Raymond:

Congratulations on a beautifully written letter but to the point. These questions can only serve to separate us more. As the fundamentalists, particularly in third world countries, are now the dominant increase in conversions as well as numbers, it can hardly be other than pandering to them to continue the very conservative and fundamentalist ideology.

Just as the GC surrendered to this larger body in Utrecht when it "appealed" to them for women's ordination, this is another indicator of the future of the SDA church. We liberal and progressive folks, AKA, the "Left Coast" may truly fall into the Pacific from a future earthquake: an earthquake of doctrinal differences. Paulsen's interpretation, though nothing is mentioned in either the 28 or the baptismal vows, is another step in assuming more hierarchal power, a la the gravity of papal statements. Do we need a pope to tell us how to think and act? I hope not. Just as the majority of Roman Catholics pay little attention to the Pope, so too, may Adventists come to disregard the pronouncements from "on high" in Silver Springs.

Great research Raymond.

I'm sure that the leaders who pass these statements and craft these speeches can appreciate -- even if they disagree with -- a young Adventist who takes his church seriously.

Raymond,

Your letter is far more reasoned and constructive sounding than the one I have been working on for the last year but never send. Right now the document is 6 pages long and contains around 2,000 words.

I have documented official statements, Adventist review articles, membership of the SDA church in Uganda in a violent anti-gay group among other issues.

The current culmination of my document are some comments the Annual Council statement. Below is what I wrote, though it isn't finished yet.
_____________________________________________
Current Developments: Annual Council Meetings

I have been troubled for a long time with the church’s official statements on same sex relationships, civil unions and marriage. What is most troubling is that these statements have become more and more extreme in their tone and language. The document released during the annual council meeting just ended is a great example of this escalation. In the document Safeguarding Mission in Changing Social Environments the church leadership states: “The Church does not accept the idea of same-sex marriages nor does it condone homosexual practices or advocacy. “

Never before has the church declared that advocacy for GLBT people is forbidden within the church. Putting aside whether “homosexual practices” are morally wrong or not, why is the church now concerned with people who advocate for GLBT people?

Also unprecedented is the church’s attention on gender identity and expression. Quoting from the same document “Legislation concerning employment practices represents one area in which Seventh-day Adventist values and beliefs may be subject to challenge. For example: societies may establish laws providing new definitions for marriage or protecting a range of expressions and behavior associated with gender identity.”

Does the church mean to say that if a person is fired from their job for gender expression this is an acceptable form of bias based on the bible? A woman dressing in men’s pants and a short hair cut may be a problem to some employers within the SDA church. Is this the green light to start firing because you don’t think a woman is feminine enough?

Interesting and well thought out letter Raymond.

I do see that Elder Paulsen's hands are really tied regarding the topics you have addressed.

While he tours near and far, making nice with the young folks, he really is powerless to make any sort of substantive chance.

It seems to me, that while none of the topics you mentioned are specifically addressed in the 28 fundamental beliefs. It is those beliefs that still would thwart any movement that might please the moderate, progressive or liberal Adventist.

As long as you have a fundamental belief that continues to allow Ellen White to be "a continuing and authoratative source of Truth", that trumps forward thinking analysis or adaptation to the Adventist theological paradigm.

Some folks in the moderate-liberal camp have tried to humanize her and there by lessen her influence. But for most who truly believe that she is inspired, no amount of humanizing will allow for progressive theological change.

While those in North America feel the need to advance and progress, the majority of the Adventist church in what some call the third world, have been indoctrinated into the historic Adventist message. Their is little to no room for change, given the Adventism these folks have be taught to believe is God's one true Church.

Randy

Liberal and progressive Adventism has now become an oxymoron.

I'm very happy with the label "progressive Adventist" as it is true to our roots as a present truth church; an early outlook rooted in the belief that our theology and reading of Scripture is continually being re-expressed in presently meaningful ways within an ever-changing church as diverse as the societies it dwells in.

Specific questions on the content of the letter do merit discussion but for my part I simply want to say that it is true what others have commented on the state of our church today- our church as a whole is not receptive to what Raymond is saying. My response, honestly, is more about the person writing the letter than the letter itself.

I read this letter and see behind it a bright and passionate college student owning the church he belongs in, seeing himself as responsible to it and comfortable confronting injustices he sees. In the discussion on other posts contributed by Raymond like the worship post you'll find expressed the opinion that many young Adventists do not share his interest and are heading towards lapsed membership. I for one am glad he is, though his contributions here and work on the Adventist Forum chapter at Southern, engaging our community in conversation!

I'll second that, Johnny. I too am glad to see college students agitating and activating to improve their church.

One of the documents you mention, Raymond, "Safeguarding Mission in Changing Social Environments" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/safeguarding.html) came to my attention recently as part of the conversation that ensued from several posts on the new documentary, For The Bible Tells Me So (www.forthebibletellsmeso.org), which, incidentally, is now out on DVD.

It bothered me that the church was not only condemning homosexual practice, but advocacy as well. "The Church does not accept the idea of same-sex marriages nor does it condone homosexual practices or advocacy." This seems clearly antithetical to the
progressive-truth historical roots of Adventism that Johnny mentions above. In essence, the church is not only saying homosexuality is wrong, but that if I disagree with that stance, I'm not supposed to say anything.

Seveth-day Adventism is a human institution built upon what it believes is the revealed will of God. It so states in 28 Fundamental Beliefs. This idea of parsing Adventism into liberal, conservative, progressive, and orthodox are oxymorons. You is or you ain't an Adventist according to the statement of beliefs or expanded Creed.

David Larsen says we all have to be one kind of dog or another. I'm just a stray that followed Jesus Christ home.
Dr. Paulsen you just be sure you are being honest to man and to God. Who could ask for anything more. On that basis, I'll break bread with you any time and place. I am sure you know better than I, that the privilege and responsibility for heading a relgious organization is not for sissies. Tom

Raymond and Carlita, I hope that you have sent or will send your letters to Elder Paulsen. I have also written several letters to him, quoting his words back to him. I also had a 30-minute appointment to discuss this very issue with him. I found him to be very kind and sympathetic, but convinced, in spite of the many stories I shared with him, that heterosexual marriage is the best answer.

However, I have to agree with Randy's observations regarding the difficulty of bringing about change in our world church. At this time, I believe that even if a majority of the GC administrators were willing to allow, and so state, more flexibility on this or other issues, they would soon be out of office. There are too many ultra-conservative members who would never put up with this.

It may take a new generation to bring such change about.

Raymond,

Thank you for the sharing the letter. Having not read the statement from the Annual Council session, I cannot speak to its contents or your reactions.

However, one thing bothers me: For someone such as you - and all other "progressives" - who try to promote tolerance and acceptance, why are you so intolerant to those who are in the so-called "Third World"? Do their views not matter as well? Or are they simply "unenlightened" and not worth listening to?

You accuse Dr. Paulsen of simply trying to placate such individuals, but your message of alleged "tolerance" is not extended to those individuals in the "Third World" who do not share your views. This is one of my biggest gripes with "progressives." The tolerance that they demand is not extended to those with opposing views - especially those in the "Third World" who are supposedly 100 years behind in their understanding of "truth."

Similarly, you accuse such Official Statements as a reflection of "ideological agendas." Is not the GLBT community - as well as those taking up their cause in the "progressive" camp - guilty of trying to press forward an "ideological agenda" also? Those on the other side would certainly think so.

In the end, I am in agreement with your call for love and care. I have a feeling, however, that if I were to read the statement that was formulated, I would not find anything unloving in it. If the statement says that we do not agree with their lifestyle, and you find this unloving, then I would have a hard time agreeing with you.

Shawn,

I think you are on to something.

My definitions and understanding...

Tolerance used to mean that I allowed others to disagree with me on an issue or a variety of issues without condemning them.

Tolerance + acceptance became to mean that I would accept their ideas as perhaps equally valid..."post modern"

Now it seems that Tolerance, acceptance, and affirmation of their differing views is essential or one has become intolerant...sound familiar?

I do believe in tolerance in society and to a degree tolerance plus acceptance in governance of a pluralistic society...secular pluralism.

I believe we need to show religious tolerance but "not necessarily" shared community as community should be allowed to state their boundries.

I do not accept the need or desirability of religious "tolerance and acceptance."

