"Furthermore, in pursuing an activist agenda along with the majoritarian Religious Right backing this, the Church State Council seems to be abandoning it's self-stated mission.."

Imagine that, Alexander Carpenter talking about activist agendas!

Good thing I love irony.

"the repercussions of gay marriage is the most serious threat to religious freedom in the nation today."

Talk about overblown hyperbole! This has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of any religious person, or church. We are all free to practice our religiously-held beliefs and no church will be coerced into doing otherwise. The only possible result is that people may have to be confronted with learning tolerance of others, which, considering that the SDA church is a minority in the religious world, should always be kept in mind. "The old saying during the Nazi era: "They came for the Communists....
and when they came for me, there was no one to turn to" should never be forgotten. Persecution can take many forms, and history has shown that the church has been the Persecutor in too many cases.

Michael, simple irony is often found in the absence of distinctions. You'll note that I distinguish what type of activism the Church State Council is engaged in, the Religious Right's agenda. I noticed that you didn't refute that fact.

A cogent comment from a NYTimes letters column:

Same-sex couples have never sought to take away or marginalize the marriage rights of others. It would be unjust for others to marginalize same-sex relationships. Will Californians stand for justice, or closets?

I am back because I am puzzled.

What is the Seventh-day Adventist Agenda?

1. Is it to develop a perfect subset of Christians to Vindicate Jesus Christ’s Atonement?
a. If so are they not to be tried in the fire of religious intolerance beyond that of any other subset in any other time period?
b. If the return of Jesus is urgently prayed for—why all the fuss to frustrate the Religious Right’s Agenda, if that is an essential precursor to the Parusia?

2. Is it to delay the onset of the time of trouble until the SDA’s version of the Gospel reaches every rational being on earth?

3. Or does the Time of Trouble expedite the world-wide awareness of the Seventh-day Adventist’s version of the Gospel?

4. What extend does Religious Liberty help expedite the return of Jesus?

5. How will either the Presidential election and/or Prop. 8 affect God’s plans or timetable?

5. Finally, will that Final Generation be found living under the life style of Leviticus or Ephesians?

Of course the Lord doesn’t count as man counts.

By my best numbers are there 15 million SDA’s world wide with 1.1 million baptisms each year, while there a 6.7 Billion people world wide: which means that Adventism reaches the population of Gabon each year while the birth rate is many times that. The present strategy is not succeeding—Seems to me that “Latter Rain” has been falling ever since, I could read the Review on my own. Even in this context, the blogs on the Thread Prop. 8 have been all over the map, without either a clear institutional purpose or any expressed loyalty to a defined end-time game plan.

Was not the SDA church founded to give the trumpet that “certain sound!” What is that sound? Who is going to give it? When? How? By voting on the first Tuesday of November, 2008? Which way? Or will my great grand children have to pay for Bush’s folly? Will we have to "wait" that long? What a difference a day makes? Isn't the choice between the Gospel and works? What is our song? "Work for the Night is Coming?" or "Peace Like a River Attendeth My Way?"

Let us make an end to boasting and denial! After all, didn't we all start out with: "Just as I am, without one Plea?" With every head bowed and every eye closed!!!!

Tom

Michael, simple irony is often found in the absence of distinctions. You'll note that I distinguish what type of activism the Church State Council is engaged in, the Religious Right's agenda. I noticed that you didn't refute that fact.

Posted by: Alexander Carpenter | 14 October 2008 at 9:37

One activist complaining someone else is an activist?
Whats to refute?
Activists are generally idealogues who cant hear anyone else over their own shrill voices.

As to religious liberty and the same sex marriage issue I again post my article from spectrum for thoughtful consideration.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/02/02/ethical_standards_mores_and_...

regards,

pat travis

Thank you, Alex and Elaine, for your patience in responding to people whose main purpose seems to be to agitate (and I fully expect that statement to be contested!) I can no longer find such patience.

Some in my family said I should have become a lawyer (ha!) but every member of my family has always rebelled at the idea of injustice wherever it occurs. It is worst when it is demonstrated in the church which should be the most open, tolerant and loving rather than judgmental.

How many have seen the initials "WWJD" and yet in all this discussion, it is completely ignored that he never spoke one word against same sex relationships. He did speak many times about loving your neighbor as yourself and not judging others. How soon we forget the One, who, if not for him, there would be no Christians. Christians have done more harm to the church with their man-made rules than atheism could ever produce.

You'd surely make a good lawyer, Elaine! Clear and logical thinking are signs of a good lawyer.

I've often wished we could know what Jesus would say about this issue if he were on earth today - but I guess that's one of the things we'll have to ask Him in heaven! As Micah says, all the Lord requires of us is justice, mercy and humility.

