None of these genotypes can be classified as a "sexual behavior" they are inherited chromosomal anomalies.

I always find it humorous when we use the bible as a biology textbook. . . somehow I fail to see where one finds the right to make the scriptures address sexual orientation--it would seem that those who try to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong are often the very people who render the scriptures anything but holy.

Well, I suppose that mankind will always struggle with being human and the temptation to be God.

Maybe one day Christians can act like the Christ they claim to follow. . . I know, idealism.

"I always find it humorous when we use the bible as a biology textbook. . ."

Ditto for using the Bible as an accurate historical accounting of events since the beginning of time; the last word on medical, mental, and psycholgical knowledge. Refusing to acknowledge all the findings since Bible was written is to freeze our understanding in the time frame of the first century. How does that differ from the Luddites, or Amish who refuse to advance for hundreds of years?

Carlitas

Good observation, chromosomal abnormalities are not sexual behaviors per se. Nevertheless a study of these individuals does show a subtle shift in their mental perception of what they consider to be legitimate male or female behavior. I assume that you are concluding that a genetic flaw could not produce any behavior that you would reject as abnormal. Is there something on the list that you would consider abnormal and should not be condoned in society?

The point I wish to make is that there is a wide variation around the world as to what is and what is not normal male or female behavior, but everybody draws the line somewhere. A few months ago Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University; someone asked him about homosexuality in Iran, he said, they didn’t have such behavior there. We laughed because we knew they kill homosexuals there, yet Iran allows polygamy in their country but we do not allow it here. Who is right about where to draw the line?

Raymond

The latest research in regards to those who were born with unusual chromosomal conditions (see my previous post) suggests that clinicians (pediatricians in particular and those involved with counseling parents and their offspring) need all the assistance they can get. Is there a biology textbook that can help them predict a child's sexual orientation? How could anyone be so sure that sexual orientation was fixed at birth?

Recently, a group of experts in their field (mostly evolutionary psychologists) published a handbook on human sexuality. In regards to sexual orientation, the editor admitted they were far from having reached an agreed common definition. Consequently, according to him, most of the contributors focused rather on behavior and relationships. He concluded:

"It makes no sense for evolutionists to talk about sexual orientation--a social construct specific to this culture and time--when referring to sexuality in the ancient past. Categories of sexual orientation gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual--are not evolved traits. That is not to say that some sexual attractions are not biologically based, not inherited, or not functional. While a human sexual nature and sexual attractions are universal, the concept of sexual orientation is not. (p. 381)

- The above quote was cited in a review of Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. Edited by Michael Kauth. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2006, 395 pages.

Chimps do it, homo erectus did it, we do it; and in a rich variety of ways! Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2008 by Alastair P.C. Davies, Todd K. Shackelford

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_45/ai_n24383386

Interesting thoughts Joselito.

pat

Beth: And yet we show it all the time to practicing GLBs - and often even those not practicing.

Thank you, Beth, for your line about "even those not practicing". I was mistreated in sda elementary schools, adventist academy, in college, and in church for being perceived as being gay, decades before I lost my virginity. People would warn each other to avoid me so they wouldn't get raped on school trips or would think by associating with me that they too were gay. I was amused and stunned that anyone would think, that I, a sexual virgin, would be capable of such behavior. It was I who was terrified of others and what they were doing and saying to me.

When I finally came out during my last semester in college, all their suspicions about me being gay proved true, but they were suspicions that they ascribed to me before the fact. When you tell someone over and over that they are perceived and are mistreated for being a certain way, guess what? They finally act out all the decades of taunting and gossip and mistreatment.

Though I'm back in church for years now out of a need for spirituality, guess what? They still assume I'm gay and actually try to entrap me with attractive single or divorced men, who in some cases--to my surprise--are bisexual themselves.

Carrol Grady wrote, ". . . I disagree so entirely with Dr. Leatherman's presentation of the biblical texts, and I would like to challenge his viewpoint, particularly his assumption that Paul understood homosexual orientation as we do today."

I am sure that there are many who would disagree with my understanding of these (and perhaps other) texts of the Bible. However, I never indicated that Paul understood homosexual orientation as we do today. I said, and repeat, that neither Paul nor any other writer of the Bible really deals with what we would understand as homosexual orientation: the Bible speaks of homosexual acts, rather than an attraction to persons of the same sex.