I do not believe it is tolerant to expect/demand religious "tolerance,acceptance and affirmation" from others.
(seems to be Raymond's position)

Regards to those on the blog from one who has close acquaitance with gay individuals...loves some and attempts to show respect for their human dignity while at the same time not accepting or affirming their lifestyle.

pat

Shawn,

Many individuals who accuse progressives of hypocrisy because of their refusal to tolerate "those who are intolerant" are misunderstanding what progressives mean by "tolerance." Progressives understand "tolerance" to incorporate an attitude of respect and appreciation (tolerance) for views that do not demean, belittle, or discriminate on biological differences.

For progressives, discrimination on the basis of sex, ethnicity, or sexuality is strictly not tolerated. This does not make progressives "intolerant" in the hypocritical sense. Progressives differentiate “tolerance” and “acceptance.”

For instance, the issue of homosexuality between progressives and conservatives revolves around the issue of human sexuality. Sexuality, psychological, and cultural research has conclusively proven that human sexuality—in many variations—is genetic and not chosen and therefore is not subject to moral implications. Conservative and fundamentalists cannot provide reasonable evidence—through scientific research—that sexuality is a choice. Progressives thus, cannot tolerate such a view because it demeans all people who do not exhibit a specific, genetic sexuality trait.

Progressives can accept the right of individuals to advance whatever opinion he or she chooses, but will not idly allow discrimination on the basis of bigotry, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, or any other divergent of opinions not supported by scientific research.

The “Third World” exhibits too much of this repressive ideology that stems from antediluvian thought. In holding this position, Progressives do not advocate ethnocentrism—the superiority of American, Western, or “Civilized” thought—but rather they understand that cultures evolve over time to reflect the advancements of society in areas of philosophy, scientific research, theology, history, technology, and various other elements of human thought and innovation.

The Third World is not synonymous with archaic thinking or draconian policies. For instance, there are many Latin American countries that may be defined as part of the Third World for economic reasons but have modern, contemporary thinkers, politicians, theologians, scientists, etc.

Your wrote, “You accuse Dr. Paulsen of simply trying to placate such individuals, but your message of alleged "tolerance" is not extended to those individuals in the "Third World" who do not share your views.” This is correct. Progressives refuse to tolerate views that demean, belittle, and discriminate on biological differences.

You continue, “This is one of my biggest gripes with "progressives." The tolerance that they demand is not extended to those with opposing views - especially those in the "Third World" who are supposedly 100 years behind in their understanding of "truth."”

Progressives accept the right of individuals to choose to believe whatever but we do not accept the right of people to demean, belittle, and discriminate others on the basis of biological differences.

Biological differences were at the core of the Holocaust extermination of Jews, Homosexuals, Roma Gypsies, and the Physically & Mentally Handicapped.

Biological differences were at the core of the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in the Rwandan Genocide.

Biological differences are currently at the core of the conflict between the Janjaweed and the People of Darfur—the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups.

Progressives have understood the lessons of history and have aptly applied those lessons to how we approach our human relationships. Too often have repressive ideologies lead to violence and vast human suffering. Because of the logical progression of repressive ideologies that discriminate on the basis of biological differences Progressives refuse to tolerate such views. With relation to your comment and, specifically, those addressed in my letter to President Paulson, moderate, progressive, and liberal Adventists are not asking that our leadership not have ideological-based opinions, but that those opinions be “checked at the door” when governing our World Church.

What “one of my biggest gripes with” the General Conference is their relentless advancing of fundamentalist and conservative agendas as if Adventism was beholding to those ideologies exclusively. Moderates, progressives, and liberals exist in the Adventist Church and our church leadership should reflect that in their policies and leadership.

I wouldn’t say that the Third World is 100 years “behind” in “truth.” Truth is progressive, contingent upon human understanding (which includes reason, logic, science, and, yes, divine revelation). Considering that humanity’s understand is advancing, it would hold to reason that our “truth”—or better put, perception of that “truth”—is improving. I do believe that religious institutions that refuse to accept the validity of science, reason, or logic are (at the very least) 100 years, not behind, but willfully ignorant of “truth.”

“Is not the GLBT community - as well as those taking up their cause in the "progressive" camp - guilty of trying to press forward an "ideological agenda" also? Those on the other side would certainly think so.”

The God-given dignity of human beings—regardless of biological differences—is the foundational theological component of the Abrahamic Faith and not Progressivism. For Christians it is factual, as readily accepted as the certainty of the rising of the son. Simply holding Christians accountable to the most central of their beliefs is not an ideological agenda. Those who think that this is “advancing ideology” are simply mistaken. Such individuals ought not to concern themselves with the issue of Homosexuality and Christian Community (for that is too advanced an issue for such a mind-set to competently grasp) but rather the study of the Fundamentals of Christianity.

For Progressives, Shawn, in the end, it is in celebrating the God-given dignity of human beings that we do not tolerate views that demean, belittle, or discriminate on biological differences because such a view is offensive to the very notion of a loving, Creator God.

Wonderful, Raymond. You addressed each contention and I especially liked the comparison of the Germans and African tribes killing for biological differences. We don't literally kill those who are "different;" we just remove them from our midst so we will not be polluted by them. This is Christian action?

There seems to be confusion over the terms: acceptance and tolerance with approval. I may accept my gay neighbors and care about them just as I do my straight ones. It is not required of me that I approve their lifestyle, as I have not been asked to do so. There are now in this country thousands of couples, straight and gay, who have not requested a marriage license. Do I condemn them? Why? How would it change their lifestyle?

Just so, those who are homosexual from birth. Neither my approbation or strong disappovel will affect their sexual orientation. What will have been gained by my opinion means nothing. What a world church gains is perpetuation of discrimination and that intolerance is acceptable, if done in the name of religous belief.

If the church is to be a warm, accepting and hospitable home for all who enter (which is in my church's official statement), how would a church determine one's sexuality if he or she wished to join and be baptized? Turn them away with exhortations to first change their sexuality that began before birth? In past years, this has been the practice of the Adventist church which discriminated on the basis of race. When the blacks attempted to go to an "All White" church, they were turned away and pointed to the "other" church on the opposite side of town. It is impossible to change one's race; and it is impossible, nor should it be expected that they could ever be "cured" of such an inherited identity. To feel that one is sinful, in honestly living as their nature demands, is the worst form of bigotry. If someone is made to feel guilty and a sinner just because he "is" and for which he had no responsibility, that is no different than making someone feel guilty for his race. One's sexuality, like gender, is determined much the same as one's race. Will this obstacle to love and accept those whose living arrangements are not like "ours" because "ours" is the only correct one. Those who refuse to accept the many scientific studies on sexual orientation, are back in the pre-Copernician era: If it disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, it cannot be so. The Bible trumps everything.

BTW, is this subject even considered in the 28? Nor was the nature of homosexuality ever addressed in the Bible; promiscuous practice, both hetero and homo was. All sex is NOT promiscuous; nor is it beautiful and "approved" only if it is heterosexual, like the "missionary position" taught as the only proper way by missionaries several centuries ago.

Raymond,

You state, "Biological differences were at the core of the Holocaust extermination of Jews, Homosexuals, Roma Gypsies, and the Physically & Mentally Handicapped."

There is an interesting book out that I only browsed at Borders the other day that I may purchase on Amazon entitled "Liberal Fascism" by Goldberg.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/038...

While I am convinced NO BOOK gets it just right, I think there are some concepts and attitudes shown by Hitler that may be close to "progressivism" that they might well consider as their own "dark side.". Understandably they will not appreciate the label which they have often associated with conservative thought.

Remember, I think it was in 1936 I believe, that Hitler was Time Magazines "Man of the Year." He was definitely not a promoter of "conservative" thought but of a "form" of totalitarianism which defined acceptable community thought. He was praised by progressive/liberal thought in Europe and the USA. Several high positioned people in the "inner sanctums" of the Reich were reportably known practicing homosexuals and avid vegetarians according to Goldberg's documentation.(No guilt by association...just the facts)

Particularly dangerous to conservative thought is a gatekeeper mentality and definition of who is "intolerant" according to the perceived views of "progressivism." The "conservatism" I was raised with allowed for the true meaning of toleration.

My understanding of tolerance/acceptance/affirmation is above in this strand.