Michael--You said: "One activist complaining someone else is an activist?
Whats to refute?"

So, you don't mind that the Church State Council, the official arm of the Pacific Union that is supposed to work for the separation of church and state and preserve religious freedom is now clearly an activist for the extreme religious right? It's one thing for Alex Carpenter, a citizen and church member to promote an agenda (and you're free to agree or disagree with him), but it's another thing entirely for the official mouthpiece of the conference to do so. Can you not see the difference?

Stephanie,
Extreme religious right is your characterization.
Not nessisarily the true one.

Spectrum connotes a full range of colors or in this case opinions. But for a few exceptions the blogs are skewed to the far left. In Georgia, I am known as "lefty" Here I am obviously well right of center. That is why, I recently wrote in puzzlement what is the Agenda of Spectrum? The Gospel? The Return of Jesus? A perfect generation? Or just to give the brethren fits? Certainly the topics chosen for discussion tend to challenge the orthodoxy of just about everything and yet keep Herbert Douglass as a key contributor. Go figure!

In the night season, following the debates: I awoke and pondered the question what exactly would Des Ford and Neal Wilson have to say to each other as they meet in heaven? I decided: Unless they said: "Isn't Grace Wonderful" they won't be there!

As for me and my house, I can only say with Paul that I know that Jesus Christ is able to save to the utter most, including even me.

Why can't that be the theme of Spectrum?

Jesus Christ appropriated Hebrew history/mythology to Himself and then completed perfectly all of its requirements. As Chrsitians we declare to the world that we worship a Creator/Redeemer God who is all powerful, all loving, all just, and all merciful. We see through a glass darkly, but we see the face of Jesus, our Lord, clearly as John and Paul can describe. It is that God that I have placed my confidence and trust. If we believe in an end-time, why all the posturing and confronting?

1844 was wrong and all that came out of it was wrong also. So let us go back to Paul and start over--Ephesians and Galatians would be a good start. Certainly, it isn't Prop. 8 or what Pat Robertson thinks of it! Tom

Tom, I appreciate how you can distill things down to the basics. You have given us all quite a bit to ponder with your clarity of thought and ability to communicate it.

In my own way I have distilled truth down to the basics as well.

The church my Grandparents gave their lives to as missionaries, active members, contributors and volunteers; that my parents followed as missionaries, active members, contributors and volunteers; that I followed as an employee, active member contributor, and volunteer. This same church has thrown me and my GLBT siblings under the bus.

Though I see through the glass darkly when it comes to the bible, Jesus and the disciples; and I have given up on trying, I see the political positions of the contemporary church quite clearly.

I am not sure what Spectrum is supposed to be about but I know it is the only place some of us have to connect with our history and community in a meaningful way. I appreciate Spectrum very much for what it is. Some day I will be able to let go of my church completely and we can go our separate ways, but I am not there yet.

Jeannieb43

Carlitas,
The "church has thrown you and your GLBT siblings under the bus?" How so? By that one misguided article published by Alan Reinach? I don't see it that way.

I think the church's acceptance of all GLBTs has been pretty well demonstrated across the board -- at least in California. We have several gays in our congregation and more yet in the L.A. area churches. None have been bothered, or excluded from anything, as far as I know.

I think the only problem was that Alan Reinach tends to speak ex cathedra sometimes, thinking his position bestows infallibility on him. Which is definitely not the case.

Perhaps by this time, with all the furor his article has caused, maybe he'll bend to accepting the advice of wiser minds, and omit this sensationalism from now on. But please know one's sexual orientation has no bearing on one's church membership, at least in this part of the country.

Okay there is a reply to this whole "fact checking" at http://churchstate.org/site/1/docs/Fact_Checking_AAP8.pdf

The main point by Alan Reinach is that although the AAP8's fact checking may be technically correct, AAP8 fails miserably to mask the fact that there is still a major threat to religious liberty.

If you are not satisfied with these answers, he has more important stuff to do than try to explain all of this to you nerds.

Take that!

Carlitas,

Wow! Thank you for consistently being willing to share your stories and convictions in such a disarming, honest way. I admire you for looking for ways to connect with a community that in many regards is not connecting with you. I am painfully and personally aware of those who have stopped trying.

I am sorry that the church that I love, the church that has done so much to foster my growth and maturation, has been just as influential in damaging human souls! We as a body really have a long way to grow.

I appreciate the perspective that you bring to conversations and I value what you have to say. I really mean that. You offer insights that few are able or willing to share, and we're all better off because of what you say here.

I wish that our church were more prompt in inviting GLBT members to take their rightful seat at the table, and I hope that my participation in the Adventist Church will be part, if even just a little part, of seeing that goal realized.

