Very interesting - thanks for providing this access.

I look forward to seeing reports from speakers at the Conference who favor gay marriage, and welcome the inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters in full communion. I don't know who all was invited to participate in this conference, but I am sure the flagship Adventist University would never dream of holding a one-sided conversation on a topic as important as this one.

Aubyn, I'm not as certain as you are of the fairness of the conversation.

Jared, is the discussion focusing primarily on the issue of politics, church involvement, or actual theology? The tweets indicate a sense that the discussion is really about how to "deal with" homosexuals, or to reassure people that they can become heterosexual with enough effort.

And is Greg King one of the main speakers?

"Blakely: "The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it’s holiness." Audience applauds this."

There are plenty of people who are not remotely homosexual but who are very unholy. I find this glib throw-away line extremely offensive, even coming from a former homosexual (and by the way, I'm not gay). The "applause" from the audience is a fearful indictment on many of the people present at the conference.

I'm glad that we're getting these bizarre statements recorded.

As we look back at all the unfortunate "that's not natural!" stuff said about interracial marriage a generation ago, I'm glad that this time we'll have names.

Note that all the presenters on the website are middle-aged men. Not a single woman is listed. This is just extremely out of the mainstream of the next generation of Adventist and totally opposite the prophetic edge of church leadership.

"Zetner--Pejorative use of "gay" as in, "That's so gay" points to an eternal reality in nature."

Blakely: "Is it God’s plan for me to be heterosexual instantly? Who’s to say, I might begin chasing women instantly."

Academic? FAIL.

As an Andrews alum who knows that many of my former undergrad professors disagree with this poor theology and science, I'm sorry for the damage this will do to the school's reputation. Note that no one from the Andrews Behavioral Sciences is presenting.

I heard that registrations are at around 120-140, which puts it at around 10 attendees for every presenter. And there are several Kinship folks there. I mean, who wants to go listen to a bunch of old white guys talk about gay. And no women when part of the topic is defining marriage? Huh? Talk about weird.

When Nick Miller and Alan Reinach have to pull in "academics" from Pat Robertson's school to bolster their gay prohibition conference - it's clear how far Right their logic lies.

Gagnon: "Homosexuality is like going into the holy of holies and having sex on the ark of the covenant."
--------
Wow. Who taught this guy about similes?

Another fairly obvious omission is that there are no representatives of the GLBT community presenting. There have been two "ex" gays who have given testimonials, including that by Blakely, who wonders whether if he instantly became hetero whether he would start chasing women.

The message that the lineup conveys is that the church's politicos, it's mouthpiece (the Review), and its scholars (from Andrews, Southern and BRI) feel that they are equipped to speak on behalf of the church AND the gay community, and their collective message seems to be that homosexuality can be changed and should.

Happy Sabbath everyone,

As a presenter at this conference I am very disappointed with the way this conference has been handled, despite the fact that it was purposely one-sided from the start. As a panel presenter, I can say with confidence that this conference was intended to be purposefully one-sided (Sorry Aubyn, that's just the truth), and I was told as much by the organizer.

Now I know that the only reason why I was allowed to present at all was because I don't necessarily raise a challenge to the church's stand on homosexual conduct, just their public policy positions on gay marriage as a secular civil right, (I know that position won't win me a ton of friends here per se) but in spite of that I am still incredibly disappointed. A list of my grievances -

1. Nick Miller says in the 10:15 seminar that the three angels’ messages have faint echoes of the 5th commandment in it as well as the Sabbath commandment. He has mentioned this before in a class that I took with him on church and state. My question to him now, as it was then, is under this analysis, what is the mark of the beast? Homosexuality?

2. There is a panel on Prop 8 during one of the breakout sessions in which we were going to address the question of what we can learn from the debate about Prop 8 in our church. Alan Reinach, who is the head of the church state council, the main SDA institution in support of Prop 8, was present at the conference at the time the panel took place. However, he was not sitting on the panel to discuss legislation that he fought to support. Why?