Also, it was the "progressive church" that aided Hitler, Bonhoeffer appealed for a return to religious "orthodoxy" in the "German Church" calling "his movement" the "Confessing Church."

Regards,
pat

Raymond, I think that you do a masterful job of beginning to address this common misconception.

A correlating misconception, as intimated above, is that "liberals will be tolerant of anything." But the fact is that it is irrational to believe realities that are often mutually exclusive. Bonhoeffer, a tolerant progressive Christian, gave his life in an attempt to stop the race and sexuality-based hatred of Hitler.

But the difference is that being progressively tolerant means accepting people who can't change who they are (race, gender, sexual identity). On the other hand, it's fine to not tolerate discriminatory ideas, because they can change.

By not tolerate I mean publicly engage and intellectually destroy, but at least, in my case, I do believe in the human right to represent even wacky views -- perhaps why I study art and religion! : )

I do think that globalization raises very difficult questions for folks from the right to the left. I recall that Pat is troubled by our US immigration non-policy, one that has helped many families from the 2/3rds world. I read a good piece in the Atlantic which I'll be posting on, but for now I think that it's dangerous to use the 2/3rds world to score a point here or there when the reality is more complex than which American ideology they sound like.

Back to the topic of tolerance, the difference between "being born gay" and thinking that "homosexuality is a sin" is that the first is not a choice and the second is. And one of the big ideas that lies behind the teachings of Christ from Matt 5 to John 4 to the good Samaritan to the Pharisee's prayer is that it is supremely good to make the choice to embrace those who don't have one.

The difference lies in where we place our emphasis for change first: on others or on me.

Raymond,

Thank you for your very gracious response, which was very well articulated. I can agree with a lot of what you said.

But just to summarize what I believe you are saying: You say that it is not all right to be intolerant of someone for who they are (ie., race, sexuality, etc.). However, it is all right to be intolerant of someone's actions and what they do, the attitude they have.

Is this a good summary of how you feel? In other words, applying it to those in the "Third World," you are not intolerant of them as human beings and their natural place in life, but of the attitude they have, and the actions that they extend. Is that correct?

Well, assuming this is correct, let's apply that same principle to the statement that I am assuming you have a problem with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the part of the position statement that you find repulsive:

"Societies may establish laws providing new definitions for marriage or protecting a range of expressions and behavior associated with gender identity. Seventh-day Adventists believe that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship[1] and that the Bible makes no accommodation for homosexual activity or lifestyle.[2] The Church does not accept the idea of same-sex marriages nor does it condone homosexual practices or advocacy. The application and practice of these beliefs in cultures that adopt other norms for such relationships is likely to be a focal point of dispute."

Nowhere in this statement is intolerance shown for who a person is (ie., gender, race, sexuality, etc.), but the actions they engage in. The people who wrote this made sure to carefully say that "the Bible makes no accommodation for homosexual activity or lifestyle." By your definition, it is all right to be intolerant of a person's actions, so long as we are not intolerant of the things they do not have control over (ie., race, gender, sexuality, etc.).

I think you are reading too much into this statement, not realizing that many "conservatives" (like me) do not necessarily believe that homosexual orientation is always a choice. There are a number of us who readily admit that it can be genetic - something that a person did not choose. Now, if you want to squabble about whether homosexual "activity" and "lifestyle" should be permissible, that is another issue that does not relate to a person's tolerance/intolerance over the way a person is, apart from their own choice.

But the above "Position Statement" makes no judgment, whatsoever, about a person's being, orientation, or disposition. Such a view would, indeed, be intolerant, but by your very definition of what is and is not acceptable tolerance/intolerance, you must allow the Position Statement the liberty to discriminate against a person for the actions they take part in. You allow yourself such liberty.

Lastly, I have not taken a poll (and I'm willing to guess you haven't either) to see where the majority of Adventists stand on this issue, but I would be willing to bet that this statement is reflective of the majority of Seventh-day Adventists. Not every minority view is reflected in every Position Statement we make, nor should it be. Such Position Statements are supposed to be reflective of the overall thought of the denomination, not present every single view-point that pockets of Adventism may have.

Pat, if you want to expose your thinking on biblical literalism, global warming denial, political conservatism, and finger-wagging at homosexuals as based on browsing books in Barnes and Noble, be my guest.

Here you cite a book that you haven't even read because it supports an idea you like. You haven't evaluated its argument much less its sources. I've seen you make this mistake on the ex-gay citation which used Collins research even though Collins himself then said that's not what the research means. My argument is not with your ideology, but with your method.

In fact, TIME puts all kinds of bad people as the Person of the Year, it's not an award, but a measure of the Zeitgeist, it's a measure of influence, not morality.

No one less than Jon Stewart destroys Goldberg's arguments.

If you want something a little more substantive, I recommend this review by David Neiwert.

What goes missing from Goldberg's account of fascism is that, while he describes nearly every kind of liberal enterprise or ideology as representing American fascism, he wipes from the pages of history the fact that there have been fascists operating within the nation's culture for the better part of the past century. Robert O. Paxton, in his book The Anatomy of Fascism, identifies the Ku Klux Klan as the first genuine fascist organization, a suggestion that Goldberg airily dismisses with the dumb explanation that the Klan of the 1920s disliked Mussolini and his adherents because they were Italian (somewhat true for a time but irrelevant in terms of their ideological affinities, which were substantial enough that by the 1930s, historians have noted, there were frequent operative associations between Klan leaders and European fascists).

Beyond the Klan, completely missing from the pages of Goldberg's book is any mention of the Silver Shirts, the American Nazi Party, the Posse Comitatus, the Aryan Nations, or the National Alliance -- all of them openly fascist organizations, many of them involved in some of the nation's most horrific historical events. (The Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, was the product of a blueprint drawn up by the National Alliance's William Pierce.) Goldberg sees fit to declare people like Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Hillary Clinton "American fascists," but he makes no mention of William Dudley Pelley, Gerald L.K. Smith, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Potter Gale, Richard Butler, or David Duke -- all of them bona fide fascists: the real thing.

When a conservative (Goldberg) argument consists of, "I know you are, but what am I?" it's clear that he hasn't been doing his reading either.

Furthermore, it is painting with a very broad brush to color the Nazi-collaborating Christians as liberal. Both the Confessing and the German Christian movement exhibited liberal and conservative aspects, from approaches to patriotism to doctrines of sin. Even on the Confessing Church side, you have very different theologies in Niemoller and Bonhoeffer.

But returning to Raymond's point and the arguments thus far, let's be very careful about how we define the word tolerant. I wonder if there is a difference for a majority of Adventists between acceptance of homo-love vs. homo-sex? Anyone here think that the Bible condemns same-sex physicality, but condones two men deeply in love?

Shawn:

Thank you for your thoughtful rejoinder. I’m wondering though, if by using the phrasing “pockets of Adventism” you are inferring that progressive Adventists do not represent the ethos of Adventism? I’m also concerned about the notion of what defines “Adventism.” Does the simple majority of our membership (a majority that, among Protestant religions around the world, are more likely to not be educated beyond primary schooling, let alone secondary schooling) define the mainstream of Adventism? This would alarm many theologians—it might even put them out of a job, after all if we can have “lay theologians” why have theologians at all?

Let us now turn to the issue of human sexuality. Because I view the action of sex between two people in a committed relationship as morally neutral, provided both individuals consent to one another, as a beautiful expression of our God-given sexuality and therefore morally neutral. With respect to the sexual orientation of heterosexuality and homosexuality there can be morally abhorrent actions that take place regardless of an individuals’ orientation. There exist both homosexuals and heterosexuals who are child molesters or pedophiles, but either sexual orientation does not exclusively beget pathologies.

Consider this: FBI and clinical psychological studies have shown that within an equal sampling of heterosexual and homosexual males (across socio-economic status, age, martial status for heterosexuals) there will be a three times greater percentage of child molesters among the heterosexuals. Which would indicate that children must be protected by society against heterosexual males?

