Before I comment further, I must say:

I like this narrative where "the church" is accused of being "obsessed with" homosexuality and all things gay.

I submit that nobody gave a whit about homosexuality until people began clamoring for it to be accepted as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual unions within marriage.

Most sermons (the vast majority of them) have always had nothing to do with homosexuality, and that continues to be so today even in a climate where we are continually asked to think about these matters over and over again.

Know the show "A Shot at Love with Tila Teqila"? Google it. It was a smash hit this year.

The only other thing I'd like to say is that many a discussion on this topic is derailed by imprecise definitions of words. I am yet to hear someone say here that "homosexuality is a sin", and nobody here believes that--not even the church:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat46.html

More worrying though, is the idea that whenever we hit a wall with our desires (as guided by the Bible), we just claim anew to "know nothing".
Arlyn really captured the irony in the last thread when she asked how come the "liberals" had become so literal all of a sudden.

It's only been in the past thirty years that people have claimed that Scripture is somehow "unclear" about something that Christians of all varieties, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalists--and even liberals--had been agreed upon before then.

The starting point of your hermeneutic appears to be that of political liberation.

The starting point of a Biblical hermeneutic must be God's creation of humankind as man and woman. God created humanity with sex--that is, with complementarity. He did so with both the relationship and procreation in mind. That's clear from the Genesis record. This "Affirmation of Marriage" from the GC states it very well: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat16.html

Christians have always been concerned with people--that's why Christians say, with Jesus, "Repent, and believe the good news." Christianity isn't about "inclusion"--it's about repentance. It's about a call to forsake sin, not to find rationalizations for it. It's a proclamation that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven. It's the good news that all sinners can be transformed and renewed and experience a new creation.

And we can--and must--proclaim both creation and redemption without apology. And we can do that while loving friends and family members who suffer from same sex attraction.

1. "Our church shall render itself irrelevant in the twenty-first century if it fails to acknowledge the basic human rights of people regardless of gender and sexuality."

Membership in the SDA church(which is the basic demand in this article) is a basic human right?

2."only projects the ignorance and bigotry of those who advocate a stance that homosexuality is sin."

Very kindly said.

3. " May we allow God to guide us as we enter this our most sacred hour."

Amen! And if the truth is that homosexual sex is sacred and holy- may we be convinced by the Bible before we are prematurely turned off by the anatongonistic tone in its advocates.

Raymond Thomspon's polemic is exactly the kind of thing I talked about on the other thread: those who, in all sincerity, happen to think the Bible is very clear and unambigious about the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality are automatically labelled unChristian homophobes and the like.

It doesn't matter that we can care deeply about our gay brothers and sisters, and be sympathetic to their needs and try and help them and minister to them, all the while believing--by what seems to be pretty clear biblical evidence--that the practice is wrong. He seems to think that, by default, to believe the narrow and fundamentalist and intolerant notion that sex should be between only one man and woman, in marriage, automatically makes someone a homophobic bigot. It seems Mr Thompsen wants the gaylifestyle to be accepted, hands down, and anything short of that is to be condemned and attacked as unChristian and intoletant and hateful. He's exhibiting the same attitude toward those folks as he says the church has toward gays.

I don't have the answer to this whole problem. Somehow taking what sure seem to my simple mind pretty clear and straightfoward texts about the practice of homosexuality and, voila! making them say something else completly, IMHO, doesn't seem to solve the problem.

To say it again: not everyone who believes the practice is wrong is a homophobic hateful bigot. We can care about these people just as we would anyone else hurting in our church. The hatefulness seems to be displayed in Mr. Thompson's rhetoric.

Let me just restate what I said a few days ago.

By these definitions,
bigoted ---> def: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions
(obstinate ---> def: stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so…
prejudice ---> def: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience)
Raymond Thompson demonstrates for us quite well the very thing he condemns.

Too bad. He hurts the cause he seeks to further. (And he was the first to bring that word to the other thread on homosexuality.)

Cliff and Bob,

I now know how it is to be battered and aligned for expressing a view point consistent with Scripture and Church Doctrine and Policy. As I stated earlier: The tone and measure of much of the bombast is reflective of the homosexual assualt in the world of Affirmative Action. I must concluded that some parties to this thread are personally challenged by any negative thought or disapproval of a deviate human behavior. I have both professionally and personally lived with, protected, and supported the legal rights of homosexuals. I have also expressed publically, that the behavior is personally revolting and Biblically condemned.
I have never said that such persons are beyond the reach of redemption by Jesus Christ. I have been emphatic that God saves sinners not sin. I know that for me and Elaine sex of any discription is a distant memory. So I guess it is in vain that we enter the fray. Be assured Betty and I rejoice that in six months we will greet our second great grandchild. Now we know how heaven rejoices in the human experiment. Tom

Wow Raymond, that seems harsh. While I agree with your conclusion that homosexuality is not necessarily a sin (though homosexuals can certainly sin in their sexual behavior just like straights), I have to say that I also understand those who say the issue is complicated. As stated above, there is a very long history here that makes change painful and time-consuming. There are issues of Biblical interpretation that must be addressed. And finally one cannot ignore the almighty "ick" factor - that revulsion that makes it much easier to justify the belief that there really does HAVE to be something wrong about it. (This seems to be more true for men). The SDA church is nowhere near ready to adopt a position that mirrors what you say and while, IMO, that is lamentable, it is also understandable.

Turn back to the SDA church of the 30s. Divorces almost always resulted in disfellowship.
And if physical adultery was not proved, both were considered equally guilty. The "guilty party" always had to be identified, but remarriage, unless for exceptional circumstances and sufficient time lapse, meant that the divorced were always living in open sin.

Fast forward to the church of the 21st century. Does anyone know how divorce is looked upon by the church today? Proving that the church does, eventually catch up with society. This will be no different with the subject discussed. Those of us who have lived long enough to observe the church's changes, speak with historical truth.

Actually folks, it strikes me we are better than this.

Raymond comes with fire and passion and emotion (the things Daneen and Carroll find so surprising, and, I’m not sure why this seems notable to them…) and he is obviously upset at the way one group of Christians is treated by another. He has a heart for the gays in our company and seeks a paradigm in which to affirm them… Let us recognize this as a noble thing. We who love God, when confronted with a group who has been frightfully treated, are under sacred obligation to embrace the mistreated with love. Those like Raymond have, perhaps, eyes to see what we may have missed. To that extent, we need him, and must embrace his vision. He does not direct, or command, or manipulate us; rather advocates for a segment among us he feels we dismiss and demean. We need to grasp what frustration has compelled Raymond to misread and misconstrue both our love and our intent and cause him to mislabel us so. Raymond is our family, just as we are his. He may never have met before, Christians who love while disagreeing. Let us be those Christians to him. He may not realize that, as strong as his convictions are, others have equally powerful convictions. He may actually respect more his own convictions, than those of another. We all do that.

So… Raymond. I implied that it is not us that suffer bigotry, but you. Will you set this aside for a time (the definition remains there; waiting to inform those who ponder their own motives) and consider the plight of those of us who DO believe that homosexuality is not in God’s designed order? What would you have us do? Does calling us ignorant, and bigots, help either us, or you, or the cause which you champion? If you would call us to bless you, what would you say? How would your request be worded? What would you want to hear from us, whose opinions and convictions you so disdain? I do want to bless you Raymond; thought I fear that the only blessing you want is for me to give up my own convictions. You must understand this is as impossible as it would be for you to give up your own. So, how may we bless you Raymond? Can we at least tear down the walls of acrimony that seem, as I see it, built by you? The walls serve no purpose.

Sabbath peace...

hi, i'm a student at union college. i don't know how many of you have heard of jay bakker's (son of jim and tammy faye bakker) ministry Revolution. i've been an avid listener for a number of years now and have been very blessed by their sermons. i came across this sermon a few months ago done by and it really gave me some perspective on homosexuality and God.

Gay Does Not Equal Sin - http://www.revolutionnyc.com/audio/20061126.m3u

another helpful and humanizing sermon on sexuality is by a transgendered man who has an amazing story

Eyes Wide Open (Gabriel) - http://www.revolutionnyc.com/audio/20061217.mp3

this one is by the gay co-pastor of revolution who was fired from his church in arkansas after coming out, learning that his boyfriend was not the one he was meant to be with, losing his wife and children, and finally trying to kill himself.

The Day God Refused To Let This Guy Die - http://www.revolutionnyc.com/audio/20070923.mp3

all of these are touching and maybe you won't agree with their theology but i think listening to actual homosexuals talk about it holds a thousand times more integrity than all the uninterested cold-hearted postulations and platitudes present in the church.

The SDA church like every other religious group can do only one thing- deny or accept an individual as an official member.

Beyond that, it has little power.

It certainly cannot deprive anyone of human rights. (regardless of gender and sexuality)

It doesn't even have a policy to kick out and keep out gays, atheists, drug addicts, hypocrites, liars, polytheists from fellowshipping. But does it make sense to give membership to someone who clearly doesn't represent it accurately, and doesn't plan to?

Who is being unreasonable here?

Either the church needs to change first its belief system, then accept this group (so let's work on that). Or the group can form its own. (it's trying to) Forcing the issue of membership based on guilt and shame without theological consensus of the church- leads me to wonder.....

Is Pain the new reliable standard of what constitutes sin?
(listening to pain filled story after story is now proposed to be the new method of building integrity)

Happiness then, the new definition of what is right and holy?

Feelings- the new moral compass for the church?

fellowship and membership are two different things.

(too much argument is based on sloppy confusion of these. the church does not have a policy of excommunication or shunning.)

Elaine said:
Turn back to the SDA church of the 30s. Divorces almost always resulted in disfellowship.
And if physical adultery was not proved, both were considered equally guilty. The "guilty party" always had to be identified, but remarriage, unless for exceptional circumstances and sufficient time lapse, meant that the divorced were always living in open sin.

Fast forward to the church of the 21st century. Does anyone know how divorce is looked upon by the church today? Proving that the church does, eventually catch up with society. This will be no different with the subject discussed. Those of us who have lived long enough to observe the church's changes, speak with historical truth.
Posted by: Elaine | 29 December 2007 at 2:20

That would be a sad day.

Who knew God put us here to go running behind "society"?

Anyway, wherever "society" goes, the church may follow; but God certainly won't.

Is Pain the new reliable standard of what constitutes sin?
(listening to pain filled story after story is now proposed to be the new method of building integrity)

Happiness then, the new definition of what is right and holy?
Feelings- the new moral compass for the church?
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 29 December 2007 at 5:36

In a nutshell, yes.

fellowship and membership are two different things.

(too much argument is based on sloppy confusion of these. the church does not have a policy of excommunication or shunning.)
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 29 December 2007 at 6:31

That is also correct. I am too often confused with the Jehovah's Witnesses. I would not too much like for that to happen on an SDA message board.

(On a related note, even in the Inter-American Division, dis fellowship is rare. It is no longer a punishment for past wrongdoing.)

Is Marriage the answer? I mean, a gay guy marrying a heterosexual woman? I really would love to shout with a loud "Yes!!"Sadly, I have to rule option 1 out. It never works and in this imperfect world wouldnt be the ideal arrangement.
I knew I had a homosexual orientation long before I married. I was scared, deeply afraid of how God looks at me, how my family would treat me and how the church would accept me. This is going back to the 70's. There was no one to talk to and so I had to handle this issue on my own. I was lonely desperately wanted to talk to someone and firmly believed that due to some weird reason I was the only Seventh-day Adventist like this.
So I thought the answer was to get married and that will be the end of the issue. Marry I did and so I obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply and had two children. In the early days of my marriage, I waited in vain for the magic effect of "falling in love" to sweep me off my feet. I had no such magic feelings. There was no real connection, emotionally, wholeheartedly and there was this huge void in my life. Our relationship became more like a sibling relationship.
Then I met a man and all my emotions, heart, feelings, that connection and longing to be with that person took place. But I battled with my feelings, and remained in the marriage. So I lived a lie and couldn't be honest and courageous to face the issue with my wife. After eight years of marriage I finally pushed aside the hurt feelings of fear and wrote a note to my wife and finally came out to her. We stayed together until the children became teenagers and young adults.And the lie of pretending to be happily married continued and I continued to wear the mask for a few more years. Of course she told her amily and then mine and some folks in church. That caused a lot of strain and stress.
The reality is it did affect my family in a lot of ways. I came out to my children while in their teens. It affected them far more that I thought it would. They saw the way our marriage was going. Both suffered from depression and unhappiness. My wife lacked the fullfillment as a contented happy spouse. We finally decided to separate.
Maybe things would've been different if I had been honest and upfront in the very beginning and told her about my orientation. And I firmly believe that one has to be honest and be upfront. To live a lie affects all of us in a very negative way.
It is possible for a homosexual man to marry a woman but the completeness of the relationship will never be there. There is always a lack of fullfillment in all spheres that a relationship requires. I tried to change, prayed, took counselling sessions, undertook a change program. It all left me back in where I started from.
Since the separation my wife contacted breast cancer and passed away.
I believe that those homosexuals who do marry are still living a lie. They legalistically do all to avoid being reminded of who they really are, avoiding looking at sports on TV, certain magazines and media etc
Since, I've fully accepted myself as a child of God, loved by Him as a special unique person that I am.

Kevin, thanks for adding your experience to this discussion. Confronted with this personal testimony it just becomes even more intellectually irresponsible to argue slippery-slopes on homosexuality.

The homosexuality-is-a-sin hermeneutic mimics the old Bible-based finger-pointing at interracial sexual relationships (does that still make some of you uncomfortable?), slavery and Jim Crow, women speaking in church, or percussive music. Again the self-designated sin pointers (often fixated on sex, gender, and ethnicity) grab individual verses (aka proof-texting) to coat their morality. They cry out: look, I'm just doing what the Bible teaches, kill homosexuals. Oh wait, but they don't. They don't really believe the words of the Bible, they merely lay a couple of haphazardly extracted verses as a thin patina over their deeper concern: "that if we give on this, our sexual/social order will fall apart. We will no longer have a foundation on which to construct our religion."

To this Jesus says, fear not, I am with you always.

In fact, the real danger is freezing Christian morality to a clearly defunct social order, that predates any sense of cause and effect in disease, weather, origins, or human rights.

Those who cite the creation story as foundational need to understand this point: God's relationship is not based on humanity's ability to reproduce.

There is another more textually consistent approach to finding peace in God's Word: that of reading entire passages. Like all printed matter (unless one believes in the Bible Code) you get the clearest meaning by actually reading through the books; not hopping from one sentence in Titus Andronicus to another sentence in Romeo and Juliet.

Bill Cork, help me with the logic here.

I wonder: does that command to multiply mean anything different with only two people existing in the entire earth vs. over 6 billion now? Like the animal skins God gave, was the multiply command given to everyone or just to them? In the context of overpopulated India, does it still stand? Are heterosexual couples who choose to have only one or no children disobeying God? Are they sinning like homosexuals who don't reproduce? Or is there something special happening physiologically when two women kiss?

Understanding Christ as the center of God's revelation lies at the core of Christianity. This hermeneutic of the WORD as the point of the Word will save us from forcing the discredited hermeneutics of cultural racism and sexual insecurity into this current debate.

In the end we have to recognize that the actual revelation of God in Christ provides Christianity -- qua following Christ -- our most direct experience of God's will for humanity.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you. . . (Matthew 5). Note also Galatians and Hebrews for very specific examples of this general reinterpretation of the textual past through Christ.

Over and over Jesus confounded the sin finger-pointers of his day by including women, other belief systems (Samaritans, Greeks), and prioritized the poor as members of the kingdom of God. He didn't downplay sin, instead He helped us separate our culturally-created senses of yuk or fear of social change from actual sin.

Neither Paul nor Jesus procreated -- yet they lead pretty exemplary lives.
Unless one is prepared to parse exactly what part of contact between members of the same sex is particularly sinful to God, some Adventists just have better things to worry about than this baptized tabloid morality of OMG! who is turned on by whom.

I think I understand Raymond's feelings of impatience, frustration and anger, even if they may have been expressed a bit intemperately. And it seems that the stories Israel offered have fallen on deaf ears. Pain - why should that matter? Kevin's story about a marriage that could not live up to the Edenic ideal - does that give anyone pause?

To me, the spirit of the law is love, and love is willing to look with empathy at the human condition and try to hear the cry of the heart. Do we always have to say, "Yes, but..."

I'd really like to hear some more collegiate voices on this blog!

Honestly, Kevin, were/are you sexually attracted to another gay man or to a heterosexual man?

By Jove he really means it!

I honestly neither expected, nor need, an apology from Raymond for calling me, among others, ignorant and a bigot.

So I guess he really DID mean gay theology -- without apology!!

Can't say we weren't warned Cliff!!
:-)

"The SDA church like every other religious group can do only one thing- deny or accept an individual as an official member."

Does this consider that many 2nd generations children were baptized and accepted into the church before they even knew what "gay" meant, and may have "discovered" it after they were members? Should they fear disfellowshipping then?
Isn't that different from a gay person requesting membership?

1. disfellowshipping for being of gay orientation but abstinent- rare.
2. disfellowshipping for having gay sex- rare (who knows about it?)
3. disfellowship for having gay sex and being openly proud of it in conversation-(no policy) but what kind of response does any reasonable person expect?

4. official membership- different word, means endorsement by the church.

Stop putting up straw men.

did you mean dismembership?

Something I don't get fully-

Why is membership in the SDA church so important to? It doesn't equal certification as a child of God, it doesn't give an assurance of salvation, it isn't a prerequisite to worshipping with SDAs or participating as laypeople. There are no gay bouncers at the church door.

Membership only gives two things- recognition that you fulfill the criteria for that particular denomination, and access to leadership positions if needed.

Why is this so coveted? And the anger and recrimination so strong if denied?

Kevin and Anonymous Cuban young man,

Let me repeat my question to each of you: Are you sexually attracted to other gay men or to heterosexual men? Please tell me the truth.

Joselito, although they can answer your question, I'm not sure what any answer would reveal. Are there men who are knowingly only attracted to straight not gay women, or single not married women?

Also, I may be whistling in the wind, I do what to make a note about good discussions. All too often it is easy for us humans to spend more time on the personality of the words rather than the larger issue.

It would be tragic if those who feel slighted by being called bigoted miss seeing the oddity in going out of their way to call homosexuals damned in the eyes of God for something over which they have no control.

Thus, I want to echo Arlyn's comments with a twist. What exactly is accomplished in calling homosexuals sinners? Is an active homosexual more of a sinner than you or me? Are you or I more of a sinner in the eyes of God than your pastor? Could an active, but monogamous, homosexual be your spiritual leader in the eyes of God?

I want to comment on Arlyn's statement, "Membership only gives two things: recognition that you fulfill the criteria for that particular denomination, and access to leadership positions if needed. Why is this so coveted?"

Believe it or not, most gay Adventists that I know are very strongly spiritual persons. They not only want to attend and worship, but usually want to have a part in the life of the church, including holding church office if that is a part of being active in leadership and service activities and ministries. Typically, they can pull that off only if no one in the church knows they are gay (or if no one knows that they have a partner).

Many gay Adventists are very gifted, especially in the arts and music, and also in teaching, preaching, the healing arts, and various other service ministries.

But for those of us who are partnered with another gay Adventist and are not hiding that fact, it creates a real problem. I have solved that problem for myself by pouring my spiritual energy into webmastering the church website, a very much behind-the-scenes task. (At the same time, however, I'm putting a lot of spiritual energy into public relations activities to help other gay Adventists, a not-so-much-behind-the-scenes activity!)