3. Robert Gagnon makes a presentation on homosexuality and the Bible. While the merit of the presentation can be debated (I personally agreed with his main premise), what cannot be debated is the fact that a lot of his rhetoric was inflammatory, especially because he was essentially preaching to the choir. I was particularly concerned that at the end of his presentation he essentially stated that we should do whatever we can to make sure that people don’t engage in homosexual conduct and doing whatever we can is how we show that we love them. Once again this is problematic when you’re preaching to the choir because it allows them to justify their illegitimate hate and cover it by calling it love.

4. Tonight Dwight Nelson says they are inviting presenters to be on a panel so that students can get a taste of the positions that were presented during the day at the conference. Neither Mitch Tyner nor I were invited to this panel. (Neither were we featured as presenters on the website.) Is it possibly because we hold positions contrary to the organizers of the conference on gay marriage? James Standish was present to represent the ideas on gay marriage though, so I guess that’s OK. :-/

5. Dwight Nelson asks James Standish to explain what the big deal is about gay marriage. In addition to the things Jared tweeted, Standish also says that those who support gay marriage want to attack religious people and call them bigots. Such a blanket statement is purely false, especially considering that 8 hours previous to his panel appearance he sat next to two people (myself and Mitch Tyner) who support civil gay marriage and yet have no interest in calling him a bigot and in fact did not disagree with him on his beliefs about homosexual conduct. However, he refuses to present that picture to the congregation. Why?

A point in conclusion – there were at my two panels some incidents of rudeness from people who hold the conservative position towards people who asked legitimate, critical questions of the conservative position. I just was a little put off by that, so much so that on one occasion I addressed the rude person myself from the panel because I didn’t feel it was adequately addressed by the chair or anyone else.
Hey Jared, I’m around tomorrow afternoon, I would love to meet you 

Thanks for the update Jason. I don't think there is any reason your agreement with the church's position on homosexual conduct would cost you friends here. I have a lot of friends who agree with you, and my observation is that most people who post on this site agree with you too. I only wish that more Adventists who agreed with you also shared your amiable disposition.

I am sorry to learn that the Conference was intended to be one-sided. It is hard to learn much under those conditions. Still, where people of goodwill come together in the Lord's name, one never knows what miracles will happen. I will make that a matter of prayer this weekend.

Keep us updated if you can.

Tweets meant to make them look like twits as our only coverage of the event? Come now... they deserve better and to keep it at that demeans our good name. I look forward to reading reports!

When I first heard about this conference I thought that it would be an open discussion, addressing both sides of the issue through an unbiased lens. However, it does not seem to be so, especially with the proportion of invited speakers who are obviously on one side.
Thank you to Jason Hines for presenting an honest opinion while respecting the other side. And thanks to Aubyn for reminding us that God certainly is capable of wonderful miracles.
I hope that many of the speakers at this conference realize tomorrow that there are also devoted gay Adventist people worshipping the Creator on the Sabbath, who are no more worthy of being called sons and daughters of Christ than anyone else, and no more less.
Peace to all on this beautiful Sabbath!

Johnny,

Patience, friend. Full reports with photos and videos coming. The tweets are more or less a running commentary (actually recording, not commenting) on what is going on, play-by-play style.

Stay posted!

I've never felt so spiritually raped.

Wow.

I appreciate Johnny's caution not to jump to conclusions about what is going on at Andrews based on the isolated sound bites we have been getting, which are devoid of any context which one hopes would give some moderating nuance or complexity. What we have heard so far is deeply troubling. I am trying to imagine what my response would be if a similar, high profile Adventist Conference was dominated by comments on how sinful, disgusting and unacceptable interracial marriage was. I will not let myself fully answer that question until I have a chance to read a more comprehensive report.

For now though, I will comment on this one tweet quoting Elder Davidson as saying that "Homosexuality is sexual disorder". This is quite simply not true, and I trust that someone at the Conference will make note of it. This is an example of the kind of intellectual cheating that goes on so often in this discussion.