There are many individuals who advocate that homosexuals are ______ (dangerous, abhorrent, molesters, pedophiles, sinners, etc.) and who fight to prevent the interaction between homosexual men and children on the basis of protecting children (most commonly opposing adoption rights for homosexual male couples) those advocates refuse to confront FBI Crime Statistics and clinical research, why is this? I don’t have a complete answer to that question but I would reason that the intolerant position that homosexuals cannot express their sexuality in covenantal relationships might have something to do with it. Although this is slightly aside from our main point of discussion, it is nonetheless an interesting and relative issue that stems from the perpetuated misunderstanding (or what my parents used to call “lies”) used to support religious beliefs that condone bigotry toward homosexuals.

The main point: if you acknowledge the findings of the scientific community then you have no choice (no pun intended) but to accept that sexuality is genetic. If sexuality is genetic then expression of that sexuality cannot be sinful—if it was that wouldn’t pass the simple logic test. Also it provides for a rather sadistic view of God. So in the case of homosexuality, progressives do not accept the argument that conservatives often promote: love the sinner, hate the sin.

What seems to be the Christian thing to do is to love humanity as God has directed (which is unconditionally) and leave judgment to the proper authority, the Almighty One.

Consider the rationality of the conservative argument if we substitute “left-handedness” for homosexuality, “right-handedness” for heterosexuality, “writing” for sexual intercourse, and “paper” for marriage. The argument would be constructed as thus:

Adam and Eve were “right-handed.” “Writing” is only for people who are “right-handed”
“Left-handed” people are abnormal. They cannot properly “write” the way God intended in the Edenic plan and should not be allowed to have “paper.”

“Paper” was meant for “right-handed” people. Institutions that grant “paper” to “left-handed” people are immoral, for morality is based on what was written in the Bible and the Genesis account holds that only “right-handed” people can properly “write” as God intended and therefore it is an abomination for “left-handed” people to ever have “paper.”

Or at the very least “left-handed” people can have “paper” but the Almighty has forbidden them from “writing.”

The absolute absurdity of the argument is better illustrated when we remove terms that we have been preconditioned to have emotional opinions toward because of conservative distortions.

Precisely because I serve a God of inclusive, unconditional love and because I am not responsible for the judgment of one’s sexuality I choose to honor God by loving my homosexual brothers and sisters and to honor the God-given gift of human sexuality—in all of it’s forms—to be cherished and enjoyed by homosexuals.

For me and other progressives the “love the sin, hate the sinner” argument is yet another, in a line of misconceptions, that conservatives employ to condone bigotry.

Well, on the basis of the premise that every person is allowed to simply carry out the actions that their natures/orientations dictate, then you and I will have to disagree. Because of God's character of love, He allows all sorts of people to be born with all sorts of proclivities that were not in the Edenic design. This has never been a good excuse to follow those proclivities, however.

And if our tolerance for those who were born with homosexual orientations necessitates we allow them the "privilege" of simply following their "orientations," I'm afraid we will never have any justification for insisting anyone should stop doing whatever they're doing. This is not to say that we are ever justified in standing in judgment of people, but we are called - according to Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5 - to lovingly steer people back in the right direction. (I suppose those individuals Paul addressed in that chapter - those who were sleeping with their "father's wives" - felt as though they were simply following the orientation that they were born with also. And whose to say they weren't?)

Lastly, PLEASE do not try to imply that the Position Statement is intolerant of people's orientation, when what you are really trying to justify is allowing people to follow whatever sexual urge or orientation they may have. I could very well make the argument that every human being's natural born orientation is to be polygamous, incestuous, or the like - and I doubt that so-called "enlightened" science would contradict that - and we would, therefore, have no right to insist that a person gives these things up, either. Again, please allow your "logic" to be utilized by anyone else who would like to justify what their natures "force" them to do.

Hi Alex,

Nothing new to say that would not be redundant as part of our previous dialogues or "expert" sources.

Perhaps as Dave L. says at times, "fair enough." Which basically means I can be charitable and agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Pat :~)

I see in the letter addressed to Dr. Paulson and the responses to the letter very little substance. We, as Seventh-Day Adventists, used to be people of the word. Though we may have had disagreements, our disagreements were over the correct interpretation of biblical verses that applied to specific bible doctrines.

In these responses, I see very little bible that would back up what these people are saying. Perhaps it is because Adventism has grown beyond the use of the bible and now it has gone in the "way that man thinketh to be right". There are only two ways of life, one to death and one to life. God tells us in his word that "the way that man thinketh to be right is the way unto death". What this means is that I could wholly sympathize with the GLBT community, I could love them, I could rationalize with them (with the bible as my foundation) and still reject their lifestyle, and still reject advocacy of their lifestyle with the bible as my foundation for doing so. I may love them and be dispositionally proned to agree with their lifestyle while still rejecting it from a biblical standpoint.

I believe it God's word that should be our foundation, not our desires. Again the word of God says that "The way that man thinketh right is the way unto death". Again, the word of God is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Once we leave God out of our argument we are arguing within the line of death.

Raymond, you may have thought about this a lot, but our church is not an institution, we do not own it, we do not even direct it. Our church is a movement, a message, a God-driven organization and our creed is the word of God and based on that creed we either reject or accept, tolerate or be intolerant of a lifestyle which is both antithetical to the model of God and the bible itself. If the Bible says an elder must be a husband of one wife, we cannot debate that, we cannot reconsider biblical interpretation, we must however live with it even though we disagree based on experience or emotion, for God ways are higher than mans ways, his thoughts are better than our thoughts.

May God bring us back to his Word as the foundation and substance of our lives. I truly believe that if we search the bible as David, until his eyes failed, we would not even be arguing these points.

David

Raymond,

You stated that sex between two people is morally neutral provided that there is mutual consent and committment? If this is your only criteria and marriage doesn't matter, then I must agree with Shawn; this seems to open up the idea, "everyone did what was right in their own eyes." In this particular case, it sets up the idea that serial monogamy, whether through the changing of committed dating partners or spouses through ones lifetime, is a viable moral option. As long as we're committed at the time, it's ok. If I outgrow the committment...well, people change.

Aside from the apparent contradiction of this with many biblical references that support life long monogamy as God's ideal...from the commandments, to Jesus' reference to creation in regard to divorce and marriage, to Jesus' discussion with the Samaritan woman, etc... what bothers me even more is the diminishing of the Bible itself to one of many equal forms of revelation, so to speak.

This is a position that is a marked break from Adventist thought, and something that is constantly promoted on this site as progressive... the product of advancements in education, science, etc. This diminution of the Bible, while sounding progressive and enlightened, as opposed to us the thinking of the unenlightened fundys, leads to what sounds like a moral relativism that is totally in step with the ethos of our day... everyone has their truth... let's just not step on each others toes.

Frank

Shawn,

Thank you again for the reply to my reply to your reply to my original blog post (for those keeping a tally). I think we can actually disagree on some issues between the two of us, yet demonstrate to our beloved Adventist brothers and sisters that we need not be hostile to one another.

You state that the basis of the premise would allow everyone to “simply carry out the actions that their natures/orientations dictate” and you are right that we will have to disagree, but my disagreement is with your mischaracterization of my statement. The premise held that human sexuality is a God-given identity and as such does not have exclusive morality implications. The argument followed:

1. Sexuality is a God-given identity.
2. God does not make people morally “good” or “bad.” (Adventism does not advocate predestination)
3. Sexuality is part of the human condition and there are males and females who are homosexual or heterosexual.
4. Expressed human sexuality is morally neutral.
5. Therefore, because God has given sexuality as identity and both homosexuality and heterosexuality are part of human sexual identity, one cannot hold that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is morally wrong without implying that the whole of human sexuality is morally wrong.

I would be interested in reviewing the argument that you claim you could make “that every human being's natural born orientation is to be polygamous, incestuous, or the like.” Yet before you begin to type that, please explain to me what you mean to imply when you use the phrasing “so-called "enlightened" science.”

Your statement “And if our tolerance for those who were born with homosexual orientations necessitates we allow them the "privilege" of simply following their "orientations," I'm afraid we will never have any justification for insisting anyone should stop doing whatever they're doing.” This statement is completely “out there,” to borrow a colloquialism.

The "privilege" of simply following one’s nature (provided that nature is not pathological)? When does simply being (and I would challenge anyone to illustrate how someone can “be” something and not “act” on that something, but I digress) become a privilege? I’m not aware that it has.

To stat that Paul’s statement to “…those who were sleeping with their "father's wives"…” would have Paul condemned by the premise (and as you hold, logical progression) of my argument is simply not a truthful statement. You are trying to equate what sexuality is with what one does with their sexuality which is cognitive dissonance.