Carlitas

Thanks for responding. My father spent his life working within the Church Structure, I and my three siblings spend a major part, in one case, all of their productive lives in the Church. I know heart ache. I also know and appreciate Spectrum. Recently it has taken a turn away from discussion to debate and jabs--more needless pain. It seems that triumphalism of its own kind had entered the soul of the site.

To me, if there is a place to stand it is on the "Finished Work" of Jesus Christ, plus nothing. What less is the hymn "How firm a Foundation" about? Certainly not a faultly reading of Dan 8:14 and its sequela. It is the defense of that proposition that has caused the pain, and heart ache, the tension, and the alienation, and the retaliation that has plagued the community we know and love as Adventism.

I do count my blessings of fellow Adventists who have a firm grasp upon the verities of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have as many more outside of that community with an equal grasp of those cords of love.

It is to that larger pool that I think Spectrum should be focused more clearly. Let Amazing Facts carry the burden of
exclusivity which they seem to express with such glee. Tom

Hi Jeannieb43,

I am glad you asked. It is true many SDA congregations do accept GLBT members, some of them with open arms. I was speaking of the corporate church. Over the last 10 years the church has released many statements making clear that the church does not accept GLBT people as full human beings. This message has been reinforced by many who continue to point out that same gender relationships are not natural that they are a symptom of a sinful world, that same gender relationships are morally equivalent to incest, bestiality and more. By attending an SDA church I am supporting a church that does not accept me as a whole emotionally healthy, responsible and committed Lesbian. That is the bottom line.

Recently, the church even announced that advocacy for GLBT people is not to be condoned. Our friend Carrol Grady and her ministry, the advocacy of the Hollywood and Glendale church’s are not condoned by the corporate church. On the other hand, Erroneous, alarmist political activism against marriage rights seems to be encouraged.

At last year's annual General Conference annual council meeting.
The Church does not accept the idea of same-sex marriages nor does it condone homosexual practices or advocacy.

Religious Liberty department of the NPUC has only released two official documents in their history one re-affirming the 10 commandments and one about publically advocating against marriage rights.
http://www.npuc.org/article.php?id=109
Therefore, we urge legislators and citizens alike to avoid proposing or adopting any law that would redefine marriage and thus America’s moral code in its train.

Roy Adams in the Adventist review.
http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1540/story2.html
Expressing the majority opinion for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed "a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." An example of that, his opinion said, is when "two adults . . . with full and mutual consent from each other . . . [engage] in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."2

So what, then, when two adults (brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son), with full consent from each other engage in conduct common to an incestuous lifestyle? On what grounds can society proscribe such behavior anymore? And what moral principle would we use against polygamy where all the parties involved are consenting adults?

Randy Fishell in the Adventist Reveiw
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=659
Recently I pulled into the Taco Bell drive-thru and ordered my usual Border Chalupa “with beans instead of beef.” I paid for the goods and drove over to the parking lot to feast on the frijoles. That’s when I noticed two young women in the adjacent Wendy’s parking lot expressing their amorous affection for each other. Later I related the experience to a work colleague. “That’s just not natural,” he said.

I think my friend was right. Same-sex attraction is not part of the natural order that God established in the beginning. But it’s very real in today’s less-than-perfect world.

Carlitas
I think I understand what you meant by the church throwing you under the bus.

They dont agree with where you find yourself.

I would associate the term "throwing under the bus" with someone who at one time supports something and then changes and throws someone under the bus.

Did you feel at one time that the "Church" embraced the gay lifestyle and then changed?

If you guys want to read a great response to the AAP8 site read this: http://www.churchstate.org/site/1/docs/Fact_Checking_AAP8.pdf

JB

You are correct: www.churchstate.org/site is an excellent brief on the subject. Now, if someone would do an analysis on Prop. 8 to see if it will pass U.S. Constitutional muster.

I have a strong feeling Prop 8 will pass and will be challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Tom

Currently, there is no indication that either the Massachsetts or Connecticut law legalizing gay marriages is scheduled for the U.S. Supreme Court. With three states, it will have to be initiated in the states, and even then, the U.S. Supreme Court always has the option of either reviewing it or dismissing it.

Dear All,

May I point out that religious liberty speaks to matters that have to do with our duty to God and the first four commandments.

Christians are not prohibited from being involved in debating and influencing the social issues of the day. All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

As has been pointed out in this blog before the State already defines who cannot lawfully be joined together in marriage.