To invoke the term "disorder" is to invoke the authority of psychiatry, which publishes the official "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". But the DSM, and Psychiatry, and all of its sister mental health organizations, like the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, specifically does not regard homosexuality as a disorder. To imply as much is simply dishonest. Fundamentalist Christians are free to argue that homosexuality is morally bad or socially unacceptable or just personally not their cup of tea, but they are not free to define the socially loaded term "disorder" to suit their particular prejudices. There is a scientific and professional context in which this term has meaning, and that context is quite clear that homosexuality is not a disorder. If fundamentalists think that "disorder" is an important category, and want to use it, then they are also bound by the evidence, and rules of evidence, that guide the use of that term. It is cheating to try to appropriate the scientific and professional credibility of that term while turning the meaning and science that underlies it completely on its head.

Elder Davidson's manner has been to stand on a belief and then go to great extremes to create a foundation for his stand.

Thank you Jared. I have enjoyed your tweets and appreciate the context your posts provide. Because Alex has characterized my comment as being a criticism of your coverage in the comment section of another post let me be clear. I am not happy with the tone and style of the 'academic FAIL' snippet used by Alex in his comment. My comments followed his and referred to his use of tweets.

That is what is meant when I say "Tweets meant to make them look like twits as our only coverage of the event? Come now... they deserve better and to keep it at that demeans our good name. I look forward to reading reports!" as well as the other comment on the column by Dave Larson.

Thank you!

With this conference the topic of homosexuality is "out of the closet", and should facilitate an appropriate internal dialog. However, the conference organizers agenda (positioning the Church to enter the political debate against homosexual marriage) was well thought out and excuted (only minor deviations were tolerated). The greatest risk is that some church leaders will believe that a political campaign against homosexual marriage will help win the leadership position in the GC.

The divide between those who believe in power of the love of Christ and those who maginify the law will be widened and the youth and educated will likely feel uncomfortable with the premise, process and outcome of this conference. Worst case, this conference will drive a larger wedge between the NAD and the world church.

Worse case: This conference drives a larger wedge between people of differing sexual orientations and their God.

I'll wait for the reports for a better view. Until then, I must say I'm disappointed with the general tenor of this conference.

If you want to cheer for one side, attend a sporting event. If you want to open your mind and truly learn (have "the mind of Christ"), engage opposing views humbly, thoroughly, and honestly.

Of all the pressing world issues, is homosexuality the most important thing that can be discussed. i truly don't get the obsession with homosexuality. It is not news. What about unconditional love and grace for all. He who is without sin.Forgvie me but did Jesus not say judge not that ye be not judged. I am PAGAN, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY DONT YOU CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT GOD THE fATHER IS mALE, THE hOLY gHOST IS MALE AND THE SON IS MALE, SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A classical homosexual family unit. Two men and Mary was the surrogate mother producing Jesus. Now why dont you all discuss the racism and segregation which proliferates your church.The inequalities which exist and the exploitation of the third world to support the first world. Are these issues more in line with Isiah 58.

"For now though, I will comment on this one tweet quoting Elder Davidson as saying that "Homosexuality is sexual disorder". This is quite simply not true, and I trust that someone at the Conference will make note of it. This is an example of the kind of intellectual cheating that goes on so often in this discussion."

Many, I'm certain, agree with Davidson's comment that homosexuality is a disorder. How do we know that the psychiatrists and their fellow practitioners have correctly diagnosed and classified the problem? The technical jargon of defining a disorder is not definitive insofar as Scripture is concerned. It is reassuring to many of us that this conference was not allowed, if I read the comments correctly, to become a medium for practicing homosexuals to justify their sin against nature. May the Lord be praised. Take a look, if you dare, at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Your Friend, the web site to which you referred us appears to have no relevance to the moral propriety of same-sex relationships - its purely an attempt to justify with-holding marriage from same-sex couples, on pragmatic grounds.

Could you clarify your statement "...for practicing homosexuals to justify their sin against nature"? In what respect is homosexual practice a sin against nature? How is nature harmed when a same-sex couple become physically intimate? Is it a sin against God, or only a sin against nature? Or do you equate nature with God?