Human sexuality—homosexuality and heterosexuality—are the biologically givens, how socio-religious beliefs influence a population’s view (or moral implications toward) expression of the homosexuality or heterosexuality is something entirely different. Being homosexual or heterosexual is morally neutral. How one acts on their sexuality determines the morality (not the mere expression). Heterosexuality or homosexuality, expressed between two consenting individuals in a committed, covenantal relationship, is healthy and “good” for one’s sexuality.

Those who misunderstand human sexuality make the distinction between “Right” and “Wong” Expression of Sexuality as thus:

Right Expression of Sexuality:
Heterosexual Sexual Intercourse

Wrong Expression of Sexuality:
Homosexuality Sexual Intercourse
Incest Intercourse
Polygamy
Child Molestation (Pedophilia)
Rape
Masturbation
(And other deviants)

Human Sexuality Research holds that the following model is what best reflects human sexuality:

Healthy Expressions of Sexuality:
1. Sexual Intercourse in Same-sex Relationships
2. Sexual Intercourse in Opposite-sex Relationships
3. Solo Sexual Intercourse through Masturbation

Deviations of Healthy Expressions of Sexuality:
1. Same-sex & Opposite-sex Rape
2. Same-sex & Opposite-sex Child Molestation (Pedophilia)
3. Same-sex & Opposite-sex Polygamy
4. Same-sex & Opposite-sex Incest
5. Habitual Solo Masturbation

While this is a good illustration of the difference between traditionalist and progressive views on human sexuality, the point of the letter is to impress upon the General Conference leadership the importance having their statements in given speeches reflect their actions in elected office. President Paulsen has said in speeches and interviews much that I can agree with, however, the actions under his tenure in office have often not been reflective of his statements.

Frank,

Your write, “You stated that sex between two people is morally neutral provided that there is mutual consent and commitment?” Once again, the opposition seems to be best suited by mischaracterizing my statements to better suit their arguments, this is a common tool among ideologues (I’m not sure if you are one, just an observation).

What I stated was that sexual intercourse between two individuals in a commit, covenantal relationship (be it called marriage, union, partnership, coupling, dating, pairing, etc.) is a healthy avenue for two people to express their human sexuality.

If “marriage” is not an option for homosexuals (in part advocated so conservatives can advance homophobic policies) then same-sex relationships then how no avenue to “officially” commit themselves to one another and bigoted statements are more easily made to target them because of their sexuality.

You wrote, “This diminution of the Bible, while sounding progressive and enlightened, as opposed to us the thinking of the unenlightened fundys, leads to what sounds like a moral relativism that is totally in step with the ethos of our day... everyone has their truth... let's just not step on each others toes.”

I couldn’t disagree more with your oversimplification of the matter. 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.

I don’t rely on quotes without interpretation and principles of biblical hermeneutics to come to a complete understanding of what God’s will. Although I am familiar with many quotes that give “anecdotal weight to my argument”' so I will share some of those:

"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." - Ellen White in “Counsels to Writers & Editors”

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” – Saint Paul

“Give, and it shall be given to you. For whatever measure you deal out to others, it will be dealt to you in return.”

I choose to give “love” to my GLBT Adventist brothers and sisters in Christ. I choose to “measure and deal out” compassion and to challenge my brothers and sisters to better reflect God’s love and Christ’s character as we move along this spiritual journey together.

“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” - 1 Peter 4:8-9

“Seek peace, and pursue it.” - Proverbs 34:14

Long have I sought peace for our moderate, progressive, and liberal Adventist brothers and sisters and long shall I pursue it, until that day that the leadership of the General Conference shall reflect the members they lead.

I see the struggles in other denominations and religions over this issue, and the growing body of research that supports the biological determinants of homosexuality (not to mention transsexuality and intersexuality) as signs that God is revealing present truth and that we ought to be listening and studying. Can it be that our denomination has refused to get involved in this issue out of fear?

Frank, you bring up serial monogamy, which is a growing problem for heterosexuals, is it not? I know of one gay couple who will soon be celebrating their golden anniversary, and many others who have been together for 15 to 30 years. True, some gay relationships do not survive, but should that be held against them any more than we do against heterosexual couples who divorce. I doubt if many of either orientation go into a relationship with the thought that "if this doesn't work out, we can just end it and try again."

I know that many believe "the Bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is a sin," but have they really studied the few texts without the blinders of prejudice? I have spent the past nearly 20 years studying many theological essays written about these biblical texts and the Bible is NOT abundantly clear about this.

Carrol:

I believe our dear friend Cliff once wrote, "the Bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is a sin" I join you in realizing that the biblical texts and the Bible is NOT abundantly clear about this!

Late in life W.C. Fields was discovered in his garden reading his Bible. He looked up and said: "I'm looking for loop holes!"

Raymond--There aren't any!

If you are asking the President of the General Conference to admit gays to active open fellowship without first abandoning their gay lifestyle you are running against the plain word of God. Sexual activity was to be "fruitful and multiple." A microcosm of the creative power and acts of God Himself. To pervert that priviledge is is to dethrone God--the sinful attempt of Lucifer himself.
"Thus saith the Lord" should be sufficient. Read Romans 1. for starters. If you have a calling from the Lord, it certainly isn't white washing. We are sinners all. But we don't excuse our sins we confess and with the Lord's help abandon them. If I understand your argument it is that same sex relationships are not sinnful. That is neither Biblical nor sensible. Tom

Hi Raymond...

Thanks for responding.

In the original post that I responded to, you never used the word covenental to describe an appropriate relationship within which to express human sexuality. Unless I misread, I don't think that I am misquoting your statement. But, if you are now introducing this term on a biblical basis to characterize other forums for appropriate sexual expression, this opens up a whole different kettle of fish.

The only sexual relationship that I see consistently referred to in this covenental manner in the Bible is the marriage relationship. The oneness /echad of the man and the woman in Genesis, the two becoming one flesh, somehow reflects the oneness/echad of the one God of Israel..."the Lord our God is one." Paul in Ephesians likens the relationship of husbands loving their wives to Christ's covenant love for his church. Imagery and references like these abound throughout the testaments.

Please don't mischaracterize me, and assume that I am saying that I know the mind of God fully. I would ask for the same consideration and openess for which you are asking. All I am saying, is that if one is to try and make a case for the appropriate covenental and committed conditions for human sexual expression from the Bible alone, it is a really tough go to try to find anything else sanctioned other than marriage.

Also, while you state that "God does not make people good or bad, (Adventism does not hold to pre-destination)," the Bible, to me, indicates that we, in our present condition are fallen. Just reading Romans 1&2, one finds a picture of human distortion (and as traditionally stated, depravity) that is hard to refute. Everything about us is affected... from our concepts of God, to our interpersonal relating, and even to our sexual drives and expressions. On this basis, to say that human sexual expression is morally neutral, again is a tough go to me...unless I am misunderstanding what you mean.

I would certainly be interested to see the sources from which you quote regarding research on healthy human sexuality. I would like to see more than a simple listing. With that said, I think we've arrived at a deeper issue, and that is, is the Bible one of many equal sources of truth that is to determine our being, our relating and our worldview, or is it the highest revelation of truth in determining every other source of information? Or maybe our disagreement is on how one relates these particulars to the overall ethos of love that the Bible so clearly enunciates.

Of course, I agree with you that we should act in Christian love and benevolence towards all, whether we agree or not. This is what the entire Law and Prophets hangs upon...to borrow a phrase. It is the highest form of truth. And isn't that the point? If you conscientiously disagree with my lifestyle or choices based on your understanding of how the Bible speaks, does that make you unloving even if you in good consciense can't legitimize what I am doing? Would it make me, if I disagreed with you on the same basis? It's how we treat one another that counts, of course. It's leaving God as the judge that counts, as you said.

There are many issues that I personally wish that the church would "come up to speed" on. Some of them, for the Adventist church, like this one, would be pretty radical.

A change of this order would be a radical departure in the understanding of Adventism at large. It would have to be arrived at, as you intimated, through solid biblical principle and hermenutic, and much engagement like this.

Only time will tell if this will ever come about...

Thanks...