Donn W. Leatherman

Donn,

I heard you say just that and I think your comments "might" fit Joselito's post above.

"While a human sexual nature and sexual attractions are universal, the concept of sexual orientation is not. (p. 381)"

You, seemingly to me in a spirit of "love", emphasized that we are dealing with behavior.

pat

Actually Pat, maybe Donn should clarify, but that's not how I read those comments at all. Rather, I felt Donn was emphasizing that the writers of the Bible, not Paul or anyone, deals with homosexuality as we think of it today. They were only dealing with isolated "acts" or behavior, but those isolated acts were ones which involved drastic inequality in the sexual relationship (what we'd think of when we refer to human trafficking for the sex trade today). This means that we have to look outside of those few, isolated texts to get a clear Biblical perspective on how to view homosexuality and how to treat homosexuals.

The Bible actually has very little to offer by way of advice to any equal marriage relationship today (women were thought of as property and treated as such by and large and polygamy was allowed as it still is in much of the Middle East). If the culture of the Biblical writers can't address equality in marriage today, how can we expect it to address monogamous, committed same-sex relationships which just would not have been a cultural possibility back then?

On a related note, California's Supreme Court just made me an extra proud resident by overturning the ban on gay marriage:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DT...

Daneen, I am also glad that California (although it was behind Massachusetts) has agreed that marriage should no longer be confined to heterosexual couples.

Because the Bible doesn't address many of the questions we struggle with today, the spirit of love should be the guiding principle, not the attempt to show from the Bible what is moral and immoral. As has been demonstrated, there are many biblical texts which spoke against interracial marriage, and Virginia was the last state to outlaw the ban in 1967. Society DOES change and things that people would have found objectionable only a few years ago, now realize that there is nothing in same-sex marriages that could possibly threaten traditional heterosexual marriage. I ask anyone to show how we heterosexuals are threatened by homosexual marriage.

Polygamy was never spoken against in all the Bible, and in fact most of the famously mentioned characters had more than one wife and yet were blessed by God. Even polygamy as practiced by consenting adults should not be prosecuted, IMO, if that is their religious belief. Children being given in marriage before the age of 18 should never be allowed nor condoned; but when they have been so brain-washed to obey their religious elders, they meekly accept with no alternative.

Texas will probably soon rue the day they separated small babies, even newborns from their birth mothers. This is absolutely reprehensible and there are so many other arrangements that should have been made--while the men involved have never been so prosecuted.

I'm definitely glad for today's ruling. In my view, marriage is a civil issue and the state has a great deal to gain from allowing same-sex couples to be legally bound (just like the rest of us). It fosters better families, better communities, and better relationships--not to mention makes a host of things fairer like taxes, inheritance rights, custody issues, and family visitation rights. This does not mean that a religious institution has to condone same-sex marriage if they should choose not to; that remains their choice (naturally I'd like to see this happen too), but the issues of civil vs religious rights to marriage are separate ones.

I am glad you are happy Daneen. However, this may make a case for "activist" judges rather than the legislators of Calif.passing a bill which I suggest would be the appropriate place for legislation to come...I may have missed that if it occured as I am not a state resident.

It will also brings back the necessity of a "National Law" because people who leave California and go to other states will face a problem and future Supreme court challenges.

regards,

pat

PS. As to Donn, perhaps he can clarify. I heard him say the Bible was speaking of behavior and not to issues of "orientation."

California state legislature did pass a civil marriage law for same sex couples in September of 2005. Gov. Schwartzenegger vetoed it.

Help me Carlitas. Did the legislature previously have a referendum on the issue to get the will of the people and on that basis "Arnold" vetoed it.

I may have my facts wrong here!!

pat

Does the California state legislature trump the State Supreme Court? Why would this be put on the ballot?

Carlitas,

I looked it up wasn't it Proposition 22?

Elaine,
If I understood your comment correctly...it is because that is the way our form of government is to function.

Legislation is proposed and passed and then if appropriate the Courts can say something is constitutional or not and cause a "review" based on the particular objected language in the bill if unconstitutional.

Do you want judges to start writing all our legislation from the bench?

pat

Occasionally Pat, we apparently do need judges. Just so you know, even John McCain has said he doesn't like the phrase "activist judges," although I know Bush is fond of it. Just because courts rule in ways we don't agree with doesn't make them "activists."