My partner, however, is a talented musician, is at the organ every Sabbath, directs the church choir and handbell choirs, creates slideshows every week for the worship service, and sometimes even takes over the adult Sabbath school program when the elected Sabbath school superintendent fails to show up (like this morning!), even though she has been told by the church leadership that "open" gays are not allowed to teach Sabbath school classes (any more) or speak facing the congregation from the pulpit, even in Sabbath school. They are not even allowed to lead the congregational singing. (She solves that by having her back to the congregation when she leads the choir and the handbells!)

She is, of course, on the Music Committee and would be the logical one to chair the Music Committee. However, two years ago, when the Nominating Committee selected her to be chair of the Music Committee--and that actually went to the printed First Reading that was distributed to the congregation--some "anonymous" member raised a real stink about it. The reason given was that the Music Committee Chair is a church board position, and of course we just couldn't have an openly gay "sinner" on the church board! So Linda suggested to the pastor that he be on the Music Committee as Chair and she would be the Assistant and would continue to do all the work. That worked for last year.

This year that arrangement was again chosen by the Nominating Committee, and again some "anonymous" member took issue with the fact that she was named Assistant on the First Reading, so now this year she is "just a member" of the Music Committee--and still does all the work of the committee chair. To Linda, it is NOT important that she have a title or a position on the church board. To her, it is only important that she be allowed to serve God using the talents that God gave her! And she continues to do so, in spite of poor health and a chronic disabling disease.

The most recent sequel to the story is that two of the five church elders stomped off the Board of Elders, claiming that the pastor "thinks with his heart and not with his head"! What's up with THAT?!? By the way, my partner and I attend both church board and school board meetings every month, even though we have long since been prohibited from being members of both boards as we once were.

Unfortunately, these unChristlike actions of those few in our church have driven away most all of the gay Adventists who had ever attended our church in hopes of finding a church family where they could be openly gay AND openly serve God in the church they so strongly believe in. That is what hurts me the most. My mantra has become, "It's not about me; it's about God and God's gay children everywhere." To serve these "outcasts" of the church, and to show the love of Jesus to them, is God's purpose for my life.

Raymond, thank you for a thoughtful and well-written article.

next question, if you want to be leaders and are not permitted- why not start another church? The Reformed SDA church in Germany disagreed with the mainline SDA church over one item- pacifism, and broke off. They were Adventist in every other way.

Why is this such a distasteful option? There probably is enough to do so and will continue to grow as more come out of the closet when they know there is a safe haven for SDA gays in a legitimate church. What holds you back? Independent movements spring up all over the place about smaller differences in nuances of lifestyle issues. Gays have a legitimate difference.

Hi Alex,

a. "What exactly is accomplished in calling homosexuals sinners?" Affirming that the Bible (not society) is our criteria for that definition.

b. "Is an active homosexual more of a sinner than you or me?"
No.

c." Are you or I more of a sinner in the eyes of God than your pastor?" No.

d. "Could an active, but monogamous, homosexual be your spiritual leader in the eyes of God?" Yes. Would that person correctly represent the current SDA church as a leader- no.
i.e. Gandhi can also be my spiritual leader in the eyes of God, but would he correctly represent the SDA church? well?

Arlyn said: "next question, if you want to be leaders and are not permitted- why not start another church? The Reformed SDA church in Germany disagreed with the mainline SDA church over one item- pacifism, and broke off. They were Adventist in every other way."

How heartless, Arlyn! That's sort of like saying, "Why don't you go out and find another family? We don't want you here." A lot of gay people I know are just as loyal and faithful to the Adventist church, if not more so, than most straight members. This church is their family, too.

As long as no one knows they are gay they can serve in many different capacities and people are blessed by them. But just let a whisper get around that they are gay, and suddenly they are ostracized. Why?

It is a great pleasure to have all of you read my contribution to this topic and share your thoughts. It must be stated that regardless of what our differences are, I do appreciate your contribution as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and as members in the Adventist Church - all of your contributions to this most difficult issue that our church is facing are important, regardless of what your opinions may be, that is how true, constructive dialogue is had.

There are some important misquotes of my blog and some things that have been written in response to this blog that need be addressed. Therefore I will begin with the comments as they were written from first to last as of Sunday, December 30, 2007.

- Anonymous@11:

You wrote: “I submit that nobody gave a whit about homosexuality until people began clamoring for it to be accepted as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual unions within marriage.”

Would that this were the history of the matter – that the issue of homosexuality and Christian persecution were a matter of the present and not, as is the historical case, a matter of both the past and present. One important work on the issue of homosexuality and Christian community is the book “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” by John Boswell. This book chronicles the long history of the struggle of the Christian church with the issue of community and homosexuality. I would suggest that before you make such statements that you consult, at the very least, an encyclopedia – I really like and would highly recommend Britannica – or an historical literary work. If you must, even a quick search engine like “Google” would have given you the information needed to illustrate the historical inaccuracy of your statement.

- Bill Cork:

You wrote: "Repent, and believe the good news." Christianity isn't about "inclusion"--it's about repentance. It's about a call to forsake sin, not to find rationalizations for it. It's a proclamation that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven. It's the good news that all sinners can be transformed and renewed and experience a new creation.”

I would suggest a reading of Paul’s letter to the Romans, with particular emphasis on the eighth chapter. Something about all falling short of God’s grace comes to mind and my Lutheran friends are keen to always remind me of what Martin wrote on the matter; it would seem that you would do well to consider Luther’s written statements and possibly reconsider your complete understanding of Christianity not being about “inclusion.”

- Arlyn:

You ask in your comment about ‘human rights.’ Basic human rights as defined by the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ can be found on the website http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself, if not already, with the content of this document.

Some of the basic human rights that I was referring to in my blog were, but are by no means limited to, job security, freedom from discrimination because of sexual orientation, protection from oppression because of sexuality, and marriage rights with partners.

You quote my statement "only projects the ignorance and bigotry of those who advocate a stance that homosexuality is sin." (and I guess this is me quoting you quoting me. . . interesting) You then write, “very kindly said.”

That statement far from bombastic or “bigoted,” as someone had the temerity to infer, deals with the issue that science unequivocally establishes homosexuality as a matter of the genetic makeup in most homosexuals – and the sexuality in heterosexuals, I might add. Understanding that it would be rather difficult for someone to advance the argument that homosexuality – the sexuality of someone attracted to members of the same sex – is a sin, this is not discussing the morality of the sexual practice; though it would seem reasonable that if someone can be genetically homosexual – as given evidence by scientific research – that, if God created sexuality and it is indeed a good thing – as I believe it is –, would it not also follow that it would be a “good thing” for those who are homosexual and heterosexual to experience – within the confines of a committed relationship – their sexuality in intimacy and passion – also know as sex.

- Clifford Goldstein:

You wrote: “… those who, in all sincerity, happen to think the Bible is very clear and unambiguous about the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality are automatically labeled unChristian homophobes and the like.”

Now Cliff, you have to fight fair! I never wrote any of that in my blog and I resent your implications indicating otherwise. Many biblical scholars agree that there is much ambiguity around the issue of homosexuality; the fact still remains whether people choose to acknowledge the ambiguity with this issue, or not, does not serve to dismiss that the ambiguity is there. I haven’t labeled anyone unchristian – quite the contrary and I’m sorry if you felt that that was my position, I know what it is like to have your Christianity questioned because of your beliefs and it can hurt, Cliff. So I wouldn’t dare project that on anyone.

You further write: “It doesn't matter that we can care deeply about our gay brothers and sisters, and be sympathetic to their needs and try and help them and minister to them, all the while believing--by what seems to be pretty clear biblical evidence--that the practice is wrong.”

I never once discussed “the practice” (which I infer you mean sex) of sexuality - be it heterosexual or homosexual in my blog post. What I was writing about was sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular, but as is the case in most things, terms must be defined. I wrongly concluded from the comments on pervious blogs that the term “homosexuality” was an understood.

Furthermore, you seem to indicate a belief that the human condition is a choice – i.e. one chooses to be gay – and not a biological given. I’m not sure what scientific evidence or sexuality research you have to believe that, although any you may have to come to that conclusion would be of great interest to me and I’m sure many concerned with this issue; should you have any scientific findings or human sexuality reports that conclusively find sexuality to be a choice, please, by all means share them with the rest of us so we, too, may be enlightened.

Because, Cliff, the main issue of contention between us follows as thus: there were many who held that the earth was flat until scientific findings indicated otherwise; even more interesting is that many held that the earth was the center of the universe – being Polish and Italian I know of the great works of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilee and how their findings helped change the perceptions of the universe. And, what I find most interesting – and, indeed the relevance of bringing up this whole matter – is that quotes from Scripture were used to justify these positions by the Church – quotes that I’m sure were just “as clear” as you – and the others you write of – find the quotes on homosexuality. I won’t belabor the obvious progression of this with women’s issues, slavery, genocide, etc.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “gay lifestyle” or by your insinuation that I want that to be accepted; my post advocated for the God-given dignity of homosexuals to be respected by Christians.

You also wrote: “. . .anything short of that is to be condemned and attacked as unchristian and intoletant [sic] and hateful. He's exhibiting the same attitude toward those folks as he says the church has toward gays.”

That would be a very difficult case to make Cliff – even for you. I’m not sure how it is bigoted to illustrate the problem in logic and theology of - understanding that homosexuality is a genetic trait, as is heterosexuality –projecting that God would hold homosexuality to be a sin. How that is tantamount to hatred I don’t claim to fully know.

Finally you wrote: “I don't have the answer to this whole problem.”

This is an interesting omission on your part, because it would seem with your pervious statements that your mind is quite made up on the whole matter – after all since there is undoubtedly no ambiguity within the Scriptures and, in fact, there are clear quotes from Scripture on the matter how could you write that you don’t have the answer? It would seem that your position is that this “lifestyle,” as you described it, is emphatically a sin. If I have improperly assessed your opinion it would only be because of the seemingly incongruous statements you make within the same comment.

I never wrote that “everyone who believes the practice is wrong is a homophobic hateful bigot.” Please read the actually words that I write, being an editor you ought very well be able to accomplish that simple task; it’s quite obnoxious, and I’m sure you would agree, when people attribute words and statements that are not what was originally written.

You end with, “The hatefulness seems to be displayed in Mr. Thompson's rhetoric.”

I’m still at a loss to see the evidence to support that statement – there was passion, conviction, even a notion of approaching the matter in “Christian love” within my post, but to say that my rhetoric projected hatefulness is an absurd statement.

- Bob Rigsby:

It would seem that you wish to get into an argument of semantics, alright, shall we review what you wrote, then.

“Bigoted : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

The part that you omit in your comment is the line following the one you quote “especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

I’m not going to draw the obvious parallel between conservatives who negate the dignity of homosexuals and the notion of bigotry.

Prejudice: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims; preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge; an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Holding the opinion that Christians who value scientific findings are hypocritical when they hold unequivocally that homosexuality is a sin is in no way “a judgment in disregard of one's rights, leaning formed without just grounds, or an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.”

Far from you substantially (or, as the fourth definition for ‘substantial’ reads in “Webster’s”) firmly construct[ing] an argument that supports your statement of “Raymond Thompson demonstrates for us quite well the very thing he condemns” you only indicate your misunderstanding of both the word bigotry and prejudice.

You laughingly continue in your comment to state, “Too bad. He hurts the cause he seeks to further.” Just as with Cliff’s fanciful statements, your statement here lacks any credibility in that is fails to be accurate with what I have written.

Understanding the findings of science with sexuality it is irrational for a Christian – and therefore a prejudice – for them to hold that homosexuality is a sin. There seems to be this notion that believing that homosexuality is a sin is an irrational conclusion given the findings of science and the ambiguity present with the issue in Scripture. It is therefore right to conclude that those who hold an irrational position such as that of the sin of the genetic sexual orientation of homosexuality – if those individuals are not ignorant of the findings of sexuality research or other scientific studies, but rather willingly choose to disregard those findings – are – understanding the definition of the word “bigot” – advocating a prejudicial and bigoted opinion.

Explaining this is not prejudicial or bigoted.

- Beth:

I understand not the “ick” factor. I’m not willing to conclude that that is a relevant reason for people to have an aversion to the discussion of homosexuality. By the divine grace of God, I luckily went to a public school (in the great state of New Jersey) where my classmates and I were taught about the sexual reproductive organs of males and females and the many sexual expressions that people engage in. It all seemed “icky” when I was a kid and I thought that girls had “cooties,” but now I am more mature and able to talk about suck things as vaginal, oral, anal, and auto sex without blushing or being embarrassed – I can even say the words “penis” and “vagina” without giggling.

I find that with a little maturity and familiarization with terms and biology, that people can get around the “ick” factor, should it be a real factor at all.

- Bob Rigsby:

You return, but not to discuss semantics, phew! This time you have kind words for me, instead of “Raymond Thompson demonstrates for us quite well the very thing he condemns” and “Too bad. He hurts the cause he seeks to further.” (maybe Cliff will find a similar spirit willing to dialogue instead of projecting the apparent hatefulness of my concern of loving our GLBT Christians, but I digress).

“Actually folks, it strikes me we are better than this.”

I would hope that we are. I won’t copy the kind words that you wrote, suffice to write thanks, I appreciate it. Rather I will address some of the thoughtful questions you pose.

“Will you set this aside for a time and consider the plight of those of us who DO believe that homosexuality is not in God’s designed order?”

Bob, I, too believed for some time that homosexuality was a sin because of the “clear quotes of Scripture” that Cliff referred to in his comment; however, coming into contact with homosexuals that – besides their being in a committed relationship and (regardless of how icky it may be to some Beth, also having sex) with persons of the same sex as them – seemed perfectly “normal” to me. Some of these individuals held beliefs that illegal drugs were to be avoided, that church attendance and fellowship was essential to nurture spiritual growth, that the Bible constitutes the “word of God,” that a committed relationship is what God intends for our lives, that valued family, education, and community service, and were productive members in their respective communities. Coming to know and love and appreciate homosexuals who were also great ministers for the Lord, noble teachers – who without suitable pay or respect from students and parents went into their classrooms day by day eager to teach, police officers who risk their very own lives to save and protect others, politicians that actually advocate on behalf of those who don’t have the money to buy representation, etc. It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when there are homosexual families that lives full of love, devotion to the church, and functionality. It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when you know ministers that give entirely of themselves to their calling by God – who serve their congregations with complete dedication. It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when there are so many homosexual Christians that live lives full of God’s grace and love and that express such a gratitude for his providence. With all of that, and so much more, it’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order.

As per considering the “plight” of those of you who DO believe that homosexuality is not in God’s designed order – I do to some degree, for I was there; I can respect that. What I cannot respect or tolerate – as a Christian or someone with a sense of morality – is those of you who demean GLBT Christians and their families by ostracizing them from your (and I don’t mean you exclusively Bob, while I think that is apparent, there are many who have jumped to irrational conclusion from my blog that I feel obliged to literally explain everything including using the word “your” and not indicating specifically to mean “you”) congregations or advocating that their loved partners and families not have the rights that come with marriage – some 3,000 or so legal rights that heterosexuals have enshrined in marriage, but which homosexuals are denied.

I cannot and will not respect or tolerate those who disown their children and family members because of their sexuality – this is not being bigoted, it’s understanding the great trials and emotional pain that someone who is told that they are no longer a part of the family because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex – that’s a prejudice, that’s bigotry.

“What would you have us do?”

That is simple, love, Bob, love! Let God have the judgment that is his and simply love and accept people for who and where they are at; that’s what our graceful and merciful God does – he meets us where we are at and he alone judges us, not each other.

“Does calling us ignorant, and bigots, help either us, or you, or the cause which you champion?”

When one advocates an irrational or prejudiced opinion based not on facts, but on opinions supported only by feelings, then I’m not going to apologize for calling such an opinion bigoted. Just like I would not apologize for calling a raciest a raciest or a sexist a sexist or a murderer a murderer (not that all of those things are equal, lest I be misunderstood and have to address a comment stating that I equate murder to bigotry).

“If you would call us to bless you, what would you say? How would your request be worded? What would you want to hear from us, whose opinions and convictions you so disdain?”

I would say, Bob, much in the vein of what Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, “"We struggled against apartheid because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about. It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present.”

With respects to sexuality - this is something that most homosexuals can do nothing about. Homosexuals tell us – the church, their spiritual brothers and sisters - that they don’t want to be gay because of all of the hostility and hatred, but that they cannot dismiss these strong emotions, so crucial to their sexuality. I have heard the stories of those who have been praying to God for so many hours and days for deliverance and it doesn’t come – does God not love his children, heaven forbid!

It would appear that the homosexuals need have a place where they can go with open arms and experience love and acceptance for the person that God loves them as, not to experience more judgment and exclusion. Why can’t the church be that place? Why isn’t the Adventist church that place, Bob? How is that being bigoted? I’m charged with having hate by many on this blog – where is the hate in all of that? Where!

These are some things I would say to those of you who’s “plight” is that you have an opinion about homosexuality – something most of you have no personal, as in you’re not gay, experience with and yet you feel more than able to pontificate on the matter – how is that not anything but prejudicial? How is it that homosexuals have become the ones who are oppressing the church? When did this come to be? All because they want to be included in the church as if the words, “For God so loved the world” were to exclude them because of whom they love and have sex with?

That’s sick. That’s demented on a level that I cannot fathom anymore, so excuse me for loving my homosexual brothers and sisters and allowing God to be the judge of their lives and allowing him – and not our “position statements” – to dictate who is saved and who isn’t.

“I do want to bless you Raymond; thought I fear that the only blessing you want is for me to give up my own convictions.”

I ask for you to understand the other side of the matter and have the intellectual integrity that some lack – and it is a matter of leadership, have the leadership, Bob – and admit that there is some ambiguity in the whole matter and that we need to prayerfully study the issue as unbiased as possible and try to see and comprehend what God wants in the whole matter not pontificate and deny people actualized lives because of what Beth pointed out, because some might find sex between two men or women to be “icky.” I implore those of you who find it so important to advocate that homosexuality is a sin to try to comprehend what the homosexual Christian is going through – maybe you might learn something, and I don’t know, maybe I’m an idealist, but I think maybe you might even change your mind on the whole matter – I know I did.

“Can we at least tear down the walls of acrimony that seem, as I see it, built by you?”

Sometimes being straightforward is what we need, that’s far from being irrational or harsh; I have been passionate yet loving in this dialogue. Concerned mostly, for the plight of others, if that isn’t what we are called to do by Christ then I know not of the Christ you write. We are talking about people here, Bob, human beings like you and me with families, loved ones, and children; sure there may be two moms or dads and the children might be adopted or through a surrogate mother, but these are families, too and these are people we write of, as well.

Homosexuality isn’t just this concept or word it’s lives and if that isn’t reason to get passionate and involved and force yourself to discuss the “icky” things, then I don’t know what is anymore.

I’ve seen too many turned away from the church by so-called Christians because of “homosexuality” and I’m tired of it Bob, I’m tired of the tears, I’m tired of the pain, I’m tired of the suicides, I’m tired of the hate crimes, I’m tired of my God’s character being drug through the mud and all for what – for some notion of a literal, conservative reading of the Bible, holy words of God used for hate. No. I’m not going to pretend that this is some intellectual discussion, because it’s not, it stopped being an intellectual discussion when the Matthew Shepards happened around the globe. And if that’s harsh, well to quote what you wrote, “too bad!”