Frank

Tom, if the only sexual activity that God approves is that which is fruitful what do we do about heterosexual marriages where there is no possibility of fruitfulness - husband or wife is infertile, both are beyond the age of child-bearing, or surgery has made child-bearing impossible. Is sexual activity in those case sinful?

Regarding celibacy and falling in love.

I'm a straight woman and I was luckily enough to marry my best friend and soul mate. If, for some reason, someone told me I could never again have sex with him I would really miss it but that would be nothing compared to being told I could never fall in love with him. Having him as my life partner, my cheerleader, my best buddy and friend throughout has been, without a doubt, the most life-enhancing, joy-bringing experience of my life. I simply couldn't imagine never being able to have that experience and being denied the hope of ever having it.

Single heterosexual people may not be in a relationship now but there is always hope if they decide that they would rather be in one. I simply cannot fathom telling someone else, you may not fall in love EVER, you must never even get close to others you are attracted to for the fear you might fall in love, you must realize that all those feelings of love you might be having are sick, and you have no hope of that ever changing. And by the way, I love you (in a Christian way of course.)

If all marriages are to be "fruitful and multiply, Carrol has stated why that would eliminate many marriages of those who have no hope of having children. What about them? There is the largest Christian church who is against contraception because it is "frustrating the divine command."

Beth, that is the predicament as you stated so well: To be denied ANY expression of love (which is, for most part NOT in sexual acts) is to forever realize that you cannot hope to have what your heterosexual friends have, or the expectation of ever fulfilling them.
It also raises the question: how many heterosexuals here, made a conscious decision one day: "I intend to a heterosexual." Or, "I intend to choose homosexuality." Unless the heteros can identify exactly when they made that choice, why refuse to admit that homosexuals also did not CHOOSE their orientation, it was a natural as your choosing to be heterosexual? The difference: as a hetero you have choices of loving and/or marrying your lifetime partner. As someone with a homosexual orientation, it is hopeless, if you follow what those here who have proclaimed God's will prohibits any physical expression and you will forever be denied the love that all humans need and want.

To reduce homosexuality to merely heterosexual acts is to trivialize the entire idea of sexuality. Do heterosexuals speak of the physical intimacies as being the most important part of who they are? I daresay it is a very personal and private matter they do not discuss with anyone but their partner. Why presume that homosexuals are only bent on one thing: the ability to engage in physical intimaces. Does that also describe heterosexuals? A lifetime committed relationship will not last long if it is only held together by sexual acts.

I finally got my copy of "The Bible Tells Me So" and just watched it tonight. I wish that those on this forum who are so strongly opposed to homosexuality would be willing to watch it, along with two other films I've seen recently: "Anyone and Everyone" and "The Laramie Project." I think our discussion might then continue on a different level. These films say so effectively what I would like to say.

Just as Christians in the past have used the Bible to discriminate against and abuse Jews, women and people of color, so today many in the church are using the Bible to marginalize and reject homosexuals. I believe the church is once again in the wrong and will someday look back in shame at its mistakes.

Someone just sent me this devotional from Roger Bothwell, and I thought it was appropriate for this subject.
**********
The Core Truth

Each of us is a one of a kind being. Each of us is so unique there isn't another of the billions who are alive that is exactly like us. Each of us is a unique combination of intellect, visual acuity, hearing sensitivity, education, experience and beliefs. Because we use all of the above to
record experiences no one sees, hears or experiences anything exactly the same as another. Because we are unique our experiences are unique. My world is not your world nor is yours mine. Two children raised in the same home are raised in different homes. One is in a home with a younger sibling and the other in a home with an older sibling.

Why am I bothering to make this point? As I passed two students in the hall today I overheard them arguing about the meaning of a Bible verse. Both were deeply sincere and convicted their interpretation was exactly what God meant. When I realized one was from New York City and the other from
Bermuda it became so very obvious that each brought such different backgrounds to the text it was impossible for them to see it exactly the same as the other. Even though I sit through the same church service with my wife each of us hear a different sermon. Again I ask why am I making this point. Tolerance. We need to give each other room for variance. None
of us has either all truth or perhaps any perfect truth of anything. Paul said in I Corinthians 2:2, " For I am determined not know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." This and this alone is set in concrete.

Alexander
For an interesting discussion on the role of liberalism in the rise of Nazi Germany and also imperialistic attitudes to Africa have a look at Susannah Heschel (Abraham Heschel's daughter) http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/education/?institute-2008&p=schedule&ti...
She compares the liberalism in Germany and its attitude towards the "uncivilised Africans" to the attitude of many current liberals to fundamentalists. Interesting viewing.

Back in the early 1970s I took a graduate course at Columbia University with Robert Merton, the famous sociologist. In setting out to illustrate the sociological term "pluralistic ignorance", he told us of research among the Methodist hierarchy in Texas which seems relevant to our situation as Adventists. The researcher was focusing on a conference committee, and set out to interview each member of it in turn. The first explained that every member of the committee except for himself was very conservative, and that he had made it his practice to go along with the majority in order not to make waves. As the interviews continued, the researcher was amazed to find that each committee member said much the same thing: each claimed to be the only liberal or open-minded member, but to go along with the majority for the sake of peace! I have often wondered to what extent this is true of delegates at Adventist Annual Councils, members of the GC Committee, local union and conference committees, even church boards? I used to think that the phrase "in the closet" applied only to some gays and lesbians, but it obviously has a much wider application. To what extent do Adventists operate in "pluralistic ignorance"?

Ron, that's a great illustration. Think of all the times in a committee or church board meeting that when the discussion is finally edging out into broader pastures, someone will say something like "I really think we have to remember who we are worshiping" or "who we represent" or "who we as SDA's are" and the whole flock runs back into familiar territory.

I haven't been able to read word for word all the comments here (there is a lot written) but this finger pointing over who is tolerant and who isn't is rather pointless. Jesus was quite intolerant when it came to religious leaders. If Micah 6:8 is applied we have what is required. Then we could discuss how to make sense of two seemingly inconsistent commands, justice and mercy. Not only that, but in the process stay humble.

Dick
Great contribution to a very vexing problem facing the Christian Church. I have difficulty with the application of the word liberal when the action advocated is permissive.

Nor do I understand the progressive "bravery" of one "lecturing" the President of a church body for holding fast to the mission statement or creed of that institution.

Certain the previous thread as well as this one has created more heat that light.

I see no advancement for the Church for Dr. Paulsen to place this issue on any forth coming agenda. I guess having ones say is a catharsis.

Your comment is a most suitable benediction. Tom

Dr Lawson,

The idea has been repeated over and over on this blog that sexual orientation is genetic or biological. Therefore, according to some, its expression is not a choice. Do you agree with this conclusion and if so is there scientific confirmation for this assertion?

I also would like hear your opinion, as a sociologist, regarding the debate between essentialist and social constructionist theorists. Thanks! Here's the quote and reference I previously posted on this site but which didn't seem to advance the conversation:

"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."

- 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,

I'm confused. Paulsen's statement was neither a mission statement nor part of the "Creed." So far, it has not been mentioned in the official 28 Fundamentals, nor is it in the baptismal vows. Nor am I certain that they would or should do so. How much authority do such announcements have? Each church has the right and privilege to accept or reject its members. It is also my understanding that there is autonomy in each church for disfellowshipping; IOW, the conferences cannot step in and change those decisions. This was tried with Des Ford, you remember, and unsuccessful.

BTW, what are you implying by "I have difficulty with the application of the word liberal when the action advocated is permissive."

How do you see a "permissive" action in opposing Paulsen's statement? Has the Christian church not advanced when it has discarded many of the former "sinful" acts such as attending the theater, card playing, dancing, total alcohol abstention, and even jewelry? Should we not continually see that there is progressive truth and progressive revelation in interpreting the Bible? It has been noted above that the Bible has been so read in the past to condone slavery, antisemitism, and polygamy. What is different today: we "see" things differently. That's the crux of the situation: none of us reads without our own interpretation of what is read. How can all agree? Impossible. The one thing that is possible, is that we can refuse to allow discrimination. Just as the church, only too lately, adopted equality of race; there is still room for more inclusiveness, rather than exclusiveness. Since we do not make judgment on who enters the kingdom (I daresay there will be many surprises), how dare we do the judging (which is none of our business), and thus play God?