However, looking at our country's history of discrimination that is fully supported by the people and our legislature (thinking of segregation, bans on inter-racial marriage, etc.) it's clear that sometimes we do need the courts to remind us when it's time to evolve our definition of equality (otherwise mob rule always wins the day).

As far as I know, Prop 22 was an initiative of the people and not a legislative initiative.

I am refering to legislation passed by both houses of the California state legislator that was then vetod by the Governor. The reasons he gave for the veto was prop 22 and the pending supreme court case.

Today's court decision states that the definition of marriage which Prop 22 amended in section 300 of the state family code is unconstitutional according to the state constitution. This is the correct role of the judiciary in American government, to decide on matters of constitutionality.

Daneen,

Activist simply means writing legislation from the bench.

Daneen,

If legislation EXIST that is anti-racial marriage, segregation, etc.then the violated have the right of appeal to the court.

Sorry but it seems we want "democracy" the way we want it rather than as defined in our "Constitutional Republic."

That is my point.

If legislation is passed by the states/US congress and it passes offering marriage rights or civil union rights to same couples then under those circumstances though I disagree with it, I would abide by it.

Regards.

pat

Gov. Shwarzenegger has already said he would veto any bill that came to him overturning the recent supreme court ruling.

It is my understanding that the highest court in a state interprets a law and this is the interpretation they just gave: marriage is not limited to heterosexuals which would be unequal justice before the law, denying them rights all other marriage partners traditionally have had.

Nobody in a traditional heterosexual marriage should feel their marriage threatened in the slightest by such a ruling, anymore than marriage between interracial couple threatens anyone else.

Carlitas,

I was posting at the same time as you before. Thanks for your explanation to a non Californian. I guess the "process" now goes to appeal then a possible try at an amendment to the Calif. Constitution on the part of dissenters. All of these possibilities are in the framework of lawful constitutional government.

Regards,

pat

I know what "Activist" means, Pat. I'm just saying that I disagree with you and think that sometimes it's actually required as it can take long-past-justice-time to get some inequalities righted, especially when we're talking about equalities for very distinct minorities. We have a judicial branch that doesn't have to answer to the will of the people in the way that the legislature does, so they can sometimes take the longer view/higher road. I realize that's a slippery slope, which is why there might be an amendment voted into our state law come November, but we'll just have to see. Maybe people are willing to see that there are more benefits (civil, monetary, ethical, moral) to equality in marriage than there is in ostracizing the very small percent of the population this impacts.

Daneen,

Rest assured that if that is the case and it ultimately passes after the "process" I am fine with it in terms of civil procedure and law.

I know people who are friends and "closer" that would be happy if the same occured in their states. I recognize that society does not have to answer to my opinions. I just feel it is dangerous to bypass constitutional process.

regards,

pat

The court victory is symbolic for gay rights proponents since cohabitation of consenting adults has been around without the benefit of legal unions. My opinion as a temporary California resident really matters not. Nevertheless, of interest is its potential impact on immigration with a possible increase in the number of civil unions - the functional equivalent of a marriage of convenience - between those seeking sanctuary in this country and willing citizen partners.

I actually have a friend, Joselito, who would immediately benefit from this law. He is technically here illegally now, even though he went to high school, college, and graduate school here, speaks such fluent English you'd never guess he wasn't born here, and has highly sought after skills. But his student visa has long expired and the legal work visas get snapped up so quickly it's almost impossible to hope for a change in his status. His sister also went to school here as well, but she got married to an American and was able to stay legally. However, he is gay, so he didn't have the marriage/citizenship option open to him. I hadn't been thinking of this new law as encouraging "fake" marriages--although, like heterosexual marriages, a few will likely slip past. I was thinking that this would help my friend finally become legal.

Would spiritual marriage be acceptable to everyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/garden/15buddhists.html

I'm just getting back to this discussion. Dr. Leatherman, I went back to listen to your initial presentation again. What I heard you say is that "the Bible touches only lightly on homosexual orientation, with a single clause in Romans 1:27 referring to the attraction of men to men." From all I have read, it was not until the late 18th century that it was recognized that there are some people who are attracted solely to others of their own sex. Before that, it was assumed that everyone was born with an attraction to the opposite sex, and that those who engaged in same-sex behavior were going against what was natural for them. "Even their women 'exchanged natural relations' for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also 'abandoned natural relations' with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

As I read Romans 1, the behavior Paul is describing is that of idolators who engaged in perverted sexual acts with temple prostitutes, both male and female. The city of Corinth, from which Paul wrote this letter to the Romans, was the center fof the worship of Aphrodite, and worshippers were known for their sexual orgies in the temple. This was also part of the idol worship in OT times.