- Israel Cilio:

Thanks for those links; I appreciated those stories very much.

- Alexander Carpenter:

“Understanding Christ as the center of God's revelation lies at the core of Christianity. This hermeneutic of the WORD as the point of the Word will save us from forcing the discredited hermeneutics of cultural racism and sexual insecurity into this current debate.”

Thank you.

- Carrol Grady:

“To me, the spirit of the law is love, and love is willing to look with empathy at the human condition and try to hear the cry of the heart. Do we always have to say, "Yes, but..."”

Thanks Carrol.

- SDA Womyn:

“Unfortunately, these unChristlike actions of those few in our church have driven away most all of the gay Adventists who had ever attended our church in hopes of finding a church family where they could be openly gay AND openly serve God in the church they so strongly believe in. That is what hurts me the most. My mantra has become, "It's not about me; it's about God and God's gay children everywhere." To serve these "outcasts" of the church, and to show the love of Jesus to them, is God's purpose for my life.”

All I can writ to this is “AMEN.”

I will end on two quotes from a former Bishop of the Episcopal Church’s Newark Diocese:

"I think that we have in recent years entered a "New Dark Age" in the Western world. It is marked by the rise of religious systems that seek to build security by encouraging prejudice against a designated victim....the homosexual has become in the religious hysteria of our day. This kind of behavior is always a response to fear and to a rapidly changing world. Security-providing religion, which always requires a victim, is like a drug that carries us over the rough places of life. It is certainly not the wave of the Christian future."

"We don't choose to be white or black, male or female, left-handed or right-handed, gay or straight. We awaken in each instance to the reality of what we are. Nothing external to our humanity activates our self-understanding. It simply is. Alcohol distorts life for the alcoholic. Homosexuality does not distort the life of the gay person. Your pastor's understanding is simply one more version of the idea that homosexuality is a sickness or addiction that needs to be cured if possible and if not possible, it needs to be suppressed. Wholeness never came to anyone who tried to suppress his or her deepest identity."

Joselito, although they can answer your question, I'm not sure what any answer would reveal. Are there men who are knowingly only attracted to straight not gay women, or single not married women?

So we can come to terms with the persons we're engaged in conversation. That their use of words and mine, as well as our understanding of the same are unambiguous and unequivocal. Honest and accurate, IOW.

If we can't totally eliminate ambiguities, we can at least reduce them to a minimum, don't you think? I believe this is essential for any good conversation especially when differences of opinion may be traced to misunderstandings due to lack of accurate definitions. Such as in this one: What is same-sex attraction? Gay men to gay men? Lesbian to lesbian? Not gay/lesbian to heterosexual man/woman, I presume. Please tell me the truth. Anyone?

This software allows me to revise/'edit' my previous comments. However, I chose to post separately so as not to confuse the issue by answering a different question than the one I posed in the first place.

With all due respect, Alex, your rhetorical question fails the ambiguity test. It violates the relevance test as well-:)

Here's why: You combined two questions requiring different answers. And your qualifier - 'knowingly' - what does that mean? Needless to say, sexual arousal is by and large unconscious and quite involuntary. If this (answering both questions in the negative) were a natural inclination of heterosexual men, what am I supposed to do with my genetic predisposition? Do I not have a choice one way or another? Curb it? Express it? (There's some ambiguity in this question of mine, too, is there not? No pun intended.)

Are there men who are knowingly only attracted to straight not gay women, or single not married women?

Raymond?!

...a former Bishop of the Episcopal Church’s Newark Diocese:

That was a real good one! I have to give it to you, you slipped that one in there real good.

Care for any more quotes from "a former Bishop of the Episcopal Church’s Newark Diocese"?

Alexander Carpenter said:

Joselito, although they can answer your question, I'm not sure what any answer would reveal. Are there men who are knowingly only attracted to straight not gay women, or single not married women?

Thus, I want to echo Arlyn's comments with a twist. What exactly is accomplished in calling homosexuals sinners? Is an active homosexual more of a sinner than you or me? Are you or I more of a sinner in the eyes of God than your pastor? Could an active, but monogamous, homosexual be your spiritual leader in the eyes of God?
Posted by: Alexander Carpenter | 30 December 2007 at 4:36

Do we really have to descend into a "who started it" on the "complaints about incivility" front? We could go back several threads.
I just wish people would assume more so that we can get off this endless round of saying "we need to show love". Everybody is saying it over and over as if it isn't a given. Which is why I asked on the other thread for people to point out specific incidences in which thread respondents were not "showing love". That would be more direct and effective and free up space in the discussion for more substantial discussion.

Then you said this:

It would be tragic if those who feel slighted by being called bigoted miss seeing the oddity in going out of their way to call homosexuals damned in the eyes of God for something over which they have no control.

Please show evidence of this from our discussions; particularly for two expressions here:

1. "...out of their way..."

(What is "their way," particularly in a discussion about the very topic?

This reminds me of something one of my high school teachers said. He said that young people like to imagine that other people ("everybody") is constantly looking at them; and that although this may seem so to them, it really isn't true.

I feel a lot of this is in effect here.)

2. "...call homosexuals damned in the eyes of God for something over which they have no control."

(Who's position is it that "homosexuality" is an "offense" that is "damnable"? The church's? Tom's? Bob's? Cliff's?)

I am beginning to think that there is a playbook/narrative/template that circulates among certain schools of thought, to which everything must conform.
I cannot know how many times we have gone over this topic with people responding to arguments that were never made.

1. Dear Carrol,

May I suggest that possibly your emotional reactions keep blurring your accuracy? I am not heartless, the statement was written from a quiet, sober heart suggesting a legitimate escape from the pain so evidently felt from a mismatch.

"That's sort of like saying, "Why don't you go out and find another family? We don't want you here."

No, it isn't.

My suggestion is like "you can always, always be a part of us, but just not as our leader or role model, to do that- you have to accurately represent the current SDA criteria or find others that do want to become all that you stand for."

And of course, this is not limited to gay orientation-which does not preclude (if abstinent)leadership in our church. This couple was actively gay. A heterosexual who wishes to have sex with large groups- if abstinent and not claiming this desire and it's fulfillment is biblically supported and God endorsed- could still be a leader too.

Almost all of my posts on this thread have been in trying to make this distinction clear between open fellowship and selective membership and even more selective leadership. I am sorry I have failed.

I am interested to understand why gay people would want to be involved in the SDA church. Clearly involvement can be in a formal sense i.e. holding office, or an informal sense, i.e. fellowship in a friendship circle. The latter can be true and the former, currently not possible.

If the need is to hold office, then I would question why? What is the point? Any religion has their rules. Some more restrictive than others. Perhaps an idea is to retain current friendships and join an organisation which works and accepts gay people in the formal sense.

I think there are much bigger issues than being homosexual. Highlighting this issue in the church serves very little purpose. Many belief systems the church holds have been discredited within and without. Does it evolve? Why try to change something which is a very marginal religion and in many developed countries hardly exists, especially with regards to the indigenous population.

Well Raymond, that was a long post. Had you posted more frequently this blog would have been several pages long by now I am sure (just like the last one).

You said:

Would that this were the history of the matter – that the issue of homosexuality and Christian persecution were a matter of the present and not, as is the historical case, a matter of both the past and present. One important work on the issue of homosexuality and Christian community is the book “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” by John Boswell. This book chronicles the long history of the struggle of the Christian church with the issue of community and homosexuality. I would suggest that before you make such statements that you consult, at the very least, an encyclopedia – I really like and would highly recommend Britannica – or an historical literary work. If you must, even a quick search engine like “Google” would have given you the information needed to illustrate the historical inaccuracy of your statement.

I stand by my statement fully.
I was responding to a common argument here and elsewhere that the Christian church "suddenly turned on" homosexuals en masse "out of the blue" and out of "proportion".
I contend that this is not so.
I said (and still say) that the current apparent "emphasis"
on homosexuality is a direct response to two things:

1. Extra-democratic socio-political events in recent years that run against the social tides.

2. The concurrent second-wave cultural awakening ("mainstreaming") of homosexual behavior.

So, that homosexual behavior has been the "target" of one religious authority or another at various times in history is not evidence of a "singular out-sized obsession".
At other times (and it seems sinuously) it has been "demon rum" or gambling or prostitution.

What seems to be frustrating for people who see nothing wrong with homosexual behavior is that even though the understanding of homosexuality has changed somewhat, the church still holds homosexual acts to be wrong.

You said to Bob:

I would suggest a reading of Paul’s letter to the Romans, with particular emphasis on the eighth chapter. Something about all falling short of God’s grace comes to mind and my Lutheran friends are keen to always remind me of what Martin wrote on the matter; it would seem that you would do well to consider Luther’s written statements and possibly reconsider your complete understanding of Christianity not being about “inclusion.”

When God can tell Laodicea that he would "spew them out" of his mouth; and when we can understand it, the we can get a more accurate definition for the word "inclusion". Does Christianity "include" hate?

God takes us as we are, but he doesn't leave us that way at all. That would be pure hatred on His part. And the less enamored we are of humans and their so-called merits, the more we will see this.

You said to Arlyn:

You ask in your comment about ‘human rights.’ Basic human rights as defined by the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ can be found on the website http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself, if not already, with the content of this document.

Some of the basic human rights that I was referring to in my blog were, but are by no means limited to, job security, freedom from discrimination because of sexual orientation, protection from oppression because of sexuality, and marriage rights with partners.

You presume a consensus on this document.
To me it might only describe some of my rights by accident.
The U.S. Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) to me is a much more enlightening document.

You quote my statement "only projects the ignorance and bigotry of those who advocate a stance that homosexuality is sin." (and I guess this is me quoting you quoting me. . . interesting) You then write, “very kindly said.”

That statement far from bombastic or “bigoted,” as someone had the temerity to infer, deals with the issue that science unequivocally establishes homosexuality as a matter of the genetic makeup in most homosexuals – and the sexuality in heterosexuals, I might add. Understanding that it would be rather difficult for someone to advance the argument that homosexuality – the sexuality of someone attracted to members of the same sex – is a sin, this is not discussing the morality of the sexual practice; though it would seem reasonable that if someone can be genetically homosexual – as given evidence by scientific research – that, if God created sexuality and it is indeed a good thing – as I believe it is –, would it not also follow that it would be a “good thing” for those who are homosexual and heterosexual to experience – within the confines of a committed relationship – their sexuality in intimacy and passion – also know as sex.

Several things here--

Science has not "unequivocally established" anything with respect to the "causes" of homosexuality. (That is a bit like the "things are very unclear" line). And secondly, this is really irrelevant to the position of the church or the Bible.
It is homosexual behavior that is the issue here, not the orientation.

I am beginning to despair of asking people over and over again to state who here believes that a homosexual orientation is a sin.
This is why I said it seems some people have a narrative that they are fighting.

Please let us respond to actual points made and actual beliefs.

Additionally, isn't it a bit Catholic to ask the Church to be the final moral arbiter?

So, the Church can decide to legitimize all sorts of things that are forbidden in the Bible.

It is, however, not "the Church" to whom you will have to answer on judgment day.

Dear Ray,

Your response was very gracious, and it made me re-read your initial article again. Thank you for the link to the universal rights. Since I have stated previously that homosexual orientation with abstinence is not a problem for church policy, I will address these rights in reference to the homosexual act- which the church does have a problem with.

Because there were 30 in the summary, if you don't mind I would like to respond on the ones you mentioned specifically in your response:

1. job security. (article 23)
"(1)Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." This does not mean that a person cannot be fired. It is interpreted practically by most governments that a reasonable cause must precede firing and for voluntary non-profit organizations like a church-reasonable cause definately includes noncompliance with established values of that organization.

2. Freedom from discrimination because of sexual orientation
(article 7)
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." This defines discrimination in the most enforceable and limited sense of equal protection of the law. Does this apply to voluntary groups that set behavior boundaries for its own members and whose only action toward active gays is to withdraw membership? What law does that violate? And how can any law acting in protection- force a church to accept someone as a member?

3. protection from oppression because of sexuality (article 12?) "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondance, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." I hardly think the church is doing "arbitrary interference" when it is the gay person who leaves their home, purposefully enters the property of the church or site of church function and then feels the discomfort of the group thus affected. I do agree that attacks upon honor and reputation that are arbitrary are wrong- that's why I don't believe or say they are less of a person or worse of a sinner than I. The problem is a incompatability issue with what a church understands currently as sin.

4. and marriage rights with partners. (Article 16)
(1)"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family." Here, the UN recognizes gay marriage as a right. The USA is mixed, so it is not recognized as a right by all the states here. Even if it were, no church is ever obligated to perform the wedding of any particular couple, and as long as it doesn't actively interfere, this doesn't force the SDA church to accept active gay couples as members either. Membership in a church never was the right of any married couple, regardless of gender and sexuality.

Okay, obviously on these rights I must be missing something big. Because these are even more clearly (though human made- no reference to God as a source)non-binding on the question of church membership for active gays.

Thanks again for your kindly tone and the homework.

One last thing Ray,

Your process of accepting homosexual orientation as not a sin was based on at least three discernable turning points you mentioned.

"It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when there are homosexual families that lives full of love, devotion to the church, and functionality....With all of that, and so much more, it’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order.

A. Knowing personally many homosexuals who are spiritual and decent.

"though it would seem reasonable that if someone can be genetically homosexual – as given evidence by scientific research – that, if God created sexuality and it is indeed a good thing – as I believe it is –, would it not also follow that it would be a “good thing” for those who are homosexual and heterosexual to experience – within the confines of a committed relationship – their sexuality in intimacy and passion – also know as sex."

B. Genetic sexual orientation is reasonably equated with God created good sexuality.

"Many biblical scholars agree that there is much ambiguity around the issue of homosexuality; the fact still remains whether people choose to acknowledge the ambiguity with this issue, or not, does not serve to dismiss that the ambiguity is there."

C. Because many believe there is ambiguity in the bible on this, the ambiguity is there. (how is this unlike the flat world theory widely held by scientists in its time?)

hmmm.

not logical or biblical enough.

More:

You said to Clifford Goldstein:

You wrote: “… those who, in all sincerity, happen to think the Bible is very clear and unambiguous about the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality are automatically labeled unChristian homophobes and the like.”

Now Cliff, you have to fight fair! I never wrote any of that in my blog and I resent your implications indicating otherwise. Many biblical scholars agree that there is much ambiguity around the issue of homosexuality; the fact still remains whether people choose to acknowledge the ambiguity with this issue, or not, does not serve to dismiss that the ambiguity is there. I haven’t labeled anyone unchristian – quite the contrary and I’m sorry if you felt that that was my position, I know what it is like to have your Christianity questioned because of your beliefs and it can hurt, Cliff. So I wouldn’t dare project that on anyone.

The thing is, if you are not doing this, to whom are you speaking. Nobody who is convinced that all homosexuals are worthy of contempt is likely to read this blog. I have yet to meet such a commenter here.
So who are you trying to convince?

I never once discussed “the practice” (which I infer you mean sex) of sexuality - be it heterosexual or homosexual in my blog post. What I was writing about was sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular, but as is the case in most things, terms must be defined. I wrongly concluded from the comments on pervious blogs that the term “homosexuality” was an understood.

So did I.
Again, I plead for a general discussion of things people here actually believe.
Not even the church holds that homosexual orientation is a sin:
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat46.html

Why are we fighting a narrative?

Furthermore, you seem to indicate a belief that the human condition is a choice – i.e. one chooses to be gay – and not a biological given. I’m not sure what scientific evidence or sexuality research you have to believe that, although any you may have to come to that conclusion would be of great interest to me and I’m sure many concerned with this issue; should you have any scientific findings or human sexuality reports that conclusively find sexuality to be a choice, please, by all means share them with the rest of us so we, too, may be enlightened.

Her is the confusion we are all alluding to. I did not pick up any of this in his post. This is why he mentioned "the practice".

Because, Cliff, the main issue of contention between us follows as thus: there were many who held that the earth was flat until scientific findings indicated otherwise; even more interesting is that many held that the earth was the center of the universe – being Polish and Italian I know of the great works of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilee and how their findings helped change the perceptions of the universe. And, what I find most interesting – and, indeed the relevance of bringing up this whole matter – is that quotes from Scripture were used to justify these positions by the Church – quotes that I’m sure were just “as clear” as you – and the others you write of – find the quotes on homosexuality. I won’t belabor the obvious progression of this with women’s issues, slavery, genocide, etc.

Also, these "scientific findings" that you keep waving around are not unknown to people who hold that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Many of us just find them irrelevant to the Biblical injunctions.

(At this point, I am going to ask you to read--or re-read--"Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis).

Behavior is not genetic, it is a choice.
Genetics may make some choices harder than others, but they are not one and the same.

This was discussed briefly in the last thread--the undercurrent that wishes to argue that one is compelled to act on one's sexual inclinations; so much so that sexual behavior cannot be separated from one's orientation (and thus one's "identity").

I’m not sure what you mean by the “gay lifestyle” or by your insinuation that I want that to be accepted; my post advocated for the God-given dignity of homosexuals to be respected by Christians.

Again, I am not sure that anyone here would disagree with that.
Who has indicated otherwise?

You also wrote: “. . .anything short of that is to be condemned and attacked as unchristian and intoletant [sic] and hateful. He's exhibiting the same attitude toward those folks as he says the church has toward gays.”

That would be a very difficult case to make Cliff – even for you.

He might have gotten that idea from this statement of yours:

"Unfortunately the lack of compassion on the part of the Adventist Church toward homosexuals can best be illustrated by the failing of the General Conference to formally recognize the Adventist GLBT outreach ministry, the Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International."

Now tell me, on what grounds should a church that believes this:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat46.html

"Seventh-day Adventists believe that sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman. This was the design established by God at creation."

"recognize" an organization that believes that homosexual behavior is at best neutral?

I’m not sure how it is bigoted to illustrate the problem in logic and theology of - understanding that homosexuality is a genetic trait, as is heterosexuality –projecting that God would hold homosexuality to be a sin. How that is tantamount to hatred I don’t claim to fully know.

Should I ask the same question again?

Who here believes this? Does the church believe this?

Joselito said: "What is same-sex attraction? Gay men to gay men? Lesbian to lesbian? Not gay/lesbian to heterosexual man/woman, I presume. Please tell me the truth. Anyone?"

I don't think Kevin or Anonymous Cuban are coming back to read all this vitriol, so let me tell you what I've heard. There is no inherent defense against "falling in love" with a straight man or woman, but gays and lesbians soon learn to develop "gaydar" to be able to sense who is "family" and who is not, so they can avoid emotional attachments to someone who cannot return their affections. Does that answer your question?

Now here we go:

It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when there are homosexual families that lives full of love, devotion to the church, and functionality. It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when you know ministers that give entirely of themselves to their calling by God – who serve their congregations with complete dedication. It’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order when there are so many homosexual Christians that live lives full of God’s grace and love and that express such a gratitude for his providence. With all of that, and so much more, it’s hard to come to an assessment that homosexuality is not God’s designed order.

That is exactly akin to saying:

" It’s hard to come to an assessment that breast cancer is not God’s designed order when there are so many cancer-stricken Christians that live lives full of God’s grace and love and that express such a gratitude for his providence."

One has nothing really to do with the other.
Actually, I am stunned to think that you would even say a thing like this.

Where to begin?

Well, gee...

