Thanks Carrol, I've enjoyed reading your observations on this conference. I find one of your statements rather ironic: "The religious liberty panels were the most strident, overall, and showed the least compassion for homosexuals".

Religious liberty is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it affords the right for each of us to follow the dictates of our own conscience. Unfortunately though, some religious leaders seem to think religious liberty gives them the right to define the values, beliefs and admission criteria of their church, without regard for any alternative point of view. Here's the rub - they want society to exercise tolerance towards them, but are very intolerant in return. Sounds very hypocritical to me - time the SDA leadership realised we all travel on a two-way street!

It is rather sad to see in inaccurate recollection of a very soild and biblical approach to the bible and homosexuality.

I do not identify as "ex-gay" for the record. Quite the opposite. I am a gay - homosexual - Christian who chooses not to sin as described by the Word of God.

As I have previously pointed out Carol, Sympathy for an individual who has lived with this aspect of a sinful nature is fine. In fact the love and caring for such a sinner goes a long way. It certainly helped me find my way back to Christ.

However...sympathy should not give license to sinful behavior. Nor should we look for ways to twist the bible within in it or from additional sources to again... give license to do any thing other than what God asks of us.

Whether you have promiscuous same sex or sex only one time in your life with the same sex, God is very very clear on telling us that this is not His plan for us. He did not make us this way. This is a deep deceipt laid in our sinful nature by Satan himself.

God reveals truth when we ask and pray for it. What should have been abundantly clear, is the overwhelming reinforcement of God's telling us that homosexual sin is sin. The emphasis on that is not even needed. It's clear to anyone who reads God's Word. The emphasis should be on the love, counsel, and God's redemption of the sinner. If the sexual impurity and immorality were just in the sight of God, there would not be much need for His instruction.

I believe if you have a true, loving and devoted relationship with Jesus Christ and want to know and experience His truth, all you have to do is ask for it. Pray that Satan will not be allowed to distort truth and keep you from seeing it.

Pray that God's leaders and children will be blessed in revealing His truth and showing His love to same-sex attracted individuals throughout this decaying world.

Wayne Blakely
Christ Centered Same-Sex attracted Christian

Dr. Mark Yarhouse, a psychology professor from Wheaton College, presented his self-published, non-peer-reviewed research.

This statement would only be true if we were to apply the same standard to the book Carrol authored about her son and the Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives book to which she recently contributed.

What does peer review of articles in journals and books resulting from conferences mean?

Yarhouse, btw, is a professor at Regent University. Stanton Jones was Yarhouse's Wheaton College mentor.

To my knowledge, InterVarsity published their books and I've seen their findings in a couple of academic journals edited by evangelical Christians.

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/search.pl?ps=10&q=stanton+jones&x=10&...

http://www.amazon.com/Ex-gays-Longitudinal-Religiously-Mediated-Orientat...

http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Scientific-Research-Churchs-Debate/d...

Journal of Psychology and Christianity
http://www.caps.net/jpc.html
Journal of Psychology and Theology
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6566/?tag=content;col1

Lastly, compare the report on this site by a friendly reviewer:

The authors were careful to point out that the participants were not engaged in professional therapy and so the variable of interest was participation in Exodus ministries, not a specific type of counseling. Also, they noted that change overall is modest and some became dissatisfied with the effort. Beginning with 98 subjects referred by Exodus, they ended up with information from 73 participants, a respectable retention rate of 74.5%...

One of the key findings is that many participants experienced benefit despite small changes in sexual attractions. Only 15% reported large shifts – i.e., substantial reductions in homosexual desire and the addition of heterosexual functioning. Another 23% described reductions in homosexual desire and were living in chastity. Including another 29% who experienced little change, a full two-thirds remained satisfied with their Exodus experience and committed to living out their beliefs about sexuality. To me, this point may be the biggest story. The participants realized personal gains from involvement in Exodus ministries even if their sexual attractions did not change to the degree originally desired.

http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=205

"The impression that I got from some remarks in the presentation by Barry Bussey, director of the NAD religious liberty department was that society is moving inexorably in the direction of gay marriage, and our church will be a small minority opposing it, so we must be careful in handling this issue because society will be watching us closely."