You also said, if I understood you correctly, that the terms used in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy "are widely enough used in ancient literature for us to be certain of their meaning." From all I have read on these texts, there is considerable debate about the meaning here of "malakos" and "arsenokoitai." Malakos means "soft" and in this context many commentators believe it likely refers to young male prostitutes who wore soft clothes and painted their faces. Arsenokoitai, a word which Paul may have coined, is ambiguous. It has been noted that in subsequent literature it is usually found in similar vice lists, and next to words of an exploitative economic nature, such as slave-traders or thieves. So it is possible that it refers to men who use male prostitutes, or those who sell slaves to be used as prostitutes. When Paul says, "and such were some of you," he could be referring to such people who have turned away from prostitution or from using prostitutes.

God has always known about homosexuality and homosexual orientation, even if people have not. Why would He have created homosexual children, and then condemned them to stoning in Old Testament times? Or has He only recently started creating homosexuals?

Conversely, why wouldn't He say that it would be an abomination for true homosexuals to engage in heterosexual acts? And what about bisexuals, are they okay either way, or condemned either way? Surely we all agree that if God had wanted His children to behave homosexually in Old Testament times, He would have made provision for them to do what He had designed them to do. And really, why would it be such an abomination for true heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts, while it would be pure and holy for homosexuals to (and vice versa)? This doesn't make logical sense.

The first time one of my close friends "came out" to me, I was stunned. I had never dreamed such a thing, and the homosexual world had always been something faraway to me. I said the only thing that came naturally to my mind. "I don't know why God hasn't answered your prayers, and I have no idea how homosexuality develops. But if this is your problem, it's my problem too, and I'm going to be beside you every step of the way." I have learned a lot through the years since that day, but my passion has never changed. If my homosexual friends are hurting, I am hurting with them.

And I do have many homosexual friends. I have no problem associating with them, hugging them, and spending time with them. I feel as much anger as they do when I see the so-called "Christians" holding up hate signs. Our home is a safe place, and any homosexual reading this can know that they are welcome here. I love each of my homosexual friends dearly, and they know it.

My gay friends also know that I believe that homosexual practice is wrong, and condemned in the Bible. There have been times that a friend has called me for comfort, living in terror of having contracted AIDS. My heart aches for their sorrows. But in all their years of homosexual practice, I don't see the "gay" lifestyle bringing happiness to any of my homosexual friends. While it is healthy to refuse to live a lie anymore, "coming out" is often the beginning of more heartaches than it ends.

On the other hand, I have ex-gay friends, ones who I see living joyously and fully in the presence of God. One is still single at this time; one is happily married. Both of them lived the homosexual lifestyle for years. Both of them, like all the homosexuals I know, struggled with homosexual tendencies from about as early as they could remember. They knew they were "different." It was most definitely not a CHOICE. They also had highly melancholy personalities, combined with lots of early childhood stress (sexual abuse, poor relationships with same-sex parents, etc.).

From my research, it is evident that the development of homosexual tendencies is complex. However, I do see these factors cropping up constantly, enough to make me conclude that there is a definite link.

I once met a woman at a potluck who shared with me that her son was homosexual. Though I had no idea who she was and had never met her son, I shared with her that, in my study of the subject, homosexuality was most frequently developed by people who were highly melancholy and who faced a painful relationship with a person in close relationship with them, often a same-sex parent. Rather than dealing with the anger in a more direct, confrontational way (which could be just as damaging), a melancholy person tends to bury it. But resentment is just as sinful as any other mismanagement of anger. It is my belief that this is the root of much of homosexuality today.

When I told this woman about my research, she was shocked. She said this described her son perfectly--the thoughtful, sensitive one who had been hurt deeply by his father. Her other sons had recovered, but this son had never gotten over his deep resentment of his father.