Heterosexual marriage is most agreed to be "part of God's original order", but I would never bring up the so-called "goodness" of some heterosexuals I know as proof of this. There are all sorts of heterosexuals (and homosexuals) who exhibit all sorts of behavior--good and bad. How do you just ignore the bad and produce the good as evidence of it being God's will and plan?

"Good behavior" (or success of his plans) among human beings is not any indicator of what the will of God is concerning man.

Again, I fear this idolization of "human goodness". That, for secular progressives, however, is really all that's left when God and his requirements are out of the picture.

Joselito said: "What is same-sex attraction? Gay men to gay men? Lesbian to lesbian? Not gay/lesbian to heterosexual man/woman, I presume. Please tell me the truth. Anyone?"

I don't think Kevin or Anonymous Cuban are coming back to read all this vitriol, so let me tell you what I've heard. There is no inherent defense against "falling in love" with a straight man or woman, but gays and lesbians soon learn to develop "gaydar" to be able to sense who is "family" and who is not, so they can avoid emotional attachments to someone who cannot return their affections. Does that answer your question?
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 30 December 2007 at 5:16

The most used word on this page besides "the" and "and" must be "love".

The only way you could think otherwise were if Clifford and Bob and other were right.

This is really about one-way tolerance. People who believe that homosexual behavior is a sin are entitled to be called every name in the book.

Arlyn said: "May I suggest that possibly your emotional reactions keep blurring your accuracy?"

Well, I can't deny that my emotions are involved. Why are emotions considered a weakness or liability? God created them. Are one's emotions less important than passionless logic? I guess some of us think so. But Jesus sometimes led with His emotions. Perhaps you might want to recognize that for people who have been reviled and stigmatized all their lives, this is how your statement sounds. Just as I apparently misread your statement.

"My suggestion is like "you can always, always be a part of us, but just not as our leader or role model, to do that- you have to accurately represent the current SDA criteria or find others that do want to become all that you stand for."

I find that reminiscent of when anyone who wore a wedding ring was not allowed to be "up front." Or anyone who was divorced. I pray that the day will come when those who have God-given gifts of leadership and talent and wish to use them for His glory will always be allowed to do so. Aren't speakers and musicians from other faiths sometimes invited into our pulpits? How is that different?

"And of course, this is not limited to gay orientation-which does not preclude (if abstinent)leadership in our church. This couple was actively gay. A heterosexual who wishes to have sex with large groups- if abstinent and not claiming this desire and it's fulfillment is biblically supported and God endorsed- could still be a leader too." "

Told very briefly, here are two, out of many, stories that refute your suggestion that this doesn't apply to people who simply have a gay orientation:

A gay man, married for 17 years and father of two teenagers, was from time to time asked by his wife if he was having an affair (because of his lack of interest in sexual relations). Although he always assured her he was being faithful, he finally told her the reason was that he was gay. As she began to realize what this meant for her future she decided to divorce him, take their daughters and move far away. But before she moved she told the pastor and several in the church about his homosexuality. Even though for many years he had served as church organist and an elder and he and his wife had been worship leaders and Pathfinder leaders, his pastor, without visiting, wrote him a letter and told him he was disfellowshipped and was no longer welcome in their church.

Another very successful gay pastor, married for 15 years and father to two children, eventually came to the conclusion that he was indeed gay, after many years of denying it, and gently and thoughtfully came out to his wife and family. While they were still dealing with this, somehow the word got out to the church, possibly through one of the children, and within a few weeks he was fired, or "let go" by the conference.

Anonymous@11, I was trying to answer Joselito's question about whether gay and lesbian people are only attracted to other gays and lesbians. I said nothing about tolerance. Your comments don't make sense to me.

Anonymous@11, I was trying to answer Joselito's question about whether gay and lesbian people are only attracted to other gays and lesbians. I said nothing about tolerance. Your comments don't make sense to me.
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 30 December 2007 at 7:10

Carrol, you spoke about "vitriol" in your post, which I was trying to get you to point out an example of on this page (or blog for that matter).

As an aside, I would also like you to say what you mean by "Jesus led with emotion".

Raw emotion is vastly inferior to logic. It is virtually useless as far as these types of discussions go.

May I suggest again that a big part of this problem is not whether homosexuality is a sin but how the SDA church should respond. Even if it is a sin (which again I will state I don't agree with) there is still the issue of what to do. I've heard several proposals if I may sum up, one, that practicing homosexuality is a sin and the church is correct in denying leadership positions to gays who are sexually active, another, that homosexuality is not a sin and the church should not treat gay couples any differently than straight couples, and finally, that practicing homosexuality is a sin but gay couples should not be treated any differently than straight couples.

What gets me frustrated (and I think many other progressive believers) is the first position. It says that not only is homosexuality a sin but it is a bad enough that these people cannot hold leadership positions in the church. To return to my example, why this one and not gluttony or women not submitting (or many other sins that might be harder to clearly identify but cause much more damage such as pride or coveting)? All of us sin and leadership positions would go vacant if we held out for sinlessness. An organization must balance standards with the value of love. There are very few sins (to my knowledge) that the church says are bad enough to deny leadership and this is one. It shouldn't be for all the many reasons pointed out over these long pages. It would be just enormous progress for the SDA church to take the last position offered mainly by Bob and would go a long ways to healing some of pain. IMO it would still be less than ideal but it would eliminate the greater sin of singling these people out as somehow not only sinners (as we all are) but worse.

Andrews said: "I am interested to understand why gay people would want to be involved in the SDA church."

Is that so hard to understand when they are loyal and faithful Adventists who believe in what our church stands for, and when their families and friends are Adventists?

"If the need is to hold office, then I would question why?"

It's not that they "need" to "hold office," but that they care about their church and they have gifts and talents that they long to use for God's glory.

1. I wouldn't go as far as to say virtually useless!
Passion is what makes an idea a movement. And the "homosexual practice is not-a-sin" group has plenty of it.

Just that I respect those who carefully handle truth, especially if they are on the other side. It makes me listen twice as closely and reconsider my position again.

Great passion doesn't compensate for sloppiness. This is even more evident when conversing through written words, than when swept away by eloquent spoken oration.

2. The link above that quoted the official SDA stance on homosexuality stated it disagreed with homosexual acts and relationships. Orientation was not discussed.

In Carrol's sad examples- she didn't mention if those who lost their membership and pastorship were gays who explained to the church that they never planned to engage in gay sex or gay relationships. This small omitted detail is the crux.

That's why I don't tend to trust anecdotes- because we never get a fully accurate comprehensive story. So how can I decide if the church was being cruel and inconsistent with itself, or if it was following its own policy correctly?

Again, careful reasoning is crippled by lack of vital information.

Arlyn said: "Carrol, you spoke about "vitriol" in your post, which I was trying to get you to point out an example of on this page (or blog for that matter)."

At my age, sometimes the right word won't come to mind, so I go ahead and use the wrong one. But the one I wanted eventually shows up. Better than "vitriol" would have been "sarcasm" or "condescension." Do I need to provide examples of that?

I might add that I finally figured out why I wasn't accessing additional pages, but I won't tell you why lest you consider me stupid as well as emotional! So in reading some of the later posts on the other blog I came to one where you seemed to refer to Bob as being "nasty." Isn't that a sort of "vitriol" against one of your own?!

I also read Bob's suggested "paradigm" referred to by Beth and I think there is real love and merit in it. Thank you, Bob.

2. The link above that quoted the official SDA stance on homosexuality stated it disagreed with homosexual acts and relationships. Orientation was not discussed.

Someone who attended the Annual Council where this statement was formulated told me that the discussion around it involved the desire *not* to even recognize the possibility of orientation. I might also add that Bill Johnsson, who helped write the original statement that was submitted, told me he didn't recognize what was eventually adopted.

"In Carrol's sad examples- she didn't mention if those who lost their membership and pastorship were gays who explained to the church that they never planned to engage in gay sex or gay relationships. This small omitted detail is the crux."

Maybe the crux is that the church never asked them. At the time they were disfellowshipped or fired, I am sure they both wanted/hoped to save their marriages. When driven away from their church so unkindly and losing their families - yes, they did find loving partners who were gay. In one case they have been together for ten years and are a great blessing to all who know them.

Here we go again:

Beth said:

...I've heard several proposals if I may sum up, one, that practicing homosexuality is a sin and the church is correct in denying leadership positions to gays who are sexually active,...

And then said:

...What gets me frustrated (and I think many other progressive believers) is the first position. It says that not only is homosexuality a sin but it is a bad enough that these people cannot hold leadership positions in the church.

So:

1. Which is it? Is "homosexuality" a sin (by this position)? Or is "practicing homosexuality"?
By the next paragraph you've confused your own self.

2. For the record, the position is that practicing homosexuality is a sin--homosexuality is not.

3. This does indeed get progressives mad, because it separates cause and effect, and inserts human responsibility in there.
Man deeply wish to argue (and do, and operate as though they believe this) that sexual behavior is as needed as oxygen, food and water.
So we hear about how abstinence is "denying who you are", a very curious definition by the Bible's standards (and millenia of Judeo-Christian history).

Lastly, you had this to say:

All of us sin and leadership positions would go vacant if we held out for sinlessness.

What a red herring.

The idea is that one cannot live in open and unapologetic rebellion against God and seek to represent/serve in the church in any official capacity.
God will take care of matters of the heart which the church members cannot see, but just because they hide it well doesn't mean it's not as important.

The church has long been compared to a family. If you or I had a gay child, would we claim him as a family member, but then limit him in ways different than his siblings? Would (s)he be given less gifts, inheritance, or privileges? How would that child be treated? The same as the other children or differently?

If the church truly is a family, a loving family, then unless it makes sense to you to limit their normal duties, responsibilities and inheritance, then that is on way to answer this.

However, if, as a parent you believe that your child who is gay is somehow less deserving of equal love and recognition from you, how do you relate to the story of the wheat and the tares? Should those we consider to be "tares" be tossed out now, or should it be the duty of the Great Judge to decide, based on each individual's heart?

Arlyn said: "Carrol, you spoke about "vitriol" in your post, which I was trying to get you to point out an example of on this page (or blog for that matter)."

I also read Bob's suggested "paradigm" referred to by Beth and I think there is real love and merit in it. Thank you, Bob.
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 30 December 2007 at 8:23

Carrol, it was me who asked for an example--not arlyn.

"Sarcasm" and "condescension" (in particular) are all in the eye of the beholder (and probably fall under the "emotional" category as well).

We need to wield more useful tools for this discussion.

The church has long been compared to a family. If you or I had a gay child, would we claim him as a family member, but then limit him in ways different than his siblings? Would (s)he be given less gifts, inheritance, or privileges? How would that child be treated? The same as the other children or differently?

However, if, as a parent you believe that your child who is gay is somehow less deserving of equal love and recognition from you, how do you relate to the story of the wheat and the tares? Should those we consider to be "tares" be tossed out now, or should it be the duty of the Great Judge to decide, based on each individual's heart?
Posted by: Elaine | 30 December 2007 at 10:03

I would expect all my children to conform to the rules equally.
For example, all would have the same bedtime regardless of who were insomniac.

"I would expect all my children to conform to the rules equally. For example, all would have the same bedtime regardless of who were insomniac. Posted by: Anonymous@11"

Likewise, I believe God does not have a double standard for gays and straights. He expects both heterosexuals and homosexuals to practice monogamy and faithfulness in their sexual and emotional relationships.

To Anonymous@11:

You are right, I should have put "practicing" in front of my last homosexuality word. I was very careful about trying to specify it but that one slipped by me.

As for your other comment, I really think you missed the point I was trying to make. Over WHICH sins should the church to deny leadership roles? I don't believe, nor ever stated, that any sin is unimportant. Why is homosexuality one of the few that the church should deny leadership roles over and others not? What do you think?

Can someone, ANYONE, answer why the church no longer eliminates divorced members from ANY and all church position? Yet, the Bible is very clear that a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. How consistent is that position when compared to homosexuality? If, as was originally given in the Bible, marrying a divorcee IS adultery, is it a one-time event, or a continual sin?

Thankfully, the church no longer checks for evidence of virginity as it did in Bible times (again, we DO selectively use the Bible, no matter what is claimed). This test, of course, only applied to females.

Someone said: Heterosexual marriage is most agreed to be "part of God's original order." It would hardly seem so by noting that practically all the biblical patriarchs had several wives, and even were given explicit command by God to take the virgins from the enemy in battle and bring them home to be their wives, or concubines. These were all formerly bachelors? Yet, God never spoke a word against bigamy or polygamy, so how do we know for sure it was against "God's order." Please give some Bible texts for that assumption. It was also God's will that humans be "fruitful and multiply." Do we flout God's order when partners fail to produce offspring, for whatever reason? Surely not. Again, selective text choices weakens biblical arguments when inconsistent use is applied.

Elaine

What is your point? Is it if one deviant human behavior is overlooked then all should be overlooked? Like "he kicked sand in my face first! So I buried him in sand!" Served him right!!!!

Let us face it "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God". Does that mean we vote for sinning? Or do we seek for cleansing?

The Bible tells human history warts and all. It also tells
the Christ Event and is consequential redemptive qualities.

Praise God from Whom all blessing flow. Tom

Anonymous, thanks for setting the record straight.

Carrol, Maybe the church did not ask. Maybe it did. If you know if this information was ever part of the picture, please share this important point. If you don't know- drop the useless examples because it doesn't support either point.

Tom, I do know. As I mentioned, in neither case did the church pastor or the conference leaders have the courtesy to even talk to the men involved, but simply sent them a letter.

May I say that I went back and read through the first page of posts on the other blog about this issue, looking for anyone who called you bigoted, as you twice charged there as well as on your book blog, and I couldn't find it. Bob said, "I expect to get slammed for this post as insensitive, horrid, bigoted, homophobic, maybe even racist," as if someone had done so before, which I never found, before or after. Isn't that some sort of paranoia?

Oops, I guess that was Arlyn, not Tom, who asked about whether I knew if the church had asked. Sorry.

Thomas

From reading the post from Elaine, various behaviors were not seen as deviant. You now interpret them as such, but what makes you right?

Carol,

Then- if before divorce happened and before any evidence of gay sex or relationship, and before any conversation as to whether these men vowed to be abstinent- the pastor and conference were totally wrong in making that hasty decision and did not follow correctly the guidelines of the SDA stance on homosexuality- which is silent on orientation, and only condemns the act of sex and gay relationships. I'm with you on this.

(Please don't tell me later, that there was a gay relationship before that led up to these events!)

On the topic of SDAs not following their own published guidelines- you guys (since everyone seems to be on these two threads!)really need to check out the newest video on our inconsistent use of EGW counter to our own fundamental beliefs. It's the one Alex posted on the home page today!
Also sad, but true.

Raymond:

I write with a real sense of relief about our friendship/relationship (as these things go in cyberspace) after your long reply. That you took so much time to respond means, among other things, that not only do you take your subject seriously (we all do; why else would we be here?) but you take us seriously.

Now, by definition, we are blind to what we cannot see. Thus, in very important ways, we serve as guides to each other; each of us helping the other “see” what we believe he doesn’t, but must. Obviously that works best when it is mutually practiced; when one is equally willing to be guided as to serve as guide. So, practically, here’s how that might be illustrated.

Carrol Grady, one of the kindest and most gracious people I know (again, cyberspace; though someday I’d like to meet Carrol) uttered one of the nastiest gratuitous things I’ve ever heard on a Spectrum blog. It involved the overt mocking of the hypothetical dilemma an easily caricatured “Religious Rightist” must have in deciding to abort their unborn gay child. I actually blushed on her behalf it struck me as so insensitive. Now that does not “fit” the Carrol I know, so I confronted her (as did others) on it. Even then, it seemed somewhat fair territory to her and she claimed to merely be relaying something she had heard from elsewhere. And yet, she was incredibly sensitive when I “swore” at her by using the word “hell”. Oh my; selective sensitivities abound in all of us -- don’t they?

And when Arlyn calls out Elaine for creating yet another of her endless collection of strawmen, (a task of which I have grown weary, so I try to ignore them now) can not we, as professed believers all, who call ourselves followers of the Christ, see that act as Arlyn’s attempt to draw out the very BEST from Elaine which should serve to ennoble both Elaine AND her arguments? If one wants to convince another of their position, would they not want to bring forth their very best and clearest and fairest points and arguments? I think so.

But there is, of course, the extremely strong tendency in all of us to prefer being guide, over being guided. In that spirit, let me be your guide and critique your response. And I fully realize there is another dynamic in play; and that is, for various reasons, it is very difficult, maybe impossible, for us to allow ourself to be guided by certain others. That’s probably OK I think -- just so we allow at least SOME guides. I think this is what is called “mentoring” -- something our Adventist subculture talks about very little...

I fear you have way overanalyzed and over-read (and maybe a bit defensively?) my intended point in sharing definitions. Simply, for a word like “bigot” to have any meaning, there is the strong underlying assumption is that there is some great overarching arbiter of truth in the matter. The mere holding of an opinion, however strongly, (doesn’t everybody here have strong ones?) is not then what makes one a bigot, rather, what seems to bother us is when they come to define themselves as that great repository of truth and are unwilling to consider otherwise.

But this attitude can be held by anyone with a strong opinion -- can it not? This is not a descriptor that works only “one way”. I suggest the word is rendered meaningless when used so carelessly. This seems relevant to this discussion because it is so often said that we need to read with an “open mind” and we need to not be “so literal” and we need not fear “progress” -- all of which imply a willingness to change. But if one comes to a discussion with the notion that it is only that person who disagrees with ME that requires such change, and I myself am somehow excused from this very need, how “fair” is that?

Now, is it possible that the reason some of us have challenged you is because we find your arguments could be improved? Arlyn has said repeatedly that she is LOOKING for a new paradigm -- a new hermeneutic -- to place all this. And so do I. But it doesn’t seem quite fair if only one side is “allowed” it’s paradigm, while denying that right to the one who disagrees. I’m suggesting what I have all along; people believe what they do because it makes sense to them -- and many many who disagree with you Raymond have pondered this longer that you have.

It is a shame that so much of your reply however relied on arguing against things which have not been said by any of us here. eg all of us distinguish between being gay and gay sex. No one is saying homosexuality is sin. Further, Cliff explicitly said he believes (as do I) that homosexuality is very likely genetic and not chosen. Yet your argument did not recognize that reality. And the whole notion that holding the belief that gay sex is not part of God’s created order inherently means one is a condemner simply does not follow. I, and all the rest here who hold that position have ALSO explicitly said that we are no better than those who practice gay sex; that we are ALL sinners; Hays even explicitly states that the burden on those who are not homosexual is probably greater. Also, the insistence that for ones love of their homosexual fellow members to be valid, all the actions of that member must be viewed as OK simply demeans the love which Cliff and Anonymous@11 and Arlyn and so many others have. Don’t you see all this diminishes your rhetoric? If you seek to be convincing, don’t you want to bring your best forward?

Anyway, if the common denominator of fellowship is similar readings of texts and similar paradigms, that means a creationist and evolutionist have no business being in the same church. Or someone who holds EGW was inspired vs someone who finds her a loon. (that descriptor was actually used in my SS recently!)

This leads to my final point. What I find most frightening about this discussion is not that some believe strongly that gay sex is just fine with God. Honest people can read the text differently and come to different conclusions. No, what troubles me is the aggressive stance that since it has already been decided that gay sex is just fine, any consideration of the possibility that perhaps God seeks to lead to convictions that it is not are not even possible. If I’m expected to be considering that maybe I’m wrong about this, how does this same obligation not rest with you too?