I have been following this conference very closely because this is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I was trying not to become involved in the discussion because I felt that I might not be able to accurately defend my position because of my strong passions, but I can no longer stay silent.

The comment that enraged me the most was the inductive reasoning that since the word "gay" is currently used in a pejorative manner was evidence for its fundamental structure being immoral and against nature. This is one of the most atrocious statements made at this conference. I will make a bold statement, although no where as groundless as the one made by Zentner, and say that all derogatory terms derive from attributes that are considered different than societal norms. My brother has downs syndrome. Does that mean that because people use the term "retarded" in a pejorative manner that he is immoral, unnatural, and an abomination to God? The terms moron, idiot, stupid are all terms for low IQ therefore unintelligent people are sinful. Racial slurs are used as insults, therefore people of other ethnic backgrounds must also be abominations by this logic. This is a disgusting inference that difference is somehow inevitably wrong.

I also resent the statement made by Zentner assuming that gender roles has anything to do with sexuality. I was not at the conference, so I do not know the exact context, but the idea that boys wanting to play with dolls somehow implies a deviant sexuality is not only false but ignorant. I am a heterosexual male, and yet when I was young I loved playing with barbies. To this day I am obsessed with fashion and clothes and I probably have more shoes than many of my female friends. I love to cook, and I spend at least 3 hours a day in the kitchen. I garden and sew. I even get manicures and wear mascara! When will we learn that gender roles are completely societally constructed and that gender is separate from sex?

Next I feel obligated to talk about the issue of politics and religion. Dr. Wood asserted that it is impossible to separate religion and politics. I could not disagree more. There is a very clear separation. Politics says what we are allowed to do as individuals and what we cannot do to other people. Religion says what we we are not allowed to do as individuals and what we should do to other people.

I personally voted no on prop 8 because I felt that it was at least a step in the right direction. Any case where the government will not allow something based on sex is discrimination. Telling a woman that she cannot marry another woman, but a man would be able to, is a violation of rights. However, I believe that there is a more beneficial solution that actually addresses the heart of the matter rather than the byproduct. We need to eliminate marriage as a political institution altogether, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The problem stems from the fact that "marriage" has both religious connotations and political ones as well. By removing marriage from governmental control, and only leaving civil unions for all couples, this would allow the churches to retain control of their definitions of marriage without political interference. This would give homosexuals the same benefits as heterosexuals, and allow the churches to decide for themselves how they will define marriage.

I have many more thoughts on these issues, but I feel that I have stepped on more than enough toes as it is. I was excited at first about this conference, but apparently I was too hasty to get my hopes up for change.

Your Friend wrote: "Many, I'm certain, agree with Davidson's comment that homosexuality is a disorder. How do we know that the psychiatrists and their fellow practitioners have correctly diagnosed and classified the problem? The technical jargon of defining a disorder is not definitive insofar as Scripture is concerned. It is reassuring to many of us that this conference was not allowed, if I read the comments correctly, to become a medium for practicing homosexuals to justify their sin against nature."

It can be hard to keep our categories clear, but I think it can be important to try. I am sure you are correct that many agree with Elder Davidson that homosexuality is a disorder - but no matter how many they are, they are incorrect. This is not something that is open to majority vote. If you want to use a technical word like "disorder" - presumably in an attempt to make use of the credibility that comes from medical and psychological science, then you really do have to abide by the rules that those disciplines set up to regulate the use of those terms. On the other hand, if all Elder Davidson, and you, mean is that in your view the Bible morally condemns homosexuality as sinful, you of course do not need the agreement of science, or need to satisfy scientific or professional criteria, to do so.

I disagree with your assertion that homosexuality is a sin, but I recognize and respect your right to make that argument. I do not recognize or respect your right to argue that homosexuality is a disorder apart from the formal criteria used to make those determinations.

Most of the GC vice-presidents were at the conference. I was sitting next to one of them at the last meeting and he commented, "This conference seems to be very one-sided."