I realize that this may be considered anecdotal evidence. But if you honestly evaluate the homosexuals in your life, you may see a similar pattern. I have seen it in at least ten homosexual friends, personally. Any homosexual can tell you that the homosexual community is highly melancholy. As one gay man told me, "We are the musicians, the artists, the flower arrangers of society." What if much of homosexuality is not a choice (and I firmly believe it is not), but a way to deal with deep, buried pain? If this is true, it would make sense that God wants to heal those wounds. Then perhaps much of the temptation would go away (and remember, temptation is not sin!).

I don't believe I have all the answers. But I think it's important that we ask the right questions. Could it be that, by telling our gay friends that God "made them that way," we may condemn some to holding onto an unresolved sin issue? Maybe the "grace and truth" approach isn't such a bad idea.

"Gay lifestyle" is a much overused term. Is it a term to mean gay promiscuity, or can it refer to gay monogamy? If there is a "heterosexual lifestyle" does it possibly lead to marriage? Does a gay person ever hope to marry? Is he or she doomed to a life of celibacy, something no one would sentence a heterosexual to.

Therein lies the difference: If sexual intimacy can only be approved between married heterosexuals, what hope is there for the homosexual to be different than the biblical eunuchs? Is that what should be expected of them? We have the terrible result of the Roman Catholic priests who were expected to take vows of celibacy and where that frustration of natural, human desires led.

Had God not wanted us to be sexual beings, he would have created us with no sexual desires. Whether Jesus had any sexual desires is unknown, but he didn't live past 30, either. Is he our perfect example in this respect?

We abuse the Bible by going there for the correct scientific explanation of anatomy, physiology and the human body. It is NOT a medical textbook but a story of how men felt and experienced God, not a complete and comprehensive treatise on every human condition.

We may err on the correct interpretation of the Bible but we should never err on the side of love which should guide us in all we do and say.

Until we can agree on whether homosexuality is a choice of condition from birth over which no one has control, there will continue to be disagreement. There is NO 100% consensus even in the professional area so why should we superimpose our beliefs when we know so little about it? What Jesus did not condemn, surely we shouldn't.

Concerning California's Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage:

News outlets are now reporting on the supreme ire of religious and political groups on the Right branch of the California vine. Apparently, the GOP plans to put forth a ballot initiative banning gay marriage that would overturn the CA Supreme Court ruling.

As a Californian and a Seventh-day Adventist, I offer these responses (cross-posted on the other thread about Southern's debate on the issue):

1. Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger has managed to run up a $16 BILLION dollar deficit in California, slashing funding in education while increasing spending on prisons. California's teachers receive pink slips and schools statewide struggle without sufficient funding. Meanwhile, the California GOP has voted unanimously to leave a "sloophole" in the State's tax codes that provides tax breaks to yacht owners (resulting in the CA GOP being dubbed the Yacht Party). If we want to discuss issues of morality in politics, this is the place to begin.

2. As an Adventist who affirms separation of Church and State, I strongly oppose measures that dictate policy on matters of conscience. Outlawing gay marriage strictly on moral grounds is tantamount to coercive mandating of a religious viewpoint.

3. There is a double standard in vociferously supporting marriage and family values while at the same time opposing statutes designed to promote fidelity and monogomy (i.e. gay marriage). If Christians consider marrying preferable to cohabitating, then we should be consistent in that affirmation.

4. Banning gay marriage constitutes religious discrimination. For most Christian organizations in particular, marriage is a religious rite, even a sacrament. A law banning the free practice of a religious rite is a breach of Church-State separation, it would seem. If individual denominations refuse to marry gay couples, it should be their prerogative, not that of the government.

5. Homosexual marriage does not need to be a threat to me, my choices, or my way of life. The practice of marital fidelity by homosexual couples does not impinge upon any of my liberties, it does not harm me or my religious practice, and it does not threaten God or God's sovereignty.

Nicole, I can appreciate the obvious tenderness with which you write. Even though in my study of the Bible, current scientific literature, and anecdotal evidence, I have come to a different conclusion than you (I think committed, loving same-sex relationships can be blessed by God), I still really appreciate your loving attitude. It often seems that people on different sides of this issue can quickly devolve into proof-text slinging and forget to try to understand where others come from.

I'm curious if you're aware of the recent studies showing that men who come from large families and are the younger siblings with older brothers have a much higher chance of being gay? The idea is that a woman's body gradually gets "better" at protecting her body from the foreign object emitting so many male hormones, so by the time she has her third or fourth boy, her body has essentially feminized the baby (that's probably a really bad paraphrase of the science). That also fits anecdotally several of my gay friends. (And the melancholy, artistic type wounded by a parent also fits many of my heterosexual friends.) There isn't nearly as much science studying gay women though--just like other science, men get far more attention.