Thus I suggested a paradigm in which we respectfully worship together and patiently allow God to work in us the change He seeks. Conviction would be between God and the person. Just as Christ scolded Peter when he, being nosy, asked Christ about John, saying “What is that to you? YOU follow Me!!” are we not to model that behavior also? It seems the very heart of Christianity is the willingness to engage in the personal transformation and growth into the likeness of Christ. And this next quarters lessons are on “Discipleship”. The suggestion that change X is simply off the table and need not even be considered runs directly counter to this process.

Anyway Raymond, thanks for listening and I’d be very curious to know if the paradigm I suggest has a merit in your eyes.

Let's advance this conversation by being hopeful, avoid contentiousness, and not jumping to conclusions. All this from Mortimer J. Adler. We can easily find the same advice from Solomon and Jesus, I believe.

In the other thread there was an excellent suggestion, by Arlyn, to try reframing our conversation using a theoretical construct (a theological hermeneutic) that will embrace the two opposing camps, namely: (1) there's no specific prohibition in Scriptures for ... (2) there's no clear support in Scriptures for committed same-sex union.

First, from Adler:

It was long ago quite correctly pointed out by the skeptical philosopher David Hume that no prescriptive conclusion (in the form of an "ought" statement) can be validly inferred from a set of premises, no matter how complete, that consists solely of descriptive statements about the way things are. Even if we had perfect knowledge of all the properties that enter into the description of an object, we could not infer the goodness of the object or that it ought to be desired.

We are thus confronted with two obstacles, not one. The first is the difficulty raised by the question, How can prescriptive statements be either true or false, if truth consists in the correspondence between what is asserted and the way things are? The second is the objection raised by David Hume, to the effect that truths about matters of fact do not enable us to reach by reasoning a single valid prescriptive conclusion -- a true judgment about what ought or ought not to be done or desired.

http://radicalacademy.com/adlertruthgood.htm

Briefly, let's admit our difficulty lies in trying to deduce "what ought" from "what is". (Dave Larson alluded to this earlier in connection with the new book.) Here's why science (medical, psychological, sociological, political) and plain human reason are not enough. And why there's a need for revelation.

'"Revelation" means that we are reading something we could not have guessed or figured out on our own.'

- From Eugene Peterson's Introduction to The Message

Interestingly enough, Adler also wrote essentially the same thing before Peterson. IOW, we still must go back to Scriptures, asking the Spirit of God to show us the way.

In other threads, someone cited a piece of tradition recorded only in Matthew that deserves closer attention. Let me know what you think.

"But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it." Mt 19:11-12, The Message

Couple that with a passage from Isaiah that underscores the inclusiveness of the Sabbath commandment.

Isaiah 56 (The Message)
Messages of Hope
Salvation Is Just Around the Corner

1-3 God's Message: "Guard my common good:
Do what's right and do it in the right way,
For salvation is just around the corner,
my setting-things-right is about to go into action.
How blessed are you who enter into these things,
you men and women who embrace them,
Who keep Sabbath and don't defile it,
who watch your step and don't do anything evil!
Make sure no outsider who now follows God
ever has occasion to say, 'God put me in second-class.
I don't really belong.'
And make sure no physically mutilated person
is ever made to think, 'I'm damaged goods.
I don't really belong.'"

4-5For God says:
"To the mutilated who keep my Sabbaths
and choose what delights me
and keep a firm grip on my covenant,
I'll provide them an honored place
in my family and within my city,
even more honored than that of sons and daughters.
I'll confer permanent honors on them
that will never be revoked.

It's like groping in the dark, as far as I'm concerned. But see if you can find a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

Lastly, just to mention in passing, there's Richard Rice's Reign of God theme which may well pave the way for another fruitful conversation: the already as well as the not yet blessings of salvation and God's rule in our midst.

A good place to start the attempt for a hermeneutical paradigm among ourselves (and if a good one already exists- please share it) is to describe what theological strands of understandings we are trying to tie or meld together.

Joselito sees them as:
" namely: (1) there's no specific prohibition in Scriptures for ... (2) there's no clear support in Scriptures for committed same-sex union."

Here's how I hear the two challenges: (1)There is no Biblical reference to monogamous committed same-sex union or to homosexual orientation. (2)There are condemnatory Biblical references to the same-sex union and desires which would encompass any kind of same-sex union and desires.

sorry, I need to be more precise. Here's (2) again...

(2)There are condemnatory Biblical references to same-sex union and desires.

a. They are not accompanied by social qualifications.
i. Some take this to mean only the kinds of homosexuality culturally available to the writers is condemned. New social constructs are not addressed.
ii. Some take this to mean all kinds of same-sex unions and desires are forbidden because no exceptions were listed.

(3)There is ambiguity in the existing Bible references regarding homosexual acts and orientation.

sorry, Joselito, I just realized that (1) and (3) of my points are within (2) (stupid me!). and (2) is what you said, just organized differently-

anyone else have missing pieces to contribute?

Carol

You are correct. The entry about bigot is no longer in the thread. There remain entries that take me to task but I can no longer find the entry I referred to earlier. I assure you it was there. Tom.

Arlyn, what do you mean by "same-sex union"? Do you mean the sexual act or a committed relationship? There is a difference there, just as there is in the heterosexual world.

I had in mind the Reformed/Calvinistic emphasis on specific Scriptural commands vs the Lutheran tradition of permitting what the Scriptures do not forbid.

In any case, # 2 was a rewording of the following from Tom:

Bill Cork

Why didn't you ask for one Scriptural reference supporting a monogamous homosexual marriage? Seems so out of form for your clear analytical mind.

Tom

Posted by: Thomas Zwemer | 29 December 2007 at 1:40

Here, for your consideration, is a longish piece on why I believe committed gay relationships should be considered:

All parents want their children to have rich, fulfilling lives. As parents of gay children think of the lonely, difficult path their sons and daughters face – often shunned and despised by those who don’t care to understand them, perhaps persecuted and discriminated against – their hearts ache. They long to make the world a better place for their children. That longing may lead to the ultimate question, Why is it wrong or sinful for my child, who is unable to have a successful heterosexual marriage, to want that same kind of relationship with a same-sex partner?

Do we believe that the sole reason God instituted marriage was for procreation? Or was it also to help us better understand the kind of relationship God wants to have with us? Was it to help us learn to submit our will to our partner, as we submit ourselves to Christ? Was it meant to be a school where we learn to love unselfishly and put another’s needs before our own? Was it meant to create a bond that will help us build community and make the world a better place? Do our gay and lesbian children not need the blessings and benefits of marriage as much as our straight children?

The website of the Family Research Counsel lists the many benefits of marriage. Study after study shows that those who are married live longer, have stronger immune systems, have better mental health, are less likely to commit suicide or abuse alcohol and other drugs, express greater happiness and satisfaction with their lives, are less exposed to violence, make more money, have more self-respect and are more likely to be productive, responsible citizens than single persons. What are the ethical implications of Christian groups who try to persuade heterosexual couples to get married, while actively seeking to deny these benefits to gay and lesbian couples?

Touch is not only nice, it’s needed. Scientific research supports the theory that stimulation by touch is absolutely necessary for our physical as well as emotional well-being. Therapeutic touch, recognized as an essential tool for healing, is part of nurses’ training in several large medical centers. Touch is used to help relieve pain, depression and anxiety, to bolster patients’ will to live, and to help premature babies who have been deprived of touch in their incubators grow and thrive. While there are many forms of touching, hugging is a very special one that contributes in a major way to healing and health. Should this healing power of touch be denied to our gay and lesbian sons and daughters?

The October 3, 2004, issue of Newsweek carried a cluster of articles concerning Type D (for Distress) personalities. The authors claim that stress and loneliness are perhaps the most important factors in predicting heart disease. An article by Dr. Dean Ornish, in particular, makes a case for the need of all people to have a close and intimate companion. He says: "Love and intimacy are at the root of what makes us sick and what makes us well. If a new medication had the same impact, failure to prescribe it would be malpractice. . .

"Study after study finds that people who feel lonely are many times more likely to get cardiovascular disease than those who have a strong sense of connection and community. I'm not aware of any other factor in medicine - not diet, not smoking, not exercise, not genetics, not drugs, not surgery - that has a greater impact on our quality of life, incidence of illness and premature death. . .

"In one study at Yale, men and women who felt the most loved and supported had substantially less blockage in their coronary arteries. . .And when researchers at Duke surveyed men and women with heart disease, those who were single and lacked confidants were three times as likely to have died after five years. . .

"We can see that these relationships are among the most powerful determinants of our well-being and survival. We are hard-wired to help each other. Science is documenting the healing values of love, intimacy, community, compassion, forgiveness, altruism and service. . . Rediscovering the wisdom of love and compassion may help us survive."

Might this not illustrates the need God places in each of us for a loving, committed, intimate relationship, and the risk in which denying fulfillment of that need puts us? It’s true that in less than optimum conditions this need can be partially filled by a close friendship. But our church has failed to make any effort to help provide this for gay and lesbian people. Though some churches may tolerate gay or lesbian persons, only in rare circumstances do they offer them a warm, loving supportive community.

Many church members are afraid of being very friendly with a gay person. They don't feel comfortable. If they are men they may fear being perceived as homosexual themselves. Yet, if a gay person establishes a close friendship with another gay person, this is looked upon suspiciously. And it may, indeed, lead to the desire for a committed relationship.

It’s not difficult to understand why adultery, divorce, promiscuity, incest, rape and pornography are considered sexual sins, because they hurt both those who initiate them and those who are the victims. But why should true love and commitment between two people of the same sex be considered sinful, if that is the only way they can bond emotionally and sexually?

Tom, you wrote:

"Elaine

What is your point? Is it if one deviant human behavior is overlooked then all should be overlooked?"

My point is that Jesus said not one word about homosexuality, which is what is the topic under discussion. Yet, Jesus DID condemn and called it ADULTERY if a man married a divorced woman.

It only demonstrates that the church has made an arbitrary decision to often castigate the homosexual and ignore the adulterers. What is the criteria chosen? From the Old Testament Jewish law? Paul's letters? Jesus' sayings? Or?

Is it too much to expect that there will some sort of consistency in our textual exegesis and practice? I hope not.

I guess all of us are more sensitive to "attacks" on ourselves than we are to the effect our words may have on someone else. That's one of the disadvantages of email discussions, I think. Bob, as you read my comment on the abortion dilemma, I can see why it seemed "nasty and gratuitous" and I won't try to defend my different intended meaning. So, please let me apologize.

Maybe it would be helpful to add that 20 years ago I would have been lined up 100% with Tom or Anon@11 or Arlyn or any of the rest of the "gay is NOT OK" group. I have come to my present conclusions only after studying, struggling and praying for the past 20 years, and after becoming acquainted with well over 600 families and many more hundreds of gay and lesbian people - some of whom are connected with Kinship, but just as many who are not. Perhaps that will justify my passion and emotion, perhaps not. Also, I'm not saying that therefore my conclusions are right. And I am still open to learning more, but I now have a much broader base for evaluating new information.

Carol

Just a line or two why the charge of bigot hurt. I was senior affirmative action officer of the School of Dentistry for seventeen years and senior affirmative action officer of the entire university for seven years. In all of that time, not one of my decisions was overturned by the federal courts.

Following my retirement, my successor had three of his decisions overturned in the first year.

75 % of the cases involved heterosexual married men, with active church duties, who "hit" on younger women employees of the university. 20+ percent were cases in which racial issues were involved. Only two cases involved homosexual allegations. In both instances, the hearings produced insusficient evidence to sustain the charges. Never-
the-less the principals charged subsequently died of aids related disease.

I believe, I conducted the "due process" duties in a fair, unbiased, and "un" bigoted fashion. I received high commendations from the Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University System and was asked to serve as acting chair of the University System Affirmative Action Board until a replacement could be recruited. I served in that capacity for almost two years. Not one of my decisions was over turned at any higher level.

I believe that homosexuals have the rights of full citizenship, and the right to access to due process. Never-the-less, church policies are not subject to federal or state statutes. That is the orientation of the discussion before us. In which case, I support the church's position to hold to a standard not necessarily subject to current ethos. Tom.

Tom, I haven't, and wouldn't, call you bigoted. It does seem to me that your number of negative personal experiences with homosexuals might have colored your feelings about them, but I could be wrong.

Here's a question for you: Regardless of how we as a church view homosexuality and require homosexual church members to behave, do you think we have a right, in view of our history of emphasis on freedom of conscience, to work for legal prevention of gay partnerships and the same rights as married couples? In other words, there is a growing minority of Christians (and those of other major religions) who believe as I now do. Do Adventists such as yourself have the right to legislate your beliefs on them?

Carrol

I am not a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
I was born into a family of Seventh-day Adventism. I was true to the "faith" from 1939 until Glacier View. I was a member of the Board of Trustees at Southern Missionary College. The churh's legislative and administrative bias was more than I could take. Yet I believe they have the right to define the parameters of membership. I have no cause to attempt to influence their fundamental beliefs.

Yes my personal encounters were more than disgusting. That does not mean that I cannot be fair and unbiased in presiding at hearings involving charges against any litigate.

Elaine,

I do not define sin. That is beyond my responsibility. I can have had done two things. 1. Declared that homosexual activity is disgusting to me personally and 2. The Church has the right to decide and define its membership requirements.

I believe there is more than sufficient evidence to support the idea that homosexual behavior is an affront to God's intent to be "fruitful and multiple."

Finally, knowing what I know about the militancy of the homosexual community, I never should have entered this thread.

May we all find peace, in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Of all the "mistakes" (sins) I have committed heterosexual marriage of 59 years is not one of them. Tom

Bob, I totally agree with your recent comment:

"Thus I suggested a paradigm in which we respectfully worship together and patiently allow God to work in us the change He seeks. Conviction would be between God and the person."

It is contrary to the "tares and wheat" paradigm to do otherwise.

Carrol: I so much appreciate your report of the importance to our lives and longevity to have stable, loving relationships, period.

Several misc comments…

Raymond:

Couple more points I forgot to mention.
I have stated that I believe that gay sex is a symptom of the fall; a departure from God’s original order... I’m really surprised that no one has thrown that right back in my face by saying something like “you’re right Bob; God sees and knows ALL the ways we have fallen, and He is seeking to restore each and every one of us in His way and His time. And maybe the place He’s started with when dealing with their sexual orientation is to rebuild His immense love within them. He seems willing to wait on the other stuff till later. Just like He waited on the slavery thing, or the polygamy thing.”

I once was in a discussion on this issue and one old saint kept insisting that gays are incapable of knowing, practicing love. That whatever one thought about their behavior that was loving, was not -- because they were gay. He told me I was bound for the Lake of Fire (SDA equivalent of being told to go to hell I guess…) for not seeing homosexuals themselves as incapable of love…

At the same time however, there is a fallacy that if thing X is good, when added to thing Y, that both X and Y are thereby good. Maybe that’s the fallacy of composition. (?) Anyway, this is not much different from the love the sinner/hate the sin idea which I now realize many here have trouble with…

Secondly, I was really baffled by your response to Beth who had (correctly and insightfully and fairly I think) brought up what she called the “ick” factor. Your answer made it sound like you thought one somehow gets bonus points or something for being able to overcome that reaction. That reasonable people simply would not have that “ick” factor. Or something. As if the thought of one man’s penis inside another man's rectum demands a neutral reaction? (You indicated you were not afraid of precise language) Just some friendly advice Raymond, I don’t think your overall point is helped at all by suggesting one must get over the “ick” factor to have a valid position on this topic. Besides; maybe having that sensitivity to the “ick” factor is simply “genetic”…?? It was brave of Beth to bring it up and brave of you to challenge her I thought.

Carroll:

Please! No apologies. You know I love you and I don’t want you to look bad. I want you to look your best, bring your best.

For those seeking a better/new hermeneutic;

Some of us have been a bit dismissive of what might be called the “You Light up my Life” hermeneutic -- you know, “It can’t be wrong, if it feeeeels so right” way of thinking.
Well, isn’t it important for us to find ways to affirm the love and Christlikeness that our gay church members -- even if practicing -- demonstrate?? Doesn’t that seem like a valid and worthwhile endeavor??

It seems really unfortunate that many of the gay people Dr Tom Z has encountered in his life were such jerks. That has not been my experience at all.

Oh -- Happy New Year everybody…

Bob

The dilemma apparent and the heart of our discussion would appear to follow as such:

If we are all able to agree that homosexuality is not a sin (which has been advanced by many of the self-described conservatives and liberals on this thread) - that one may have sexuality as a biological orientation - then what do we hold, if any, is the proper sexual and physical expression of that sexuality?

To furtherer complicate the matter, we must inquire whether, if we are able to allow for homosexual orientation and not expression to be morally neutral with respects to sin, then is sexuality in and of itself, by implication, morally neutral and not given preference by God? This is to address the greater issue of sexuality from which, invariably, our discussion with respect to homosexuality concludes.

Upon the assessment of this issue and, if coming to the conclusion that sexuality is morally neutral and without preference by God with respect to sin, if we can also agree that God wishes that we (both heterosexuals and homosexuals) express our sexuality within a responsible, committed relationship (be it defined as marriage, unions, partnerships, etc.), then what do we hold to be God's desire for those whom he has given an orientation (also know as genetic makeup) that is homosexual and not heterosexual?

The whole question that we are discussing would then follow:

Having a sexual genetic makeup that renders one homosexual, how do homosexuals express their sexuality, if not in actualized relationships? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

If we, as Adventist Christians, hold that God created the human race, and that one's sexuality is a genetic reality of that creation; therefore, the fact of one's sexuality cannot be a sin, and is an integral part of one's being, how do we address the problem that if God has given humans the gift of sexuality that the Genesis account holds to be, "good;" how does the homosexual responsibly express the genetic make-up of their sexuality all the while respecting God's gift in creation? How can it therefore be construed to be verily sinful when the homosexual, just as the heterosexual, responds to the same genetic sexual urges as all of God's creation?

How does the Adventist Church allow for homosexuals to live actualized lives with their sexuality? This is yet another question that we need be address.

It is at the heart of the debate surrounding celibacy and relationships; our discussion cannot proceed on this matter without addressing these issues.

For if God created man at the pinnacle of creation and endowed him with superior moral and ethical sensibilities, would the benevolent Creator have bestowed upon mankind the genetic make-up of homosexuality/ same-gender orientation if it were not another expression of the gift of sexuality?

If sexuality is God's gift to humanity and roughly ten percent of the population expresses same-gender orientation, by what right do we condemn, whether as the church collectively or individually, or require such individuals to suppress their genetic "or natural" expression of their sexuality to conform to 'our' preconceived notions of Puritanical propriety and piety?

1 Corinthians 13:11 reads, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." This passage would seem to indicate that precisely because we now live in this present age that we cannot presume to know the mind of God in it's entirety. Which is why I have emphatically expressed the inherent inconstancies of many arguments that presume to know fully the mind of God in this present age.

In Christian love, I would caution those who presume to know the mind of God fully, and instead humbly exhort them to live their life in a manner that reflects the love of a benevolent Creator who cares equally for each of his unique creations. With our discussion around homosexuality or any issue, we must depend on the God-given gift of faith - to trust in him and in him alone. That is why I choose to acknowledge the ambiguity of this and many other issues and instead of pronouncing final judgment, I reserve that judgment to the Lord Almighty and err on the side of God's divine benevolence.

Bob, I concur with you on this:

"It seems really unfortunate that many of the gay people Dr Tom Z has encountered in his life were such jerks. That has not been my experience at all."