Yeah, it sounds like there was a lot not to like at this conference. But like you I think that even amidst the tired stereotypes and reactionary polemics, there are reasons for celebration. The fact some of the church's leading lights felt compelled to organize such a conference in the first place reflects a certain level of consciousness on the part of the church. I also can't help thinking it symbolizes a church and conservative religious hierarchy in general that is no longer in control of the agenda. It's being forced, more or less, to react to social change. The SDA church in particular, which has been so used to defining the issues and confining its agenda to a narrow set of issues of which it is comfortable (smoking and diet laws, "666", Sunday laws, the state of the dead, etc) now has to "join hands" with Pat Robertson's Regent University and resort to "natural law" arguments to explain itself.

And as Mr. Bussey acknowledged, history is moving in a certain direction that isn't going to allow the church to retreat as easily into its cocoon.

"I believe if you have a true, loving and devoted relationship with Jesus Christ and want to know and experience His truth, all you have to do is ask for it. Pray that Satan will not be allowed to distort truth and keep you from seeing it."

And when someone does that and comes to a different conclusion than you (as they often do), then what? They didn't pray hard enough? They didn't use the right words? They didn't mean it? I find almost without exception that people who say what you just did above truly believe that everyone will come to the same conclusion they did, and that simply isn't true.

"Surely a God of love would not leave this important information out of His Word when it was written to all men for all time."

Why not? A God of love left a Word that has split Christianity into almost 40,000 denominations. That means there are almost (or at least) 40,000 disagreements with what this supposedly clear Word says or means.

Wayne, if you position brings you peace, then God bless you. But your way isn't the only way to think about this and I hope you can respect that others come to different conclusions than you do.

Wayne, if you position brings you peace, then God bless you. But your way isn't the only way to think about this and I hope you can respect that others come to different conclusions than you do.

Posted by: Jamie (not verified) | 22 October 2009 at 2:32

Different ways to think about something are not a yardstick of the truth of a thing.
You dont change the clear meanings in scripture by saying, "I have found a new way to think about it."
It sounds more like a thought process known as rationalizing.
I believe many people do indeed respect those who have differing perceptions including me.
However the discussion is not being held in a vacuum.
Ultimately the point many SSA people want changed it that the church will say practicing homosexuality is no longer a sin and therefore not subject to any consideration in membership, leadership or doctrine.
Personally I dont see this happening in the next 100 years so the discussion and emphasis on how the church should treat people is paramount.
We need to support and encourage and realize we are all sinners in one way or another with our every breath to the SSA community and yet keep in mind the strong position the bible takes on those who are practicing.

Wayne says he is "a gay, homosexual christian who chooses not to sin...", and he says also he is "same sex attracted". Hummmm...., after admiting he is the same person after praying his heart out to be changed and with no results whatsoever, isn't he afirming that he sees God as a Creator who either created some of his beings defective, destined to a life of loneliness, etc., etc., or is Wayne saying God discriminates by making the majority of us heterosexuals and then a few same sex attracted so we'll have to fight our senses and feel ashamed, while the others can call themselvs normal and live accepted lives?

According to Wayne and his uncalled discription of homosexuals, he is still attracted to same sex, and that means he dreams about many men he sees. According to the bible, that what the heart thinks about and meditates on, is the same as practicing what it's thinking about. Wayne is undoubtly finding his sexual satisfaction in some way.

God has given homosexuals the same need for companionship and life enjoyment. All the application of bible clobber texts against same sex activity, has nothing to do with commited lives between two partners of the same sex. If Wayne wants to live a life to sactisfy the exectation of the heterosexual community around him, that's his chanlenge, but do not expect everyone is going to follow in his/your footsteps.

As one of the organizers of the conference, I appreciated having Carrol Grady along with several other representatives of the other side of this discussion at our conference, despite their knowledge that the conference was going to come largely from a traditional Biblical view of the topic. I commend them for the willingness to sit through a series of presentations that would cut across the grain of their thought on this topic. We all should be so willing to listen to other points of view. For Carrol especially this is a very personal topic that takes much fortitude and courage to engage publicly.

Elsewhere, I have responded to questions about the diversity and make-up of the conference, and why we chose to move forward on a Biblically faithful basis as measured by the historic consensus of the Christian church (as well as the Old Testament witness). That can be read here: http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/. But given Carrol's comments, I feel the need to respond publicly to her claims about PUC.