I'd like to really recommend For the Bible Tells Me So, (www.ForTheBibleTellsMeSo.org), a documentary about Christianity and homosexuality. We're actually going to be discussing it on this website in a couple of months as part of our film club.

And thanks Elaine for pointing out how poor the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" is. We all are called to loving, committed, respectful sexual relationships. This is a challenge for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. A "heterosexual lifestyle" used in the way most people use "homosexual lifestyle"--to mean promiscuity--is also shallow, unfulfilled, and worth our worry.

Jared--thanks so much for your comments. Somehow I hadn't seen them. I really concur, especially with the idea that banning gay marriage is "tantamount to coercive mandating of a religious viewpoint" and that "there is a double standard in vociferously supporting marriage and family values while at the same time opposing statutes designed to promote fidelity and monogomy (i.e. gay marriage). If Christians consider marrying preferable to cohabitating, then we should be consistent in that affirmation."

I've never understood why allowing my friends who have been partners for 15 years to legally marry is a threat to anyone else's marriage or way of lifestyle. And religious organizations who don't wish to marry same-sex couples don't have to--that's a religious prerogative, but the civil government should not impose religious viewpoints.

Jared and Daneen, of course, I appreciate your comments.

I look at this image and it's hard not to see our God of love and justice smiling as well. I wonder if we'll read these anti-same sex marriage comments in a few years like we read Bull Conners who said: "you can never whip these birds, if you don't keep viewing them separate. I found out in Birmingham."

He also complained that the, "n----- loving Kennedys want to change our way of life."

Now which part of their skin touching (same-gender act) deserves more attention from finger-waggers than the sins of human trafficking, racism, or ending the greed-based genocide in Darfur?

If my neighbors next door are a gay couple, celibate or not, how could it possibly harm me? And if celibate, what "sin" would they have committed? Same as if the other heterosexual couple next door abort their abnormally formed infant. Why do I need to know, and how could either example make one whit of difference in my choices of marriage or support or oppose abortion?

Some of these should be in the category of NOMB: None of my business! "The Lord alone is my judge. There must be no passing of premature judgment. Leave that until the Lord comes....it is not for you, so full of your own importance, to go taking sides for one man against another. In any case, brother, has anybody given you some special right?" (1 Cor. 4:4,5; 6-7.

Alex,

That picture sure puts a new face on homosexual marriage. Thanks for posting it.

Elaine,

We should start a NOMBer party in California.

I do not see how any neighborhood could ever have a community standard as long as everyone thinks NOMB. What if a man beats his wife; it doesn’t hurt me it’s NOMB. What if a man has sex with an animal; it doesn’t hurt me it’s NOMB. If a man marries a 10 year old girl with her parents consent; it doesn’t hurt me it’s NOMB.

Clearly all communities have moral standards. The only question is where will the line be drawn and by whom. Some people want it drawn where it accepts as normal homosexuals other people draw it where it excludes them. After the community has drawn the line God will still have his say about where it should have been drawn.

JB wrote:

What if a man beats his wife; it doesn’t hurt me it’s NOMB. What if a man has sex with an animal; it doesn’t hurt me it’s NOMB. If a man marries a 10 year old girl with her parents consent; it doesn’t hurt me it’s NOMB." Do you believe that you are your brother (or sister's) keeper? Should you not have compassion on someone being harmed regardless of their relationship?

Surely, you would not allow your neighbor to beat his wife if you care about her; plus, it violates the law. Surely, you know that no state allows a 10-year old to marry--it's also against the law.

These are old, tired arguments and have nothing to do with the relationship CONSENTING ADULTS choose. Do you know anyone who would choose to be beaten (forget those S&Ms), nor can a 10-year old give consent to marriage.

Try again.

Thanks for posting that picture Alex. As a resident of the Bay Area, I have many gay friends, and none of them look or act like the stereotype I know many people have in mind when they think "gay"--in fact, it was a big personal lesson to realize how similar we all are. Let's be clear--when we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about families, many with children. How can we not want to support stability, accountability, and monogamy for any committed couple?