Yes, I have known a number of male homosexuals and to a man, they have been the most kind, considerate, and yes, sensitive (is this thought by some to be effiminate?) as well as talented and very intelligent. IOW, they have all the best qualities of either sex.

Several years ago there was a survey of the best qualities in a well-rounded mature individual. The answers for a man were such things as: leadership, assertiveness, motivation, etc. While the qualities most admired in a woman were:
tender, nurturing, kind, etc., ignoring that the high-rated qualities of a male should be part of the females desirable ones, also.

While some males may have been crudely propositioned by the same sex, women have long been propositioned by men, also, and often quite crudely. I doubt any women have been overtly propositioned by a lesbian.

What I find interesting about Adventists is that we spend a lot of time proselytizing other denominational members in order to convince them that the unique Adventist perspective on Scripture is correct. To be successful at this task requires that the recipient of the "persuasion" needs to doubt the accuracy of their own position on various interpretations of Scripture. Without that element of doubt, the recipient would not even consider the possibility they might be wrong about their understanding of Scripture.

Yet, when it comes to considering issues like the Scriptural understanding of homosexuality, I mostly see emotive reactions that start with something like, "But the Bible is absolutely explicit on the fact that homosexuality is a sin." From that position of irreducible certainty, the assumption is made that homosexuality is sin - whatever form it may take.

If a community of believers truly seek improvement of understanding about any topic for which Scripture is consulted, it must begin with enough intellectual humility to say, "We may presently have it wrong." An honest examination of our current views with this sort of intellectual humility may lead us to revise our understanding of what Scripture says - or it may lead to a confirmation of our present understanding. But arrogantly asserting what we currently believe with no openness to the possibility of being wrong means we can never move forward in our understanding.

In other words, we should be open to refining our understandings of Scripture in the same way we expect those with whom we "study" and hope they change their minds to accept Adventist perspectives on the Bible's teaching. To demand that others question their current biblical understandings without us doing the same is nothing more than a lack of intellectual integrity - applying standards to others that we don't hold to ourselves.

If this is true, then we need to genuinely listen to those who disagree with our understanding of Scripture so that we can, first of all, treat the alternative views fairly and, secondly, open ourselves to the possibility that God may have something to teach us.

The fact is that there are different points of view over how to interpret the passages in Scripture that are often cited in the debate on homosexuality. If we are unable to fairly state these alternative views before "criticizing" them, then we do not have the right to so criticize. In my discussions with Adventists on the subject of homosexuality, those who believe homosexuality is a sin dogmatically assert what they believe the Bible is saying and often admit that they can't even begin to imagine that the Bible might mean something other than what they think. In my view, then, the starting point for all these discussions has to be the Bible.

I was part of an interesting group discussion with David Larson recently (thanks, David!) on the issue of homosexuality. During that discussion, David said that we need to start actually listening to those who experience a homosexual orientation. I agree but was fascinated by the response of many in the group. Generally, it is something like, "But the Bible is absolutely clear on this subject! Why should we listen to any suggestion that homosexuality might be acceptable?"

It seems to me that there is little hope of people listening when they start from the assumption that what they think the Bible says it really says.

The problem with this approach, of course, is that many Adventists, in practice, do not accept these statements from the Fundamental Beliefs:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed ...
They [the Holy Scriptures] are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines ...

If this is the case, then two things must happen:

1. We must begin with an attitude of intellectual humility which will allow us to reexamine those passages of Scripture that are cited in relation to homosexuality.
2. We must genuinely listen to alternative interpretations of Scripture and the evidence that is provided in their support.
3. We must apply the same standards of Biblical interpretation that we use in criticizing other views with which we do not agree.

One of the most interesting and challenging alternative interpretations of the so-called homosexual passages of Scripture is that presented by Justin Cannon entitled, The Bible, Homosexuality, and Christianity. You can download it here: http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.pdf. I would really like some discussion on the actual hermeneutic arguments offered by Cannon.

For those who are intellectually arrogant, there is going to be no hope of change - we need to move on from them. For those who are intellectually humble, genuine dialogue may result in disagreement, but at least there will be intellectual empathy - the ability to really understand the issue from another person's point of view. But without the genuine consideration of alternative biblical interpretations that are evaluated honestly, I don't think we are going to get anywhere. All we will get is condescending attitudes which label homosexual people as sinners for whom we pray and try to "cure" of their sin while they struggle with something that, for them, is as normal as a heterosexual orientation.

I look forward to the dialogue!

The encouraging and damning poles of this blog are more than I will try to respond to. But I want to add a few comments.

Yes, I'm a gay man.

I can tell you that the marriage answer doesn't work. It broke my heart and my wife's heart when, after trying marriage and praying earnestly for more than 25 years we agreed our marriage had to end for our mutual good. Which of you would be pleased to have your daughter marry a gay man? I hope the answer is: none!

Andrews, why does a gay person want to hold church office? My theology calls me to service. I learned that from many thorough readings of the Gospel. I was taught in church to identify and use my spiritual gifts. So why wouldn't I want to do this? I find your question very, very puzzling.

God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. After I came out and my marriage ended I moved to a new city to start over with my life. I tiptoed into an Adventist church where I thought I could blend in and not be noticed even though this was a very prominent Adventist church. I had been forced to ask to have my name removed from memebership in my former congregation.

God amazed me when this church *came* to me and ask me to serve in a very prominent position and invited me to become a member. I wanted transparency, so I told them I was gay and had a partner. The answer: God is calling you here. We need you. We'll support and protect you. And they did for six marvelous years until I needed to move across the country for my primary job. I felt so much love and respect in that congregation. And this has strengthened my faith enormously.

My faith is important to me. God's Spirit continually comforts and guides me. I have not doubt God accepts and loves me. God taught me that what He wanted me to do was be honest about who I was. He did not grant my prayers for change to being a straight man. He gave me the faith to understand that He didn't think I needed what I was praying for. Instead He comforted me through the rejection of my local congregation, amazed me with the acceptance of another, and always keeps me close to Him.

Why don't I just join another denomination? I could. I've visited other churches (United Church of Christ, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.) many, many times. I've found dedicated Christians there. But I cannot be anything but an Adventist and I've come to understand that.

Membership? I am blessed again with membership and church office in another congregation. What if we need to move again? I have decided that I will never ask an Adventist church for membership again!! I no longer need that. I have the Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Holy Spirit. No one cn tell me that I am not a Seventh-day Adventist. And membership won't save me. Jesus has already cared for that.

I know a large number of deeply spiritual gay Adventists who have genuine faith. Any of you can question or deny that. But I know in my heart that it is real. The lack of your acceptance hurts deeply. But Jesus Christ came for the outcast, for those "the church" thought were not good enough. I am His and He is mine. That is enough.

Anonymous

We so easily get DISTRACTED to issues other than the ones that really should be before us!

HOW WE ADDRESS EACH OTHER IN THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT THE PRIMARY ISSUE. I do think that some of us on all sides hurt our causes by speaking too harshly. But for us to make this the primary consideration diverts our attention from what most needs discussing. Also, some of us who have been the most caustic, sarcastic and insenstive when previously addressing others are now crying the loudest. I don't think this helps.

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IS NOT THE PRIMARY ISSUE. For decades OUR congregations have dealt with this challenge in more than one way, and some of the most conservative ministers on other issues have quietly been the least so on this one. In any case, according to our church's organizational structure, the local congregation is the place where these decisions are to be made.

WHETHER WE ARE COURTEOUS AND CONSIDERATE TOWARD HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE, SOMETIMES GOING OUT OF OUR WAY TO HELP THEM, IS NOT THE ISSUE. Some of us have taken too much space in this discussion congratulating ourselves along these lines. Why not let God congratulate us at the appropriate time? Besides, this is irrelvant.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Each passage of Scripture that explicitly addresses it as it was known condemns it. But even if we took a pair of scissors and cut out each one of these passages, all the remaining ones would make it clear that God's first choice for all of us is a sexually exclusve, permanent and truly loving heterosexual partnership that benefits the community as well as those within it. Paul, of course, was sometimes a minority voice in favor of singleness.

HOW TO DISCERN GOD'S CONTINUING LEADING TODAY IS ONE ISSUE. As far as I can tell, there is no explicit condemnation of slavery in Scripture. Every passage that addresses it either endorses it or takes it for granted. But the time came when Christians believed that in harmony with the overall spirit of Scripture God was leading them to do something it didn't and this was to abolish the INSTITUTION of slavery.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER TODAY GOD IS CALLING US TO ABOLISH THE INSTITUTION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN. We are talking about institutional patterns like laws, policies and mandated procedures, not merely about how "nice" or "not nice" we as individuals personally are to gays and lesbians.

On this, we members of Western Culture have tried to have to both ways. On the one hand, we have developed institutional patterns that needlessly hurt homosexual men and women. On the other hand, we relish the many ways they enrich our lives.

In this sense, they are OUR SLAVES. We "use" them in great numbers in all of the professions and arts and sciences--and many of them are exceedingly talented, something that should give us pause-- and yet our institutions have often refused to treat them as the equals they are.

ANOTHER ISSUE IS HOW TO DEAL WITH ANY SITUATION IN WHICH GOD'S FIRST CHOICE AND OUR OPPORTUNITIES DO NOT COHERE. I have yet to meet a Christian homosexual man or woman who at least in private did not say that this was a burden from which he or she at some point in life wished to be released. Again and again they have prayed as did Jesus, "Father, take this cup from me but not my will but yours be done." And again and again they have received the same answer.

How we as Christians can best be the Body of Christ in exceedingly painful and perplexing situations like this--one which is literally a life and death matter in many case--is one of the real issues.

HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS A MATTER ABOUT WHICH THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL CAN DISAGREE.

I just wanted to offer a grateful "amen" to your comment that "HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS A MATTER ABOUT WHICH THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL CAN DISAGREE." So true.

Although this issue is dear to me, I'm afraid I've read and written all I can on it for now (hence my new thread on the top 10 films of the year for some lighter fare : )

I'll be ready to chat again once I've devoured the new book!

I meant same-gender sex when I wrote same-sex unions. Thanks, Carrol, for asking me to be clearer.

This evening I was reading through the December 27 issue of the Adventist Review. I imagine some of you would be surprised that a gay man would read the Review.

In my reading I came across a notable article about the Adventist ties of Sean Taylor, murdered NFL player. The article went to great lengths to verify the connection between the church and this famous football player. It went to great lengths to show that Mr. Taylor had been choosing the church. It told how he loved his family.

But, oh. The Review didn't flinch at "bragging" about Adventism's connection with the man in spite of noting that Sean Taylor was the father of an 18-month-old daughter and was engaged [read: not married] to his daughter's mother. They were engagaged though. It all sounded so matter of fact.

I'd like you to see this through my eyes. Some of you are very condemning of the likes of me. It hurts deeply. I live continually shamed by my own denomination. I think some of you believe I am the worst of sinners and therefore consigned to the one group of sinners who cannot be church members or hold church office. Hmm. But I can't understand how I'm so terrible but an un-married "backslider" who was thinking about returning to the church and had an illegitimate child to whose mother he was not married was "bragging" material for the Review.

I feel like this is hypocritical. I don't think you'll give a thought to the "sins" of Sean Taylor, though. Why he was famous. Thus he was a yet another chance for the Adventist church to brag about who was "Adventist" (remember Paul Harvey, Little Richard, Jerry Pettis and his wife, etc.)?

I think I would be much more acceptable in my church if I had fame and wealth. Then I might be moved out of the "worst of sinners" class - perhaps to the ranks of those the church brags about.

Dave,

Here's what I hear you say should be our primary concern:

How we as Christians can best be the Body of Christ in exceedingly painful and perplexing situations like this--one which is literally a life and death matter in many case--is one of the real issues.

Under this are:

1) ONE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER TODAY GOD IS CALLING US TO ABOLISH THE INSTITUTION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN.

2) ANOTHER ISSUE IS HOW TO DEAL WITH ANY SITUATION IN WHICH GOD'S FIRST CHOICE AND OUR OPPORTUNITIES DO NOT COHERE.

I believe we can all agree with #1. Let us know if there's anyone who objects.

That said, let me just point to, what seems to me at least, a dash of ambiguity in the following:

3) WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

4) HOW TO DISCERN GOD'S CONTINUING LEADING TODAY IS ONE ISSUE.

Since every one here seems to allude to the Bible one way or another, how are we supposed to answer #2 and #4? To clarify, by homosexual conduct, I presume we're not focusing solely on "same gender sex".

In sum, I agree with all your other points since they don't pass the relevance test. They are purely distractions, as you wisely noted.

Thanks David for your comments. Though they have all been the most mature and cogent comments on this thread I want to take issue with one of your comments.

ANOTHER ISSUE IS HOW TO DEAL WITH ANY SITUATION IN WHICH GOD'S FIRST CHOICE AND OUR OPPORTUNITIES DO NOT COHERE. I have yet to meet a Christian homosexual man or woman who at least in private did not say that this was a burden from which he or she at some point in life wished to be released. Again and again they have prayed as did Jesus, "Father, take this cup from me but not my will but yours be done." And again and again they have received the same answer.

Let me be the first GLBT person you are aquainted with who never experienced a desire to be released from my sexual orientation. Sure I have suffered guilt and shame, but never because of my orientation but because of the attitudes about it. I don't consider my sexual orientation to be anything other than the first and best choice for me. Nor do I consider heterosexual orientation to be God's first choice for humanity. Herosexual orientation is only first choice for those who are so inclined.

Elaine has stated this point well, but it bears repeating. The Genesis account of the creation of humanity is an ancient myth. It does not represent an accurate account of our origins. It does not represent the true account of original perfection and imperfection after the "fall". We are not all made male or female. I, for example am intersexed. This is not a genetic imperfection brought by sin but a natural mutation which is a feature of genetic variation.

Without my sexuality and orientation I would not have met my partner, wife, lover and friend. She is, in short, a gift.

Carlitas and Anonymous, I think you both make some really good points. I get the sense that you've joined this discussion just as the party was winding down and folks were moving on to other things so there is not much energy left for responding. Just wanted you to know that I appreciate listening though.

I must express that with all of the passion - feather-ruffling, joyfully, included - and genuine dialogue on this and other threads, I have enjoyed our e-discussion on the topic of homosexuality and Christian community.

While it is quite apparent that I am passionate about this issue among others, I would like to restate something I wrote earlier:

1 Corinthians 13:11 reads, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

This passage would seem to indicate that precisely because we now live in this present age that we cannot presume to know the mind of God in it's entirety; which is why I have emphatically expressed the inherent inconstancies of many arguments that presume to know fully the mind of God in this present age.

In Christian love, I would caution those who presume to know the mind of God fully, and instead humbly exhort them to live their life in a manner that reflects the love of a benevolent Creator who cares equally for each of his unique creations.

With our discussion around homosexuality or any issue, we must depend on the God-given gift of faith - to trust in him and in him alone. That is why I choose to acknowledge the ambiguity of this and many other issues and instead of pronouncing final judgment on the matter, I reserve that judgment to the Lord, God Almighty, and err on the side of God's divine benevolence.

May we continue this important dialogue as our church begins to address this issue formally and may the peace and love of our Lord be with us throughout.

Shalom.

I truly don't understand how anyone who has ever read the Bible could claim that it does not call homosexuality "sin." Homosexuality, and all sexual immorality for that matter, is expressly called sin and is condemned in the strongest language. Whether or not it is sin should not even be in question. Instead, the question is how are we as Christians supposed to relate to the sinner; remembering that we are all sinners and all equally guilty. We are certainly called to love the sinner, but that does not mean ignoring the sin for the sake of being politically correct.

Just a summary : In WW I Austria started with a handicap : The chief of the military secret service was extorted with his orientation by the Russian secret service; he disclosed the numbers of men and material of some Eastern fortresses. He committed suicide. During NAZI being in power "homosexuals" were arrested in concentration camps, their gray uniforms marked with special yellow signs. Best use a very good camouflage on your orientation all your life and at any cost avoid any disclosure so not to be an outcast. I know of some tragedies also of very unhappy marriages to play being "normal"; I know of one being extorted also by Bretheren with remarks "Didnt I feel right - - "; of one
leading a life of fear, finding some relief when his boys came along with girls and the grandchoildren were around him (now fearing they could bear a heritage - - ). I know of a situoation in Church when a negative remark most probably would have resulted in two ( ! ) suicides.

On March 22 I am on schedule with the sermon and , beginning with Jud 9 will clear the misinterpretation of Gen 19 : 9 ff (and Judges 19 : 22 ff - does nobody know of Gilead ? .) And I do not want to have a suicide in Church from one that feels himself an outcast - also within his Bretheren and Sisters.

The only US disadvatage is that every second person therecan quote i Cor 6 : 11 without questioning about first the "orientation" and second the local cultural lascivious "customs". The Sodomites and the Gibionites - if they had the "orientation" would have been embarrased for having young girls in their midst - did nobody ever see a group of other orientation avoiding any encounter with females ?

Hi Anonymous/Carrol Grady

"Andrews, why does a gay person want to hold church office? My theology calls me to service. I learned that from many thorough readings of the Gospel. I was taught in church to identify and use my spiritual gifts. So why wouldn't I want to do this? I find your question very, very puzzling.Andrews said: "I am interested to understand why gay people would want to be involved in the SDA church."

"Is that so hard to understand when they are loyal and faithful Adventists who believe in what our church stands for, and when their families and friends are Adventists?"

"If the need is to hold office, then I would question why?"

"It's not that they "need" to "hold office," but that they care about their church and they have gifts and talents that they long to use for God's glory".

So let me tell you where I am coming from; I am not an adventist because I don't believe everything they believe. I am not gay. I have no issue with being gay. My reason for not being adventist is that I believe that a number of their beliefs are wrong - so does the vast majority of Christians. So I question that a fundamental issue such as being gay precludes such people from being involved; Why do you want to be involved? Is your calling in the SDA church? Is that your goal? What is God's goal?

Is your goal and calling to change the SDA church? Why? why not move on and achieve your goals in a more efficient way.

NEED to hold office?

I was brought up SDA, left the church, then came back to it following a conversion experience. I have always loved doing things (holding a variety of 'offices' over many years) for the church because Church is my life: not because I NEED to, but because I WANT to offer the time and gifts God has endowed me with back to God in His service.

What is my goal? I firmly believe it is to work within the church to strive for change of attitude and encourage unquestioning acceptance for all LGBT people. Could I achieve this more efficiently elsewhere? Positive suggestions please!

Could I go elsewhere? Well, actually there is nowhere else to go. The SDA Church is my church, my heritage, my culture and I believe in (almost) all that it stands for. I cannot belong anywhere else (I have tried). So I have to learn to live with it despite the way it sometimes treats me. Just as I cannot choose my blood relatives, I cannot always choose my church family; I have to learn to love them, live with them and work with them, warts and all, and they me. And thereby the Grace of God is made manifest.

Why is it that most Christians (or at least the Christian Right) seem so obsessed about the sin of homosexuality? The Bible has many more references to sins such as pride, gossip and the misuse of money than it does to homosexuality. How is it that a destructive gossiper can be a member in good standing of, of most Christian churches, while any homosexual is ostracized? And what about the heterosexual who has been married and divorced, or the "straight" couple living together out of wedlock? Are they less sinful in God's eyes than the gay couple who have been faithfully together for many years? Judging by the standard of most Christians the answer is a resounding "Yes!". But does the Bible support this view, does it differentiate degrees of sin?