1. 3 or more people cannot enter a marriage contract.
2. A person can't enter a marriage contract with a beast.
3. A person can't enter a marriage contract with his 1st cousin.
4. A person can't enter more than one marriage contract while the other party to such a contract is still living.
5. A person can't enter a marriage contract with a minor without permission from parent or guardian.

Why shouldn't the state be able to put one more restriction on those who can enter a marriage contract. I am speaking of a prohibition against homosexual marriage?

Why is it right to prohibit marriage contracts between the various parties listed above, and completely unjust to seek a prohibition against homosexual marriage? THIS IS A PRESSING QUESTION.

Prof P. Somerset Marks

Peter you hit the Mark! Tom

JB--

I'm not sure whether CSC/Alan missed the point or is simply avoiding it.

The problem in Boston is that they were taking government money. When you take government money you play by government rules--you can't discriminate.

I have heard the rule expressed from the pulpit since childhood: "We won't take government money, because the government will then tell us what we can and can't do."

To claim that the Boston adoption case is a homosexuality issue is not fair or completely truthful. One can find cases for all kinds of privately-run programs that receive government assistance. But if they violate the government's definition of discrimination they won't let you do it with their money.

Tim

You are correct, however, there is a very broad definition of taking government money. In some cases, it even extended to
SS trust funds, tax exceptins has also been used--I don't recall if successful or not. The point is the government makes the rules unilaterally. Generally a bill is written "And such rules and regulations as the Secretary may
establish." Take the issue on housing, that has a very broad reach indeed.

Regardless of the concerns on both sides, I believe that the California Supreme Court's ruling will become the law of the land in due time. Tom

Who wrote the "Fact Checking" link above? I didn't find an author noted.

In the classic novel, Brave New World, author Aldous Huxley warns his readers of what could happen if the government gained total control of our daily lives. First published in 1932, Huxley wrote the book trying to imagine how his hometown of London might be in the year 2540, based on the increasing number of programs to end war, conflict, suffering, and antagonistic (aka: “free”) thought. In other words, the book is a portrayal of what the world would look like if the voice of the people was ignored, and people could not live free of the government. We need to fight the against government’s ever-tightening stranglehold on our everyday lives.

I have never seen a church religious liberty organization step so far out of line as the CSC when it comes to opposing constitutional rights. This will certainly cause many of us to take a closer look at what they do in the future. They have a history of making everything into an emergency and have lost a lot of credibility in the process.

It is an oxymoron for a people to be completely secure and completely free. There will always be trade-offs.

If we are now worried about encroachment into our daily lives as to where and what we can eat, where have our priorities been when our government threw out the constitutional rights of its citizens by incarcerating them and denying them access to attorneys and never charging them for years? Where have we been when our phones were tapped and almost strip-searched before we could fly? Have we protested when innocent people have been kidnapped and taken to foreign countries for torturing, never charged, and after years' being set free without a word?

Read Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" for a highly-documented record of how this administration has worked in the shadows while we were kept in the dark about their awful crimes.

Where has the church been in the denial of these liberties? The ACLU has always been in the forefront of protecting our liberties. My liberty is only as secure as my worst enemy.

Right now in the church Spectrum is our best friend for fighting for religious liberty. The church state counsel is definitely not for religious liberty - they are just fighting for the right to keep america narrow-minded.

We just received our Pacific Union Recorder in the mail yesterday and I was pleasantly surprised to see a very balanced article by Gerry Chudleigh on this subject. He gives what looks to be equal time to both viewpoints and basically gives the impression that the union really does not want to get into the subject any further.

My impression after reading some of this is that the union is taking both viewpoints seriously and has not dismissed those who have raised concerns about endorsing Prop 8. For years there was only the official position, but I think this has given legitimacy to the concept that there is more than one way to consider an issue like this.

Of course, the response from the religious liberty people is that they are being threatened by this new openness and frankly do not know what to do now that they are being questioned. So they parrot the technique of their dissenters and turn around and lobby their own organization. If they have to resort to this it must mean that they have lost their authoritative voice on these subjects.

This may be the passing of an era and a return to the time when individual church members who felt led to address issues had a greater say in the direction of the church.

At our church we will be showing the DVD we were sent but we will also be presenting the video from Adventists Against Prop 8. I have talked with friends from other local churches and several have mentioned that they will follow this approach. It should make for some interesting potluck conversation.

Tim
You write: "At our church we will be showing the DVD we were sent but we will also be presenting the video from Adventists Against Prop 8." Excellent! This is exactly what all SDA congregations should do.
Dave

Tim, I really appreciate your comments here.

I'm very proud of the Union leadership for giving the members represented in AAP8 a say on the issue in print as well. I think that it sets a fine example for fair-minded conversations on the issue at local churches - as does your decision to present both sides.

Blessings during potluck!