Elaine,

Consenting adults is not a relevant argument for sexually deviant behavior. We don’t allow a consenting adult brother and sister to marry. We don’t allow consenting adult mother and son to marry. We don’t allow consenting adult father and daughter to marry. We are not going to allow consenting adult homosexuals to marry in this country. Get use to the idea because we are not going to quit agitating the issue until they are back in the closet.

Discretion has prevented me from delineating the criminal behavior of the homosexual life style on this web site. The public is well aware of their predatory behavior on young boys. The story of Lot in the Bible shows the conclusion of their behavior once they are power.

It was your argument to use NOMB. I used it to point how irrational it is to use such a argument when moral wrongs are committed by your neighbor. We have a responsibility to be our brother keeper, to keep our neighborhoods safe and clean.

Back in the closet. . ? Always interesting to see the real reasons for homophobia come out. . .surprise: it is phobia!

What often lies behind these arguments comparing same-gender affection to the sickness of bestiality and incest is the "yuck factor" which only kicks in when the fearful have to think about it. This is why many just want it back in the closet, of course, this is the same tendency that creates ghettos and race-segregated bathrooms.

Oh, and the other classic characteristic of the my-discomfort-first morality crowd is the "predatory on young boys" paranoia. Actually straight men are more predatory on young girls, but we don't outlaw their orientation, just their predatory behavior. I'm fine with outlawing predatory behavior across all orientations as is every single homosexual with whom I work, study and pray.

Plus, the fact is that looking at the picture above - real live lesbians, (not the straight, male fantasy) - I can't think of those nice elderly ladies as predatory. Can you? Or were we just talking about male-sexuality? And if so, then maybe in the few cases of predation, we need to be talking about male sexuality? What do you say, brother keeper?

Thanks Stephanie.

I just wanted to thank you for posting this here. I am a gay man in a straight marriage. I have given up on the ex-gay movement and the likes of Victor Adamson: they are most unhelpful. Nonetheless, I still found the forum useful. It was presented in a loving way, and certainly gives me hope that the church will eventually become a safe place for LGBT persons.

Elaine, Beth, Daneen, Carrol, Raymond, Alex: I have found your comments extremely helpful and encouraging. Even Nicole's approach is one that Christians who think the Bible is clear on the issue could use as a model.

I’ve been away. The maladies at 84 are a mandate to seriously confront ones mortality. In returning, I find the dialogue remains focused essentially the same issues. Issues that time and circumstances have given me opportunity for reflection.

On returning, I first feel compelled to address the pejorative use of the word “bias” in relation to my views on church membership and homosexuality. Bias means going against the grain, to deviate from the expected or non-conformance with standard practice or doctrine. To the contrary then, it is the change agents who “show their bias”! It is the change agent who is heterodox.

Next to reestablish my credentials in this domain, I point to my previous narrative of my neighborliness to the next door lesbian couple. As well as my strong support for the right of privacy and the civil and property rights of consensual adults, including civil unions. I would like to add, despite my personal unsavory encounters with gay aggression also reported in previous blogs, I have a 25 year history in the realm of affirmative action and equal opportunity in which all of my decisions and recommendations have been upheld at both the state and federal levels. I would estimate that the cases of heterosexual sexual aggression out numbered the cases of homosexual sexual aggression about 4 or 5 to 1.

In bringing myself up to speed, I found it amusing to find the ploy of “What about him?” so unsuccessfully used by Peter brought into play by countering homosexuality and church disapproval with the benign acceptance of “Obesity”. If one looks up “fat” and “lean” in “Strong’s” one will find eleven column inches of references to fat as a desired state and lean being equated with “mean”.

The thrust of the arguments of the change agents brought to mind the observation of John Manninghan, a London lawyer, who, in 1602, observed “A Puritan is such a one as loves God with all his soul, but hates his neighbour with all his heart.”

In essence, change agents bolster the case made by homosexuals that: “If God has made me thus, He is obligated to accept me as such.” Taking no cue from the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, in which Jesus identifies an enemy origin to evil ‘seed” and seeder.

To steal a page from Cliff Goldstein, I cannot understand why heterodoxy demands acceptance by orthodoxy while denying and condemning orthodoxy.

If there is to be another entry it probably will be on the topic of only five remaining following a highly touted evangelistic series.
It will most likely be a commentary on the belated intelligence of the “backsliders”. Tom

There's no smile on God's face when beings created in his image remove themselves further from that image and engage same sex relationships, including oral and anal sex. As if we could force our own human standards on God!!