I am not ignoring the Biblical references to homosexuality. I am just wondering why most Christians turn a righteous, blind eye to the Biblical references of sin that God plainly gives equal, or perhaps, greater standing, i.e. Proverbs 6:16-19.

Good question Jim. I think it's got an easy answer. Most of us aren't homosexual (estimates vary, but it's likely a good bit less than 10 percent). However, we do gossip, lie, ignore the poor, look our for number one, behave selfishly, etc. It's much easier and more comfortable to look at others people's lives and point fingers. You're so right though--it's very clear from the sheer numbers that God cares much more about how we treat each other.

In my study, I've become convinced that even the few verses that address homosexuality aren't speaking to the type of monogamous, committed homosexuality that we're talking about here. That scenario wasn't culturally possible for the audience that the Biblical writers were addressing.

What is clear is that we're called to be ethical, respectful, and responsible in all of our sexual relationships (why pedophilia/incest/the sex trade and other situations of inequity aren't allowed). And this is something that applies to all of us, straight or gay.

First time poster. What an interesting discussion. I've thought on this issue so often. I've known so many gay people in my life. I don't condemn them. I don't pretend to understand the level of feeling that they may have for one another. But I don't believe that the Bible supports the lifestyle. It condemns it throughout the Old Testament and in the New. It's a complicated issue. What would Jesus do? What would He say? At the moment I am reading "Live from Golgotha" by Gore Vidal one of the most amazing literary men to have come out of the United States. And yet a homosexual. Although I don't like the manner in which he has treated the Christian faith in the book, there are moments through out it where Vidal has a yearning to feel and understand God's love and Christ's sacrifice. It’s as though because Vidal cannot find a sense of acceptance in the Bible for his chosen way of life, he opts to mock it.

One question I ask myself is how the homosexual way of life can ever be compatible with the message of Christianity, which is love, sacrifice, selflessness.

Look forward to reading people's comments,

Cheerio - from down under

Isn't the Christian heterosexual marriage compatible with love, sacrifice, and selflessness? Don't parents demonstrate this love toward their children? Why should monogamous homosexual unions be different? An assumption based on ??

Hey First-timer,

Welcome to the discussion. Since you approach the issue with genuine concern I think that your question deserves some reflection. The next question I would ask is: what is the real, not media-created, homosexual way of life? Are there gay ways of life, just like there are a varieties of straight lives? Another essential question is: what does love, sacrifice and selflessness mean in the Christian non-gay context? Does this framing automatically assume that this primarily about sex?

Glad to hear you're reading Vidal. I like his Washington DC -- shows way before the crazy spin, PR-politics how elites creates politicians for everyone.

Hi, First-timer...
This is the topic that never dies! (smile) It even seems to creep into posts on other topics. And most people come to it with strongly held viewpoints.

Let me just say that 20 years ago I was absolutely sure that what you say about the Bible's condemnation is correct. Then I learned that my youngest son is gay and, since he was the most spiritually sensitive of my three sons, I was immediately faced with some difficult questions. As I've spent the past 20 years studying and learning to know hundreds of gay and lesbian people and their parents, I have gradually, kicking and screaming at times, come to see things differently. If you're interested enough to consider my conclusions, I invite you to look at "What the Bible Says" on my website, www.someone-to-talk-to.net

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Lev+20%3A13

Anonymous, we should all be grateful and thankful that we are not now living under the Old Testament laws and condemnations. Doubtless, all of us would be found guilty and stoned by now. Read ALL of the 613 laws and find one that you have not broken.

Thank you for your responses.

Its rather difficult to try and not personalise the discussion without personalising it on some level. After all, aren't our opinions based, to some degree, on the personal experiences we have?

I think as a Christian, I don't condemn the people, I condemn the sin, the act of homosexuality itself.

Some of the questions I have include: how does the homosexual lifestyle promote selflessness exactly? How does it promote famiyl values? How can a couple express love towards their "children" when the act of being a homosexual couple doesn't promote natural reproduction?

Sorry my comments got cut off. Where in the Old or New Testament does God/Christ explicitly affirm that the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable? Looking forward to your thoughts. Firsttimer from down under

It is obvious that many contributing to this thread are struggling personally with the problem of homosexuality. To them it is not an abstract issue. To them I can offer nothing but sympathy and chasity. I will relate one more story that makes me find the acts of homosexual behavior as abhorant.

We had a gay faculty memeber who was also a member of the Augusta Players. In the ensemble was an early teen age boy.
The faculty member invited the boy home for the night and introduced him to homosexual acts. In the morning, the boy related the previous night to his father. The father immediately went to the police. The police, of course, came to the College. The head of the vice squad, the president, and the parents met in the president's office. The head of the vice squad laid out the drill. If the boy or parents brought charges, the boy would have to testify. If the boy testified it would be public knowledge and the boy would be labeled at school etc. If the boy did not testify there was nothing law inforcement could do, neither could the Institution. The parents and boy elected not to bring charges. The faculty member went on to complete his career without having to answer for his sordid actions. Of course there is no official record of any of this incident. So legally it didn't happen. But the boy, the Lord, the parents, and the top administration of the institution knew but were helpless without making matters worse. Because of personal encounters and my work in Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, I don't believe all this personal struggle nonsense--not there is not a struggle but it is seldom private. I don't believe it necessary nor wise to recount the number of incidences in a 26 year career in senior administration to support my position. Tom

Tom,

Just wanted to say I appreciated your article in Ministry Mag. I received today entitled, "The Joy of Redeeming Grace" Appropriate "good news" for all us sinners in need of redemption.

Regards,

pat

Thanks for sharing that Tom.

It still doesn't answer my question though. Don't we need to look long and hard at what the Bible tells us and not just be led by "faith by feeling".

Life is hard, excrutiating and this is a difficult issue. But solutions to problems require a mixture of objective reasoning and thinking as well as a compassionate open heart. And wasn't our Lord the best example of what a man/woman should be. Firm but gentle. Stuck to God's word, indeed fulfilled His Prophecy, but was not without mercy. Does this make sense?

Tom, as you may know, I am very supportive of gay rights but I too, find your story horrible. Preying on youth to satisfy your selfish desires is wrong whether it is gay or straight sex. And I would say that it is even more damaging if it is gay sex because of the social stigma associated with it. I could relate a few stories of my own growing up female in the SDA system (and a couple of my female friends who were seduced by male faculty in high school and college) but trading stories of abuse really goes no where. If I may open another can of worms, perhaps the common denominator here is selfish men not orientation. Of course, women prey too but it is much less common in both the lesbian and straight community. What is it about some men that leads to a preoccupation with youth and an insistence on meeting personal needs to the detriment of others? This ties in with the Pitcairn Island discussion too.

Joselito

My view is that we spend--possibly waste--a lot of time discussing what the Bible says on this topic, as if there were really anything to debate when in fact, at least as far as I can tell, there isn't.

On this part of the issue I think Cliff is right.

I believe a dispassionate specialist in Ancient and Near Eastern Languges, who had nothing to gain either way from his or her report, would say that the authors in the Old and New Testaments clearly and repeatedly condemn homosexual conduct as they knew it.

We can debate the meaning of this or that verse. But the outcome doesn't really doesn't matter because what the Bible as a whole says is as clear as anything can be.

I think we should all concede this rather than trying to find our views--whatever they are-- in those ancient documents. Historical honesty is a good thing.

By the way, just for the record, for me the Bible is the religious norm as well as a cultural classic.

But what should we do when the Bible does not answer the questions we are asking? I think that this is what we face in this discussion.

The writers of Scripture apparently knew nothing about sexual orientations or related matters. Also, the homosexual conduct of which it speaks is always, as far as I can tell, exploitive.

I think we all condemn exploitive sex, gay or straight, and rightly so. On this we easily agree with each other and the implicationsn of Scripture.

We face the silence of Scripture on a lot of other issues too. What does it say about aritificial insemination, stem cell research or cross species organ transplantation?

Nothing directly; however, it gives us broad themes and principles that are helpful no matter what the particular issue is.

I think we should focus on Scripture's broad theme's and principles--steadfast love, fairness,kindness, helpfuless, mutual respect and support--and see where they take us.

This would be a great discussion!

Thank you!

Dave

Carlitas
It is an honor to meet you! I'm glad you introduced yourself. Now I can no longer say "I have never....." But that's fine by me. Thanks!
Dave

Dave,
Thank you for this clarity:

"I believe a dispassionate specialist in Ancient and Near Eastern Languges, who had nothing to gain either way from his or her report, would say that the authors in the Old and New Testaments clearly and repeatedly condemn homosexual conduct as they knew it."

I agree.

Therefore would it not follow that if the "clear meaning" of the NT and OT authors "now" changes, it implies that scripture is but a "human" devised book of "as they knew it" rather than a God "inspired" authoritative book? Did they "only" convey what they personally understood to be true? 1 Pt.1:12.

Here lies my problem of trying to be honest to God while sincerely desiring to offer respect and dignity to fellow humans with whom I disagree with. I believe God at times gave a "bigger" picture through the Spirit inspired writer than the "immediate circumstances" alone understood by the writer...circumstances also necessary for the legitimacy of prophetic genre.

pat

Pat

I think it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Its a tough job. I miss the mark more often than not.

University Hopsital and the teaching hospital for the Medical College of Georgia are only a parking lot apart. With federal funding--tensions grew between the two. I was sent by the President to work out the details. University Hospital won.
The Chairman of the Board said at the end of the session. "Tom you are the most agreeable guy, I ever had to disagree with." I wonder what he would have said, if we had won?" Tom

Good points Tom and again I enjoyed your article in Ministry if you missed that particular post of mine.
Hope your "health" appt. went well today...if I remember correctly.

pat

Can one believe that the Bible is inspired and yet believe that God did not relay all the modern knowledge we have today about a host of subjects? How could he have told them about space ships, airplanes, TV and all the other modern inventions, as well as the miracles of modern medicine we take for granted today?

Should we rely on the Bible for every answer to today's questions, or was it ever written for that purpose? Do we place the Bible on a pedestal and refuse to move outside of its parameters on specifics? Are we expected to grow in understanding, or limit ourselves to those who lived thousands of years ago? What areas are sacrosanct and which are the ones we can extract principles from? Did God give us the reasoning power to struggle and work out in the circumstances of our world today, or should we, like the Amish, refuse to adapt to today and "freeze" our dress, our educational attainments, and our use of modern facilities to those of our religious beginnings?

So many questions, but they all seem to hinge on how and why we should use the Bible today. Does anyone have the "last word" on its interpretation? Or, should we not accept our particular, even peculiar interpretation for ourselves alone, and not expect or impose it on others?

Pat thanks for your kind words and concern.

The Doctor visit was reasuring if "You'll probably die of something else is good news. Tom

Tom at "your young age" that is a most reassuring statement. At the least, the current concern is not likely a terminal diagnosis.

Tom,

I will always settle for the yet unknown "something else."

Thanks Guys

I agree. The Doc and I left in good spirits. He is very young about 45.

Tom

Hi Pat!

Responsibly understanding and applying Scripture to our lives today IS difficult! But I know of no way a Christian can avoid it.

I think that Exodus 31 is an intersting case. Between verses 12 and 18 I find something that I should definitely apply to my life today [honor the weekly Sabbath and its Lord] and something I definitely should not do today [put to death as many Sabbath breakers as I can].

How do I pick and choose? I think not stoning people who break the Sabbath is more congruent with the piture of God that Jesus painted than stoning them. That's one reason.

Another is that apart from the rest of Scripture it doesn't make sense for me to kill people who worship on a different day or none at all.

I think it unwise to stray too far from common sense.

Thank you!

Dave

Dave - What is common sense? I mean really, in today's society when we are bombarded with consumerist rhetoric, by whose common sense should I abide? What is common sense to a Satanist, is not neccessarily common sense to me. More oftne than not the Bible is subject to interpretation that suits our needs and desires - and I am not sure that this method of Biblical interpretation is neccessarily correct. Are we as Adventists to navigate and nit pick our way through the Bible and assume a rather bland and non-confrontationalist type of position for fear of ostracising people who do not follow God's law - perhaps even our own loved ones - our own family members? Are we as Christian's in support of private morality? So long as what people do in the privacy of their own homes etc doesn't affect my freedom then its acceptable?

This concerns me. We also need to read the Old Testament in conjunction with Christ's words in the New and not take the simplistic and somewhat comically laced approach in relation to the Exsodus example you outlined above. Again, we should look to Christ, who knew when to REact with outrage and sterness at law breakers and when to ACT with compassion.

firstimmer from down under :)

If there could only be found some consistency in the Adventist use of the Bible. There is a very selective use of certain rules that were given to the Hebrews ONLY, and never to their pagan neighbors and yet here in the 21st century there are still doctrines and practices that are plucked from these laws and imported into our lives today; in spite of Christ who plainly said that he fulfilled the Law and it now does not have authority over us.

Many of these rules given during the Israelites time in the wilderness are still claimed to be relevant and binding on us today; while many do not. How have they been chosen and on what basis?

While more than one Christian church claims to hold the truths of the first church begun in the first century, many of the doctrines were NOT believed or practiced initially, but gradually developed over several centuries: The nature of Christ, the Trinity, the celebration of Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week, were some of these now accepted.

Is the church "locked in" to certain beliefs and nothing new can be added or deleted? Has the church ever erred in its doctrinal positions, and if so, has it ever made public correction? Should it? Or, has it never erred? That's infallibility, which only the Roman church claims.

The Bible and human tradition are so closely interwoven that few question where one ends and the other begins.

Augustine has probably had more influence on Christianity than any other outside the Bible. It was he who gave us "original sin" and the denigration of sexuality. He wrote:

"Adam bound his offspring also with the penalty of death and damnation, that offspring which by sinning he had corrupted in himself...a fitting retribution for his disobedience was bestowed upon him...by his spouse who was the cause of his sin and the companion of his damnation ..."

Augustine has left Christianity a difficulty heritage. A religion which teaches men and women to regard their humanity as chronically flawed can alienate them from themselves. Nowere is this alienation more evident than in the denigration of sexuality in general and women in particular. Other church fathers: Origen, Tertullian, and Jerome held even more severe sentiments. An alienation from which humans have never yet recovered.

Elaine

You're right. "The Apparel of Women" by Tertullian is appalling. It is "dress reform" that is as hostile as can be.

Firsttimer

Here are the three options that I know of so far:

1. Start with Scripture and condemn everything in our common sense that does not conform.

2. Start with our common sense and condemn everything in Scripture that does not conform.

3. Start with either Scripture or our common sense and repeatedly test the second by the first and the first by the second, moving back and forth until we reach a resting place that is as adequate as it can until we get new informtion.

I think it is a good idea to do this "back and forth" work with others.

"Always think FOR yourself; never think BY yourself!"

First-timer: "More oftne than not the Bible is subject to interpretation that suits our needs and desires - and I am not sure that this method of Biblical interpretation is neccessarily correct."

Do we not interpret many things in the Bible according to our assumptions and beliefs? Last week's Sabbath School lesson is a good example. Jesus' comments about letting the dead bury their dead are hard to understand if we take them literally, so we search for some way of understanding them that fits with our picture of Jesus.

Another example is in Romans 14:2,5, and Colossians 2:16 where Paul talks about not judging people by what they eat or drink or with regard to what day they regard as special. Of course, if read literally, this would undermine some beliefs very dear to Adventists, so we must look for an alternative interpretation that will not conflict with our beliefs. Similarly Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus.

There are many, many biblical texts and discrepancies that we must interpret in a way that supports our beliefs. So why should we object to someone who searches for an alternative way of understanding and interpreting a few verses that refer, not to homosexual orientation but to same-sex behavior in very specific circumstances? Btw, have you looked at the Bible studies on my website yet?

Carrol,

I am glad you brought this text up and I am also interested in the way you framed this paragraph.

You said,"Another example is in Romans 14:2,5, and Colossians 2:16 where Paul talks about not judging people by what they eat or drink or with regard to what day they regard as special. Of course, if read literally, this would undermine some beliefs very dear to Adventists, so we must look for an alternative interpretation that will not conflict with our beliefs."

It is interesting that we "must look for an alternative interpretation that will not conflict with our beliefs." Would it not be better to let the text inform our beliefs?

What seems to be going on here (Rom.& Gal...Col. maybe has other separate nuances-syncretism) is the "judging" of one group of another over the issues of a specially regarded day and way of worship and appropriate foods...both likely inferring "your not a real Christian unless you do it our way." So the issue perhaps is not if one may have more validity in these areas BUT let all be convinced in their own mind in THESE PARTICULAR AREAS. DON"T JUDGE FROM EITHER SIDE...why do you judge the servant of another man?

These seem to hit particularily hard at ceremonial and ritual purity laws that act as barriers between Jews and Gentiles.

So the lesson is, I believe...don't you judge another as a non- Christian because of what they eat,drink or because of the day/days they worship. Note it works BOTH ways...to both groups.

SDA's and non-SDA's might both learn a lesson of tolerance here.

PS. What happened to Nathan Brown's "Family Values" article?

Pat

This is for real. I really would like to know how to distinquish tolerance and acceptance. Tom

The writers of Scripture apparently knew nothing about sexual orientations or related matters. Also, the homosexual conduct of which it speaks is always, as far as I can tell, exploitive.

The above conclusion/presupposition, repeated so often, may require revisiting for another close look. See the following review:

The western roots of modern same-sex relationships
Journal of Sex Research, Nov, 2006 by Vern L. Bullough

Same-Sex Desire and Love in GrecoRoman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, Edited by Beert C. Verstraete & Vernon Provencal. New York: Huntington Park Press, 2006, 491 pages. Cloth, $69.95; Paper, $49.95.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_43/ai_n17094106

Joselito, the point is not that there was no same-sex activity among Greeks and Romans in biblical times, but that Paul - and the rest of society - did not understand it as an inborn orientation. They believed that everyone was naturally attracted to the opposite sex, and that those who had same-sex relationships had left what was natural. Even in the Greek city-states where male nudity and segregation was part of the culture, these men also had wives, so this form of "homosexuality" (which word was unknown then) was really bisexuality. Roman forms of same-sex activity were usually what we today call pederasty.

This can't be repeated too often: "We must look for an alternative interpretation that will not conflict with our beliefs." Would it not be better to let the text inform our beliefs?

Why can't we honestly admit that we go go to the Bible with preconceived opinions and then when we find something that disagrees with those a priori opinions, we simply can't accept what has been written, but twist both the scripture and ourselves into pretzels in the attempt to salvage those formerly accepted doctrines? This prostitues the Bible to our own convoluted reasoning and abuses the intent of the writer, who could not be more clear.

Almost the entire Christian world reads these texts and accepts that one should neither be judged nor that there are still sacred days, but Adventists, in their fervent desire to be different in their peculiar interpretation (eisegesis) of Scripture, ignore all the best biblical scholars in adopting unique interpretations: interpretations that no other Christian body seems to "see."

Ditto for its unique eschatological interpretation of Bible prophecies. They have the clairvoyant ability to see all sorts of nations, countries and events in the future; events and rulers that change with current world conditions. Armageddon in 1914? Turkey as king of the North? Sunday law "soon" to be proclaimed? America, without question, has been "decoded" as foreseen by John 2,000 years ago. Or, could it possibly be that through those two millennia, many have forecast emperors, popes, and countries which have long vanished? How can there be such certitude with long records of missing the mark entirely?

Apocalyptism has always attracted adherents, especially for those who are so eager to be assured of the future?