Two of the speakers were especially hostile in their comments. The hardest thing for me to listen to was when Nick Miller told his version of my son's story (he was an RA in the dorm where my son lived at PUC when he was being harassed and threatened). He called him "Joe" but anyone who has read my book would have recognized who it was. His version was very slanted.

I think some of the questions asked indicated that there were others present who were sympathetic. I think the best thing to come out of the conference was the admission of one speaker that the church has failed in the past and several speakers who called for the church to show real love by its actions, not just words.

Agreed Carrol. However, I would've liked that theme to be present throughout the conference. I didn't really feel that spirit enter the discourse until Saturday afternoon, though, in all honesty, I did not attend every session. But the sessions I did attend (Most of the day Friday and Saturday afternoon) did not seem to have that theme as urgently propagated as the stance on homosexual conduct in and of itself.

As a former SDA and a product of "our" schools, reading about this conference does nothing, but confirm the wisdom of my decision to leave more than 20 years ago. While straight, two of my best friends from academy turned out to be gay.

It is incredible to me that intelligent 21st century people allow their moral beliefs to be, not just shaped, but determined by an ancient people. We feel bound to accept the prejudices of these primitives as a directive by a cosmic intelligence. We don't allow these same primitives to box us in to their justifications of genocide and in a number of other areas.

This is what happens when one accepts, without adequate justification, superstition as holy writ. It is so much easier than thinking.

Here's the truth - nothing that could have been said at the conference would make Aubyn Fulton, Alex Carpenter and others think any differently; just as nothing they say would make Nick Miller, Richard Davidson, Greg King, etc, think any differently. So there is an equal predisposition to one set of views and equal prejudice, if by that word one means a pre-judging of the issues.
Was there a point to the conference, then? Yes! Because at least the SDA church confronted the issue and started talking about it. A dialogue has to begin somewhere; and negotiations often begin with both sides utterly entrenched.
The bottom line, too, is that, biblically, homosexuality is a sin. Sorry, all you Spectrum types, it's pretty clear. But the question is, what next? Paul tells us to rid ourselves of anger, rage, malice and slander as well as sexual immorality (Col. 3, Eph. 4). The acts of the sinful nature are not only sexual immorality but also hatred, discord, envy, etc (Gal. 5). Evangelicals have a disproportionate focus on the sin of homosexuality. Aubyn Fulton et al may never accept that homosexuality is a sin, but most SDAs will, but we still need to decide how we treat brothers and sisters. Once we disfellowshipped members who divorced, on the grounds of adultery; now that is virtually unheard of in North America at least. We recognize that some things that are not part of Christ's ideal are nevertheless hard to avoid in this fallen world, and we bear with our brothers and sisters. We could do the same with homosexuals.

Dudley Ambrose Pandocious wrote: "Here's the truth - nothing that could have been said at the conference would make Aubyn Fulton, Alex Carpenter and others think any differently; just as nothing they say would make Nick Miller, Richard Davidson, Greg King, etc, think any differently." (SNIP)
**************

With respect, this is not the truth. I spend my days engaging in conversation with people, many of whom I disagree with, and I rarely emerge from the conversations with my thinking unchanged. Greg King is a former colleague on the faculty here at PUC, and I have engaged in conversations with him on many occasions, and these have almost always changed my thinking in some way, as Professor King is very bright and persuasive and kind.

Perhaps you only mean that it is unlikely that people who have read and thought and discussed and prayed extensively about sexual orientation would change their mind on the basis of material presented at one weekend conference. You may be more right about that - though I am always open to the possibility that new evidence I have not previously been aware of might become available that would require me to change important understandings, and I am sure the same is true of most of my colleagues.

But it is a profound mistake to think that the purpose of including voices from the full spectrum of perspectives at a conference like this is mainly to eliminate disagreement and get everyone to think alike. Among the reasons to have a balanced presentation of ideas are: 1) many people have not read or thought or prayed or talked about these issues extensively, and as they make up their minds they deserve to be exposed to the full range of information and 2) even when we still disagree, there is benefit (deep, lasting and sometimes transformative benefit) in making it possible for those who disagree to at least understand each other better. On those occasions we often find unexpected areas of common ground, and greater clarity about the sources of our disagreements, which can make future research and later conversation more productive.