Wayne,

"Thank you for this site and lecture.Susannah Heschel (Abraham Heschel's daughter) http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/education/?institute-2008&p=schedule&ti...
She compares the liberalism in Germany and its attitude towards the "uncivilised Africans" to the attitude of many current liberals to fundamentalists. Interesting viewing."

It is interesting also that she said it was not the dogma group of protestantism but the "liberal protestants" who had cut their "teeth" in the german theological School views that was the basis of the "Nazi Church." For those interested it is about 40 minutes into the talk. This is not a "literalist,conservative, or fundamentalist Protestant talking" it is a Jew well familiar with the holocost.

This Alex is what I have refered to previously. Do away with scripture's meanings through lower and higher criticism of heaven and miracles, atonement etc.making them but largely metaphors and I believe "liberal religion" is left with making a kingdom on earth as it's goal and purpose...it uses religion as a utilitarian tool to accomplish it's purposes...it can be dangerous with those who oppose being merely backward literalist and fundamentalist!

pat

Carol and Elaine:

I used Creed loosely. For 44 years my theology was congruent with the basic beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. During that period, I enjoyed not only fellowship but membership and active leadership and stewardship. In 1983 (abouts) My beliefs were no longer congruent. I chose to severe my membership but not my fellowship--when ever and where ever possible. of course, I also chose to make my position clear on all points in which the stated beliefs of the church and I disagreed.

I believe I did the right thing for me and for the church that nurtured me. My basic premise is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a true Christian body that has unique beliefs that I find unacceptable. I believe I have the obligation to share my understanding with leadership. However, I don't believe I have either the right or the responsibility to reject them, even if I disagree. If one is comfortable in their skin, so be it. I see no need to try and make someone else conform to my position. In most states it takes only three adults to form a church corporation. Let those of any sexual persuasion form their own corporate structure and worship God according to their understanding. There is no need to "convert" others against their will.
That is what Freedom of Religion means in these United States.

Tom

I find it interesting that Pat points out the dangers of liberal religionists using religion as a utilitarian tool for its own purposes.

He is quite right. It is right to point out that religious conservatives also use religion as a tool. Some, like myself and other GLBT Adventists, have seen it used as a weapon.

No one group is immune from using religion for its own purposes. Certainly not the leadership of the SDA church, its purpose is to maintain an earthly international corporation with hundreds of subsidiaries, thousands of branches and millions of customers.

Carlitas,
You are correct...no one is immune or exempt.

Peter Berger,church sociologist, states that no matter the political agenda of the religious left or right, there are times when the "political and cultural agenda is elevated to the status of the gospel . . . all such politicization is an act of implicit excommunication. But, in politicizing its message, the church is actually excommunicating itself!"

Thus the need of the church to be aware that we live in the realm of "Two Kingdoms." The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of this world. Their puposes will never be completely compatible. This does not mean individual input in this world is unnecessary by Christians...but I believe we must always be aware of the different objectives or we will be caught up in this kingdom as was the "German Church."

Regards

pat

So what is new? Man has used God for man's own purpose since the Biblical story began. The Christ event was to demonstrate
man's folly and God's Grace. Thanks be to God. Tom

I don't think there's scientific confirmation of the claim that all human beings are born heterosexual or that heterosexuality is genetic. Then, why do people ask for scientific confirmation regarding homosexuality?

Since when do we appeal to science for doctrine? The Scriptures state God created Male and Female. For His purposes as well as ours. Tom

Tom said: "Let those of any sexual persuasion form their own corporate structure and worship God according to their understanding. There is no need to "convert" others against their will."

I see those of us who hope to see the church grow in understanding as the "loyal opposition." Is it wrong to work within the church for reform and change? One reason why your suggestion doesn't work is that gays and lesbians are not solitary persons. They have families and friends who all want to worship together within the same church family.

When I read Scripture I do see marriage as practiced shifting from creation's heterosexual monogamy to plural marriages and back to heterosexual marriage. I don't think one could argue that multiple wives are what God had in mind but certainly God found a way around all that to extend such blessings to Abraham and Jacob's progeny. Anyways I said quite a bit already on our old blog discussions here and here.

I will admit to holding the view that sexual expressions belong inside of heterosexual marriage and that such marriage seems to be advised for us throughout the text. I however look forward to having this view tested because frankly just because something is traditionally held doesn't make it worth keeping. The church has the same responsibility to answer its critics as they do to make their case.

For those who haven't read the statement which prompted Raymonds letter, it can be read here.

I am also excited about Christianity And Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives which is edited by David Ferguson, Fritz Guy & David Larson and can be pre-ordered here.

There is a difference between holding one view and being committed to seeing it tested with an open mind and seeing oneself as defending truth while refusing to consider new contributions. I think it's important to, as Carol Grady reminds us, remember that this is not a theoretical discussion, it is very much about our families and loved ones. That fact prompts me to see this question as one which will test the best of our tradition, specifically our ability to seek pressent truth as a united church. Indeed it was this post by Raymond which prompted me to write about the beauty of progressive Adventism.

Perhaps a solution to gays and lesbians in the church might be some variation on the following idea:

This approach would benefit the mainstream church and its gay-lesbian-transgender members/visitors.

This approach is for spiritual minded folk who seriously love Christ and who want to maintain a love relationship with him.

More important than the actual sex is the companionship that any relationship provides.

Heterosexuals that have been married for years sometimes have sex out of courtesy and not because they are inflamed with passion for each other.

The proposal: in the same way that heterosexuals who are unmarried cannot have sex but can embrace and provide companionship for each other, and with great restraint might even live close to each other or in the same building or suite, gay-lesbians-transgender members/visitors of the Adventist church should be accorded the same privilege.

Yes sex is important in human life, but companionship and moral support for each other is even more important.

Of course, some mainstream members might question whether gay couples could live together or near each other without the temptation to "go all the way" but that can also be said for unmarried heterosexual members. (Some conservative members who divorced, and not because of adultery, might find someone they love, but feel in their conscience that they should never remarry, but must remain celibate all their life. They would be in the same sexless situation that celibate, but committed gay/lesbian/transgender couples would be.)

Through prayer and bible study and a loving support community, it is certainly possible to live with the one you love or close to that person, and still enjoy a celibate life. There are heterosexual couples that have greater pleasure in sharing a meal together or taking in a museum exhibit regularly than the actual pursuit of the perfect orgasm and it's aftermath. Some put up with less-than-ideal sex, in order to enjoy the intimacy after all the mechanics of sex have taken its biological course.

I often wonder about homosexual couples in heaven. They, presumably, like other "angelic" beings will live and love each other without resorting to the sexual act.

Some will find problems with this approach, perhaps thinking it impractical. Perhaps others will find it a stepping stone to greater solutions for gay/lesbian/transgender folk, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples in the Adventist-Christian community.

God bless all his children, heterosexual, gay, lesbian, transgender.

You have to love a "sincere spiritual discussion" with no spiritual guidance other than the cultural jesus.

As someone else comments:

"May God bring us back to his Word as the foundation and substance of our lives. I truly believe that if we search the bible as David, until his eyes failed, we would not even be arguing these points."

And yet there were no biblical based responses.... Shame that...

We do not even adhere to all of the NT instructions regarding social situations: women covering their heads, not teaching men; but return to the OT to find much of the church's teaching that applied to an ancient, and 3,000-years-ago condition.

Wake up folks, we can never return to an imagined "Golden Age." An imagined and ideal state created only in our minds. It was a time when polygamy was normal (even in the OT there are instructions for husbands taking a second wife), women had no possession rights, they were property, and slavery was an accepted situationthey.

While some sing, "Give me that Old-Time Religion" no one would wish to return to the way it was then.

When Paul spoke of "men seeking men" (Jesus was entirely mum on this subject) he was keenly aware of the common Greek custom of men taking another male, preferably younger, as their lovers. He had a wife, usually, and this was an accepted practice. Paul also spoke strongly against loose heterosexual practices as well. There is nothing in the Bible indicating the slightest knowledge of genetic homosexual individuals. How could it? We have advanced far beyond them in medical, scientific, and psychologial studies.