You have all missed the point and God couldn't be more sad.

Andre, you might be right. Could be that ALL the thoughtful and commited Adventist Christians who have commented above are totally off base.
At the same time, there is a sense in which humility (recognition that I am not the only one with valid insights into this issue) is as important or more important than being correct, if in fact you are correct. Nothing halts conversation quite as abruptly as the proclamation, "you're all wrong, listen to me."

News flash: straight people engage in those acts too.

But good, because now we get to the crux for some: sex acts. (Where else in Adventism does one get to type that on a Sunday morning?)

For a lot of people, talk of the difference between orientation and behavior really does rely on the false assumption that watching straight sex is somehow more pleasing to God.

The fact is that good straight Christians do everything that that good Christian homosexuals do, just with different member combinations of the body.

At some point some of these anti-homosexual behavior arguments start to breakdown and sound like anti-sexual variety. Missionary position only, thus saith the LORD (really my own confusion over body and pleasure).

Wouldn't it be a tragedy if we humans were anthropomorphizing God by projecting our discomfort with difference onto the Creator who made so much variety? Oral sex may be the worst thing to you, but let's not project that onto a God who calls lying an abomination (Prov. 12:22).

Few Christians would agree with the statement that "God couldn't be more sad." What about slavery? Child abuse?

Andre: Ah! The omniscience of an individual who knows God's mind and thoughts and would speak for God!

Wasn't that man's original problem in Eden: wanting to be like God?

Almighty and Merciful God,

We the followers of Your beloved Son and our Savior Jesus Christ bow our hearts and bend our knees as we come before you.

Guiding and Comforting Holy Spirit of the Living God and Resurrected Lord come make us humble as we move to turn our eyes from the evil things of this existence.

Oh Lord, we cast down our idols of man-made traditions of homophobia that we have inherited from previous generations.

As we seek to love and embrace Your gay and lesbian children, please give us clean hands and give us pure hearts.

Let us not lift our traditions above loving one another. For all the wrong brought to our gay brothers and lesbian sisters in Your Holy Name, have mercy on us and on the Adventist community of believers.

Heavenly Merciful Father have compassion on such a weak-minded generation. Help us to understand Your leading through the findings of human sexuality research and guide us through the leading of Your Spirit through the ambiguity of human sexuality within Your Holy Scriptures.

Almighty God, let this be a generation that seeks. One that seeks Your face, Oh God of Redemption.

We bow our hearts and we bend our knees, asking the Holy Spirit to come make us humble as we turn our eyes from the evil things of human pride.

Receive our prayers as we cast down our idols of man-made traditions of homophobia. In Your Infinite Mercy and Grace, give us clean hands and give us pure hearts.

Let us not lift our traditions above loving one another.

God of Grace and Power give us clean hands and give us pure hearts.

Let us not lift our traditions above loving one another.

Jesus Christ, may we be a generation that seeks. Merciful God may we seek after Your face and find abundance in Your Grace and Mercy. May Your unfailing love be our embrace to one another.

For the sake of Christ's sorrowful passion have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the edification of Your church and the establishment of the Kingdom of the Living God forgive us of our trespasses against Your homosexual children.

Teach us to love one another as You have created us. Give us clean hands and give us pure hearts. Show us to have unfailing love.

Almighty and Merciful God, let us not lift our traditions above loving one another.

For the edification of Your church and the establishment of the Kingdom of the Living God forgive us of our trespasses against Your homosexual children and bring us to reconciliation, forgiveness, and unconditional, unfailing love.

In Christ's Holy & Blessed Name, for the sake of Your Church on Earth and for all of humanity we pray.

Amen.

The clearest verses in the Bible that deal with homosexuality are against the act of predation, not consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships.

The Ancient Near-eastern world had no idea about orientation. To Jews, Christians and Romans, a homosexual was someone who had an abundance of sexual desire, not an overwhelmingly proven genetic or even social orientation.

In other words, what lies behind whoremongering and homosexuality is one's inability to control one's desire, for which one should turn to God.

It wasn't the plumbing combinations that were sinful, it was the lack of control. (Hey, I agree, lack of sexual boundaries is wrong.)

But this bubbling-sexuality-which-cause