Matthew I don't know where you ever got the idea that I referred to gender roles as contributing to sexual orientation. You either have me mixed with someone else or have seriously misunderstood my comments. Tom

Tom, I was referring to the comments made by Scot Zentner, the presenter at the conference as recorded by Spectrum on this page. The exact quotation that I was referring to was this:

"Zetner goes on to say that we should feel squeamish when "Bobby" wants to play with Barbies, not Tonka trucks."

The fundamental level of this statement is the assumption that there are certain things, actions, and standards that are linked to sexuality. The only time that this is actually true is due to physiological differences, such as men being able to urinate standing up. All other differences between men and women that are not directly physiological are therefore gender. As I mentioned before, I am not completely sure of the context of the statement, but it seems pretty clear to me that this statement assumes that there is no separation between gender and sexuality.

I just posted an interview with Nick Miller where I asked questions about the conference's weaknesses.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Talk about one sided. I have never seen anything as one sided as the hatchet job done by Spectrum concerning this conference. Truly, I did not attend the same conference that I read about here, and I note that most of those making the comments did not either. One thing that stood out in my mind was the very obvious blessing of the Holy Spirit on the meetings. The Spirit's blessing was tangible and powerful.

to those postmodernists who insist that the only way to approoach an issue is to have dialogue from "both sides," I remind you of the immortal words of A.T. Jones who contended that the opposite side of truth is error, and why would one think that the way to discern truth is by comparison with error.

Alan,
It would have been nice if the conference organisers had put effort into making sure the panels, presentations and discussions at the conference were made available online through video, audio or transcript recordings of proceedings.

The way things worked out is that Spectrum and Adventist Today's websites were the place where conference attendees, curious folks who couldn't attend, and most significantly, conference presenters themselves, gathered to discuss the event online.

If you're talking about this post specifically, Jared said in the comments that he would be posting a report to give the quotes context. And he did, here and here. I've read the two reports by Jared on the conference and would really like to know what part of them is 'a hatchet job'.

It's not a rhetorical question... seriously, please identify the 'hatchet job'. I would be very surprised if the coverage of our editorial team differed from observations posted by David Hamstra or Jason Hines (who have nothing to do with us).

"Once we disfellowshipped members who divorced, on the grounds of adultery; now that is virtually unheard of in North America at least."

Not really. Recently my brother was disfellowshipped by a board that did not contact him, did not consult him, did not get his side of the story, did not visit him. They held a meeting and sent him notification. Is this ethical?

When will we disfellowship men who beat their wives? When will we have such a conference on domestic violence? The role of women in the church? My guess is that the same men who organized this conference (were women even involved in the organizing of this conference?) would oppose women in leadership (ordained elders and pastors) roles in the church.

Please give me evidence that I'm wrong.

Please give me hope for a fairer future for our church.

PLM, several of the individuals who participated in this conference (both organizing and presenting) are very supportive of women in ministry, specifically ordination.

God bless!

A few minor points in response to some comments above.

1. Yes, there were a number of women leaders who were part of the organizing of the conference, including 2 of the 7 or 8 steering committee members. This is more than reflective of the balance found in the available academic community. I'm not defending that fact, merely reporting on what we have to work with.

2. The entire conference has been recorded, and will soon be available through American Christian Ministries media group. The set will include a CD of the conference papers. Also, David Hamstra kept a very comprehensive and balanced blog of the proceedings, which is at http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/. I think that anyone reviewing it will see that David reported, whereas Spectrum has commented and editorialized.

3. I have also responded to concerns about the balance and approach of the conference in an interview with David Hamstra on his web-site.

David Hamstra's account, IMO, was the most balanced and objective reporting of the conference I've read so far. He made it easier for those of us who weren't present to make up our minds without first being colored by decontextualized, running commentaries. That he reserved expressing his own opinion of the conference at the very last was helpful as well. Thanks so much!