As many of you may already know, sexual orientation as understood by many westerners today is far from being a forgone conclusion, especially when viewed from the perspective of other cultures. So we can advance this conversation, I'll quote at length an essay from the same Journal of Sex Research contrasting the essentialist and social constructivist perspectives. Let us know what you think:

"The biological theories of sexual orientation discussed earlier all include the assumption that there are two distinct types of people, heterosexual and homosexual, and that each person is one or the other. If a preference for partners of the same gender is genetic, or due to differences in hormone levels or brain anatomy, one would expect at least some similarities in gays or lesbians (not to mention heterosexual men and women) across cultures. Social constructionists, on the other hand, expect substantial variation across cultures in the behaviors associated with homosexuality and heterosexuality. Blackwood (1993) concluded, based on a review of the anthropological literature, that homosexuality varies greatly from one society to another:

'Patterns of homosexual behavior reflect the value systems and social structure of the different societies in which they are found. The ideology regarding male and female roles, kinship and marriage regulations, and the sexual division of labor are all important in the construction of homosexual behavior.' (p. 331)

"In fact, there is tremendous variability within a single culture in sexual behavior and lifestyles. One can compare samples of gay and heterosexual men on quantitative measures such as number of sexual partners and find significant mean differences. Such gross comparisons encourage us to ignore or overlook the celibate and faithful gay men and the extremely promiscuous married heterosexual men. Such complexity is inconsistent with sociobiological and evolutionary models (Fausto-Sterling, 1986).

"Furthermore, as noted earlier, proponents of biological theories of orientation assume constancy over (historical) time. They also assume constancy over the life of the individual. One is heterosexual or homosexual for life. There are societies in which sexual orientation seems fixed and is associated with institutionalized roles that one occupies across the life span. There are other societies, however, in which the boundaries between sexual orientations are fluid, and persons move back and forth during the course of their lives. One notable case is the Sambia, as reported by Herdt (1984). In this culture, male youth are initiated into a stage of exclusively homosexual behavior. Following marriage, there is a period during which they have sexual contact with men/youth and their wives. Following the birth of children, they become exclusively heterosexual. The Sambia have no concept of homosexuality as a lifelong trait or lifestyle.

"The Social Construction of Gender

"One of the topics of greatest interest to social constructionists has been gender and its social construction (e.g., Bohan, 1993; Lorber & Farrell, 1991; Unger, 1989). A common misunderstanding is that the social construction of gender means that gender-typed attributes are simply the result of socialization (Bohan, 1993). The social constructionist position, however, as articulated earlier in this article, is considerably more complex than that. Social constructionists see gender not as a trait of the individual--as essentialists do--but rather as a process external to the individual. Gender is defined by interactions between people, by language, and by the discourse of a culture."

- "Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality - The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality," Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1998 by John D. DeLamater, Janet Shibley Hyde

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720

Tom,
Perhaps if we could even get "tolerance" that the opposing view did not undermine "the faith" but was actually scripturally allowable that would be a giant step forward...both from the "Lord's day" groups and the "Saturday Sabbatarian" group.(one not saying the other represents the Mark of the Beast and the other not accusing of Sabbatarian "legalism")

Interestingly my Prof.Reggie Kidd Ph.D Duke at RTS was a strong believer in this enclosed view of a paradigm shift in regards to the "gentiles" and what was allowable. Again that does not mean one is more valid than another but "tolerance and acceptance" in this particular area of foods,drink and days/day. The acceptance of God as "Creator God " however remains for both.

Joselito,

I'm not sure if you were quoting someone when you "said", "Also, the homosexual conduct of which it speaks is always, as far as I can tell, exploitive."

How might one know that from Lev.18:22."Contextually, I suggest that isn't there." Would it be "exploitive" to lie with "as a woman?"

Joselito, culturally-conditioned behavior does not indicate a sexual orientation. To learn more about research that posits a biological cause for homosexual orientation, please see my website under "Scientific Research."

Pat, understanding the patriarchal culture of biblical times, being penetrated as a woman was seen as exploitive.

"Pat, understanding the patriarchal culture of biblical times, being penetrated as a woman was seen as exploitive."

COME ON Carrol...that is absurd! You are eisegeting your concepts and desires into the text in order to be able to propose an idea of "exploitive penetrating of man with man."
A complete deconstruction of language and meaning!

I Have to agree with DAVID Larson's response to Joselito. The bible says very little on this subject. The authors didn't understand homosexuality or genetics or space travel or so much of what has been learned since the enlightenment.

To comment otherwise belies ones own opinion, made into a "skin" which is then overlayed onto the bible and interpretations thereby formed.

Joselito, your comments are interesting, however, I am confused. When you make comments you always sound like you have swallowed a text book. I would be very interested in hearing your own opinion rather than quoting others.

For me, being gay is a non issue. St Paul had it when he advised that we should all be convinced in our own minds. How can one judge beyond this?

Pat, when you say "A complete deconstruction of language and meaning" are you implying that historical context of any and all scripture is inappropriate? How can one read if the time, place and circumstance of a given law is completely irrelevant? Surely, you do not ignore the specific times and situations of many of the Levitical codes, do you? How do you adapt your interpretation if this is not considered? Are they all of equal relevance and equally valid today?

One does consider the cultural setting in sound exegesis.

There is no indication at all by the author that "exploitation" meaning not willful sex is indicated at all in Lev.18:22. Come on ladies!

It is a simple interpretation. Male relationship with Female is exploitative by its nature at the time. Just read other parts of Lev. 18, where it indicates a woman belongs to her husband. Where sleeping with your brother or father's wife disgraces your male family member, not yourself, not the woman, the male who owns the woman.

It stands to reason that a male relationship with other male exploits one of them in this moral system. After all, the verse says "as with a woman".

"The writers of Scripture apparently knew nothing about sexual orientations or related matters. Also, the homosexual conduct of which it speaks is always, as far as I can tell, exploitive."
Posted by: davidrlarson | 29 January 2008 at 3:36

"... the point is not that there was no same-sex activity among Greeks and Romans in biblical times, but that Paul - and the rest of society - did not understand it as an inborn orientation. They believed that everyone was naturally attracted to the opposite sex, and that those who had same-sex relationships had left what was natural."
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 30 January 2008 at 5:21

"I Have to agree with DAVID Larson's response to Joselito. The bible says very little on this subject. The authors didn't understand homosexuality...
"For me, being gay is a non issue. St Paul had it when he advised that we should all be convinced in our own minds. How can one judge beyond this?"
Posted by: Andrew S (not verified) | 30 January 2008 at 10:08

My replies

First to Andrew S: You agreed with Dave Larson, who has just co-edited a collection of essays on homosexuality, [you) saying, "The [Bible] authors didn't understand.." and in the same breath declared the subject is a non-issue. How is that for clarity? Help me understand and get me out of my confusion, please!

To Dave and Carrol: IMHO :-), while it's true moderns have advanced technologically and in their scientific understanding of a variety of human experience, aren't we assuming too much. or too little, however, about what Bible writers really knew regarding the sexual proclivities (orientation?) of their contemporaries? Whether sexual orientations are "inborn" or not, so... ?

My apologies to Andrew S; this is for Carrol, from the same source I cited, hoping she has read the entire essay by now so we can have an informed conversation on the subject of essentialism vs social construction of homosexuality:

"All the biological theories--evolutionary, genetic, hormonal, and neuroanatomical--are based on the assumption, although it is rarely stated, that there are two underlying true forms, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Despite Kinsey's pioneering conceptualization of a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality, the theories rest on an assumption of discontinuity, i.e., that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two distinct and separate categories. In addition, these theories rest on an assumption of the constancy over time of the two categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality. None of the theories include the possibility that the incidence or nature of homosexuality may have changed over the centuries. Ironically, the evolutionary theories should follow the lead of Darwin and incorporate changes in patterns of adaptation and selection for homosexuality over many generations. As experts noted, however, sociobiology typically rests on an outmoded version of evolutionary theory that modern biologists consider naive (Gould, 1987). Thus, the very capacity for change over time (and with environmental conditions) that is so important in evolutionary theory has generally been ignored by modern sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists."

- "Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality - The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality," Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1998 by John D. DeLamater, Janet Shibley Hyde

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720

Plato, Aristole et al lived and wrote centuries before Paul.
Their homosexual suggestions and personal communications were as well known then as now.

God made His intentions very clear from the beginning: "Be fruitful and multiple."

The question is moot theologically. Antropological discourse
on the subject will continue despite revelation. Tom

Tom, the comment about the later writings of Paul when compared to the Greeks, raises more questions than a simple: "That's all folks."

Is Paul to be accepted as the Last Word on a given subject? Is nothing new possible after his writings? Does the age which an author wrote give it more authority? Or, do we accept that the canon's clousure makes any later understanding to be moot?

Far beyond the topic of this thread (but where could they be introduced?), there are the adopted beliefs of millions of Christians that are absolute, utterly set and immovable if they cannot be found within the Bible's pages; e.g.: Is Paul's explanation of the death Jesus as: ransom, penalty, atonement, sacrifice, requirement of the Law the final and complete understanding that is forever and always the final authority? Does Paul's concept of Adam's bringing sin into the world with all humanity being somehow infected by him, and that everyone born into this world before Christ were, nevertheless doomed? Was this general Hebrew knowledge until Jesus? Did they understand that they had no hope of eternal life until he came? Did Paul construct an entirely new salvific doctrine that was not previously made clear?

Because the Gospel writers came after Paul and reported on Jesus and his sayings, did Paul influence the writers of Matthew and Mark in reporting Jesus' claim to be a ransom? The concept of "ransom" requires that it be paid to someone or something. Who required a ransom and to whom was it paid?

These concepts are as old as Christianity, and because they have been used for centuries, they usually are merely accepted without questioning their true meaning. Should they BE questioned? The book of Hebrews is a long colloquy on the meaning of Christ to the Jews who were steeped in the sacrificial system. To them, the idea that Jesus had offered the true and complete sacrifice and is now ministering as a priest in the real, the heavenly, sanctuary is basic to the book of Hebrews. What relevance should it be today to those so far removed from those systems and even less knowledgeable of them? Is it possible that a more contemporary concept would be much more meaningful? Or, will we be forever tied to explanations based on ancient systems?

Hi Joselito

Not sure I can alleviate your confusion. For sure I did agree with David but it certainly was not in the same breath that I mentioned "for me being gay is a non issue" - they were four paragraphs apart!!

It is true that for me, sexual orientation is of little or no relevance, it just exists and is neither wrong nor right, it just "is".

The nature nurture debate (or whatever debate you want to use)will carry on. Stepping back however and looking at the big picture; there seems to be too many situations where the social situations are less than conjusive to being gay - so why be gay?

In any event, whichever way you make your argument or adopt someone else's thesis to create parameters to work within, the fact is that at some point in the future science will no doubt settle the issue.

And then what? You will still be left with the fact that gay people exist and for whatever reason, their minds are made up and convinced. So we get back to St Paul and in this regard looking back is like looking forward, we should all be convinced in our own minds. To do otherwise creates cognitive dissonance which would be dishonest and create great damage.

So the arguments are a distraction, the real issue remains - prejudice. Christians propagate this unhealthy trait as much as anyone.

I bet you are glad that God created us in his image and that our thought processes and conclusions (created by Him) vary so much. But then we must ultimately agree that we are all correct.

I am using my God given mind, as are you, so who is right?....I am, of course

Thanks Andrew for reminding us, the title of the original piece was "Gay Theology without Apology" and here we all go and apologize for our orientation, or others do it for us.

Nice reminder that I don't believe I need to apologize for anything having to do with my sexual orientation. I believe it is integral to my spiritual, social and mental well being.

I make healthy choices, committing to a single person of the same gender who I love dearly for mutual support and respect, keeping myself for her only for the rest of our lives. I won't apologize for that.

Joselito, I can't deny that there are opposing scholarly views regarding this topic. It is possible to find support for either side of the argument. I am mainly interested in pragmatic views that seem to mesh with what I have observed among the hundreds of gay and lesbians and their families that I have become acquainted with.

I am merely going by what I have read about this history of homosexuality, which indicates that while there has been same-sex activity since ancient times, it was not until the late 1800's that it was recognized that some people are exclusively attracted to the same sex. Before that, it was assumed that everyone was attracted to the opposite sex and that some people chose to go "against nature" in having same sex relationships.

Hi Carlitas

Hope your relationship goes well, I am now married 10 years, wish me well for the next 10.

It would be nice for parents who have gay children to understand that neither they nor their children have anything to apologise for or anyone to apologise to.

It seems to me that we hold onto dogma against all meaningful rationale and humanity. It needn't be that a person is gay, it can mean any form of prejudice. Women's role in the church for example.

I am English, and sometimes I team up with friends to play football on the Sabbath, now apparently some people think this is sinful, perhaps cricket would be more appropriate.

Eating clean food and not drinking is a prerequisite to being a member of the SDA Church, but over indulgence causing people to become unhealthy and over weight is fine???

What people don't seem to want to get to grips with is the consequences of holding such views. They create alienation and harm There is no place for someone outside such dogma to find a home.

For me, dogma is the easy route. It requires little thought and creates good reason to judge and harm others. It is a base human instinct which needs to be controlled.

From the Word of God:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

See, to me this all sounds like trying to make one sin worse than another. If we're all going to hell anyway, lets all treat each other with some respect on the way down.
PS how many of you all have repented for ALL of your sins? is that seriously the point?
PPS I think I may not be the one to argue this since I dont actually believe in hell. or sin for that matter.

Sistah in the Faith - you ar equoting the Bible - not word of God. Proves that ancient Israelites treated women as second class human beings (as Paul puts it, women were created in the image of man - only man was created in the image of God) and while male gay behaviour was not approved in their society, they didn't give a toss about lesbians!

I agree with the author that we need to discuss the matter of homosexuality and not hide behind verses clearly describing different matters. We cannot be exclusive; the good news is to all and we are to come to Christ as we are!

Dearest Apologists:

The statements and discussion that has preceded my comments have been very helpful in my education about the issues on homosexuality in the church. There have been some very good succint points and some very long diatribes. It has all proved useful in one way or another.

I am currently doing my student teaching at GCA and am in the process of teaching a unit called "Is Gay Okay?". The discussion has proved interesting and animated. This is a topic that needs to be discussed and throughly considered.

However, one small thing that I need to suggest. As this war is being raged over who is right and who is wrong, what is sin and what isn't, let me remind you that there are people on BOTH sides of this argument that are hurting and need to be ministered to. There are people that have been mistreated by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Some have been labeled faggots and others biggots. But let me state what one of my SAU professors has said often, "the ground is level at the foot of the cross." We have to remember that there are people out there with the leprosy of sin (that's everyone) and they need to be cared for regardless of how bad it is becuase there is only one that can heal leprosy and that is Jesus. Let us never refuse people access to the Savior.

The religious leaders of Jesus day were so careful not do defile themselves that they refused the intimate touch that Jesus gave to all. They left people by the side of the road, they refused them entrance into the church, and refused them to even be a part of the city. I pray that non of us will stoop to the level of a religious leader. God gives us the call to come to him ALL who are weary and heavey laden and He will give us rest. Let us all rise to the call to be followers of Jesus and try to finish His work.

Let us all agree on one thing: While this debate continues we must not forget that there are people on BOTH sides of this issue that are hurting and regardless of who they are, what they have done, or where they are going, they need our help, acceptance, and love.

A message for the most dogmatic: There is a very very fine line between an ultra right wing conservative and a ultra left wing liberal. Both are unwilling to give in at all and are the most certain that they are correct. Let us find balance and commonalities instead of differences. Let us point out how much we are alike instead of how different we are. Let us emphasize how much each one of us is in need a Savior.

I wonder how different things would be and how non-issue most problems would be if we focused more on ministering to the needs of others and showing them love than debating on whose side Jesus stands.

The Bible does have its place. It is a personal diary of how God has interacted, reacted, been portrayed, been loved and hated, translated, interrpreted, and what He plans on doing about all of it. Each needs to wrestle with the scriptures and study it for themselves. Don't form an opinion, take a position. Once that is done, always be open to God's leading through the Holy Spirit and the revelation of Jesus through the scriptures. Now take your position and place it second to meeting peoples needs. Live the Bible don't make other people live it.

Good discussion, please don't stop the dialogue just be careful to always place people above dogma.

"When you have known people who have been ostracized by the church because of their sexuality, when you have homosexuals who are family, when you have homosexual friends, professors, teachers, ministers, police officers, firemen, doctors, loved ones, etc. it is not so easy to pronounce the judgment of God on their eternity."

Hmmm so lets say we have a serial killer in our family, should we then be sensetive to his/her needs to kill people and not shut him/her out for fear of hurting the relationship?

what happened to truth and sticking up for it. why all the philosophical mumbo jumbo? I'm not going to personally declare this or that person is going to hell, but im not going to create an environment for them to "breed" in either if i believe what they are doing is wrong. God knows the heart but we are called to discern and keep the church pure of ALL sexual immorality. just look at Paul's letters to the churches.If someone has homosexual tendencies he should work through his salvation with fear and trembling if salvation is more important than physical fulfillment to him/her. All things are possible through Christ who strengthens us. we are not interested in being ecumenical. if we as adventists let "anyone" become members, and we don't "disfellowship" the people not in accordance with what we teach or wish others to see in us then we become watered down and ineffective in our witness. If i was allowed to be adventist, but i was blatantly against the teachings of lets say "the sabbath, or the second coming of Christ, or, the state of the dead," i would just be diluting the waters of doctrine that the rest of the church stood for and taught and pretty soon there would be more like me until we would all just be a group of feel goody hippie types with no clear purpose or message.

though hand join in hand, the wicked will not go unpunished, but the seed of the righteous will be delivered. Proverbs 11:21, see also proverbs 16:5

"As Christians we have a tremendously rich biblical tradition of a Christ who closed the gap between those the “religious” found acceptable and the outcasts in society"
-Jesus broke down the barrier between jew and gentile, not to say homosexuality is okay. there are different types of social outcasts and Jesus didn't come to say that sex offenders and serial killers should be made to feel like what they do is okay anymore than he came to say sin is no longer sin and homosexuality is permissable along with lying, stealing etc. simply because homosexuality is not mentioned specifically in the 10 commandments doesn't make it okay or mean God intended it that way. its like the child who is told not to eat in between meals but says "well i wasn't told i couldn't have COOKIES in between meals, so technically im not disobeying."

in conclusion, rejecting homosexualality might hurt the relationship with homosexuals, but its making a stand about what types of relationships we believe are good and profitable.

Anyone who has actually stopped and taken the time to read Lev 18 and Romans 1 - instantly sees the problem with the homosexual agenda.

By contrast we have this bold speculative claim in the opening article here "There is no definitive answer within Scripture that leads to a conclusive assessment that God condemns homosexuality – any other assessment than that lacks intellectual integrity ".

As one might expect - such a wild claim comes to us in this article with no Bible study at all included in the text. The author merely "assumes the salient points of his argument" rather than demonstrating from the text - that they are in fact true.

But this raises a question about the fact that in both the topics of evolutionism and the topic of the homosexual agenda - we see total disregard for scripture appealing either to a very transparent "bible bending" centric solution or an outright "scorched bible" solution that cares nothing at all for the text.

(At least does not care enough to actually mention the text that is most opposed to the agenda being promoted).

By contrast - the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventists adopts the model of testing all doctrine sola scriptura.

Let each one choose for themselves.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32