We do not go to the Bible to learn of the proper treatment of disease do we? If we reject demonstrated studies on homosexuality, why not return to believing that the sun reolved around the earth? That was the religious common belief hundreds of years ago, and even the writer of Joshua believed it. If it's in the Bible it must be right :-)

Well, it seems to me that it became more important to us what people would say than what the Bible would say about something. Yes, Jesus loved sinners but did not condone their lifestyle. He forgave the adulteress, but said, "Go, and sin no more!" He did not say, "Ok, I know your struggles and worries and know that your husband does not care for you - therefore, I forgive you and give you the permission to go and finish what you have been interrupted in." He said, "Go, and sin no more!" He was inclusive to that woman, but exclusive to her sin. The same is with homosexuality.

The problem I see here (and some of you have made a very good point of it) is that we don't use the Bible any more. We are concerned about this world and about how to be inclusive to this and that, and yet tend to forget to be really concerned about what God will say about our behaviour. What many of us believe today in some cases is totally opposite to what we believed before. For instance, let us take premarital sex - few decades ago it was sin. Today - it's something almost normal. Some decades ago homosexuality was seen as sin among all Christians. Today? Not so much. Today pedophilia is sin. But, knowing what is going on in our society - are you willing and ready to put your hand in fire that it will remain the same even hundred years from now? As some of you probably know, Netherlands already has one political party which proclaims consensual sex with 12-year-olds! Today, they are seen as freaks. But are you really sure that the same will remain tomorrow? And for those of you who proclaim homosexuality "as long as there is loving relationship between same sex partners", would you dare to apply the same principle to the brother-sister, or mother-son relationship?

The problem with all this that we stopped carrying about God and His will as proclaimed and revealed in the Bible but started to worry about pleasing others. Instead of trying to please God we started to please first ourselves and then others. And our logic became, "if I like it and feel that it is right, I am gonna do it." We can even decide that some things from the Bible are not longer valid any more but, tell me, do you honestly think that God will bless that kind of decision?

God does not change. Are you trying to convince us that what he said was a sin before that it's no longer a sin? Because if you try to say that the Bible does not say anything against homosexuality or that biblical stance about homosexuality is somewhat rigid and thus outdated, then this is so also with biblical views on incest.

Ed's comment in straightforward and on track."God does not change. Are you trying to convince us that what he said was a sin before that it's no longer a sin?"

And Tom wrote: "Let those of any sexual persuasion form their own corporate structure and worship God according to their understanding. There is no need to "convert" others against their will."

I have often wondered why those who rail against the stated beliefs of the SDA Church don't just form their own. Why try to tear down the current convictions of many members?

While some say that God never changes, certainly the positions held today on social mores were not uppermost then.

God never spoke against slavery, which was a common practice during all the Bible times; God never spoke against polygamy, also commonly practiced then; God even ordered Israel's warriors to take beautiful young virgins as wives (presumambly a second one), when victorious in battle. There are many more.

God never wrote one single word of the Bible. It was man's writing and he wrote as he understood and interpreted the current religious belief of the Jews.

How can today's person return to such ancient practices because of what the Bible said? Is polygamy immoral or moral? Not according to the Bible. Should the position of women today revert to biblical times when they were a man's property and couldn't inherit property and could be given in marriage by her father? How many women can be convinced to return to those days?
How many men would like to return to the common practice of having several wives and/or concubines? When did God speak against Abraham's concubines? Or the other patriarchs?

No, the Bible does not address our social conditions today; conditions that were unrecognized then. There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that homosexuality as a condition from birth was even known. Then, you have the story of David and Jonathan, whom he loved more than the love of women. Does that sound a little unusual? Is there another similar story anywhere in the Bible? Wasn't David called a man after God's own heart?

If we first seek modern medical science for answers to biological problems, why return to an ancient text for scientific answers--answers that showed that the sun revolved around the earth, that old age never prevented impregnation, that slavery and polygamy is acceptable? We abuse the Bible and it becomes an idol with all the answers to everything that can be asked. Was it ever intended to perform such impossible duties?

For Peter and Ed and any others who want to discuss what the Bible says, I invite you to look at my series of Bible studies on this issue at my website, www.someone-to-talk-to.net It's much too long to put on this blog, but after reading them (completely, I hope) then we could discuss your reactions here.

And thanks to Johnny for being willing to consider other viewpoints with an open mind. That's all any of us can ask. I started out some 20 years ago with the same viewpoint as many of you have, but much prayerful study and getting to know hundreds of gays and lesbians (and transgendered and intersex people) and their families have combined to help me understand things differently.

Ed, I must respectfully disagree with your comparison of homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. Both of those are harmful to others, and I don't believe society at large will ever accept them. Of course, there will always be those who try to find acceptance for them. As for incest on the sibling level, presumably it must have happened in the beginning, and perhaps God later forbid it because of the genetic problems.

On the other hand, while many homosexuals may engage in harmful forms of sexual expression, there are many others who are just as faithful, true and loving to their partners as in any heterosexual marriage. We don't condemn heterosexual marriage because so many who engage in it are not faithful, do we?

Raul, I appreciate your creative suggestion as to a solution for gays and lesbians who love each other and who want a close and "intimate," though not sexual, relationship. You are right that sex is only a small part of what marriage involves, and probably some marriages do not involve sexual expression. I wonder if such an idea could ever be accepted, though. I suspect there would always be those who feel they could not be trusted.

I must admit that I (who am 71 and have been married for 51 years) had to smile, though, at your description of those who have been married for many years only having sex "out of courtesy"!

Carrol, no hard feelings. But I need to disagree with you (now we are even). You say that a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia or incest has no place. But how? For ancient Greeks pedophilia was something normal and noble. Today it is not. But who can guarantee either you or me that tomorrow the situation would not change? And I disagree with an opinion that incest makes harm to people. In what way? I'm not talking about father raping his eight-year-old daughter. I'm talking about 22-year-old daughter who has decided to enter, on her own, into "loving relationship" with his father for the first time. I'm talking about 23-year-old sister having sex with her 39-year-old brother. And from that "loving relationship" they got a child and they live together...

I'm sorry, what is the difference between these two examples and homosexuality. Because God has spoken in the same chapter in the Old Testament against homosexuality, incest, and other things. Are you trying to tell me that God, somehow, has changed His mind about homosexuality (please, show me where!), and hasn't about incest? Because, if your standpoint is right, then what keep us from accepting the Sunday observance, instead of Sabbath? After all, didn't that many other churches already do? And, believe me, I can easier attack the Sabbath-keeping by using the Bible than I can do the same thing against homosexuality.

I'm not talking that homosexuals are inferiors or anything like that, but according to the Bible incest is sin, pedophilia is sin, sex with animals is sin, adultery is sin... and - homosexuality is sin.

Brethren

I think the President of the General Conference has gotten the message by now. I don't think any argument has changed his mind or that of his senior officers one bit. Thanks for trying.
But in the future pick topic that has more Biblical Support.

Like the timing of the day of judgment. is it not that day the one decides for or against the Christ Event?

Or just maybe the day of rest was created for a bunch of slaves fresh out of Egypt?

Or the gluten wasn't allergenic in the days of Dr. Kellogg.
Certainly the pagan Chinese hit on something with soy milk et al.

The main issue of course is why shouldn't women have full access to the pulpit. It is not gender but consecrated thought that matters. I, of course, wish they would speak just an octive lower. But blessings on them--shouting is out, thanks be to God. Tom

And maybe we women would wish men would speak a little higher and softer! It sounds that women should be more like men, or less like men, which is it? She's damned either way. Wasn't it Professor Higgins who said why can't a woman be more like a man? (As in the perfect model.) :-)

Elaine

It is not a woman's fault. It is my ears. But the truth is I don't like shouting by men either. one hurts my sensibilities and the other my sensibilities and my ears. Tom

Yes, Ed, pedophilia was generally practiced in Greece, but that doesn't say that it wasn't harmful - both to the young man/slave who was "used" by an older man, and to the wife. And I suppose there might be incestuous cases such as you suggest, for example the Borgias, but I still doubt that such relationships would be voluntary, at least on the woman's part.

On the other hand, people who are SOLELY attracted to their own sex, but have the same God-given desire for a close, intimate companionship with another person as we heterosexuals do, who fall in love and mutually desire to commit to each other for a lifetime, are coming as close as it is possible for them to come, to living as God intended; they are not harming any other person.

By the way, I am feeling a bit impatient. Have you, Ed, or Tom, or anyone else a