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