A hurt mother's recollections are a powerful thing, and her feelings should be respected, but they should not be allowed to re-shape the way things actually happened. I believe that Carrol thinks she is telling the truth about her son's experiences at PUC, but she was not there. I was. I don't like to say the following, but Carrol's allegations require it. The truth of the matter is that her son's orientation came to our attention because his roommate reported to us that Carrol's son was making unwanted passes at him, and that the roommate wanted to move.

We did nothing against Carrol's son, we merely acted on the roommate's request to move to another room. Carrol's son wanted another roommate, and we merely required that the new roommate be aware of the situation that had happened. We owed it at least to that student, and his parents, not to put him into a situation that could make him uncomfortable. While this notice was a very minor act, and far short of the kind of discipline that could have been invoked, it brought me into conflict with the semi-underground gay community at PUC. I was repeatedly accosted and harangued by a number of gay rights activist students, and even faculty, for my insensitivity and homophobia. I was taken to task for this publicly in a Sabbath school by one behavioral science teacher.

On the converse, I am aware of no harassment that Carrol's son received during my time at PUC. My memory is very clear that such activity was never brought to my attention, and Dean Boyd at PUC was always a fair-minded man who would not have tolerated it. I went to law school in part because I have a strong sense of fairness, and while I disagreed with Carrol's son's lifestyle decisions, I would not have tolerated, allowed, or permitted to go unpunished any sort of harassment or insults against gay individuals on my watch.

In fairness to Carrol, I cannot say categorically that it did not occur, only that it was not reported to me, as her statements imply. It would also seem unlikely that it was reported to the Dean, as he would have very likely have shared it with the responsible RA, who was myself. Carrol's charge that we did nothing to prevent it implies knowledge that simply did not exist, at least from my perspective.

It is perhaps a good thing that this exchange is taking place, because others have shared with me that this story has become a powerful symbol in our church that has shaped many people's thoughts on the topic. Hopefully a full recounting of the story can turn it from the myth that it has become into a more accurate piece of history that both sides can learn from.

But the full story really needs to be told, which is Carrol's son's subsequent move a few years after PUC into sanctified celibacy, and then eventually into a life of heterosexual marriage, which he continues in to the present. He gave me explicit permission to share his story at the conference, as long as it was not a conference offering the "false charity" (his words) of supporting homosexual activity, which he knows from experience as well as church teaching, is a "harmful and destructive" life.

Why Carrol, you wish to continue to defend such a lifestyle given the experience of your son perplexes many of us. You are certainly free to tell your story in the public discussion of this matter, but invoking my name or the dorm leadership at PUC will require us to tell the fuller story. I too am glad that the discussion has begun, and I pledge to do what I can to make it respectful and kind, in the spirit of Christ, while telling the truths that need to be told.

I wonder if it is appropriate to have this young man's life being so publicly discussed. I question the wisdom in Carol bringing it up.

I have a request. Can Carol state clearly if her son is comfortable with such public discussion of his life?

My opinion is that if he has not consented to this then there should be a retraction of that discussion from this thread and post.

I only ask this because it has not been made clear by Carol in the post that she's discussing her son with his consent.

For the record, I did not publicly identify Carol or her son being associated with this story. I used a pseudonym, as her son had requested. Only Carol and only those very close to her would have recognized the story. Her decision to more broadly identify him on this web-page, and then make allegations regarding my behavior and those of PUC leadership, has caused me to need to tell my side of the story more fully. I would be very willing to have my posting removed, as long as Carol's statements regarding PUC and myself are removed.

Thanks.

Ezequiel wrote:
"Wayne says he is "a gay, homosexual christian who chooses not to sin...", and he says also he is "same sex attracted". Hummmm...., after admiting he is the same person after praying his heart out to be changed and with no results whatsoever, isn't he afirming that he sees God as a Creator who either created some of his beings defective, destined to a life of loneliness, etc., etc., or is Wayne saying God discriminates by making the majority of us heterosexuals and then a few same sex attracted so we'll have to fight our senses and feel ashamed, while the others can call themselvs normal and live accepted lives?"
~~~~~~

Ezequiel, you must not have been at the conference. For one thing, I don't recall Wayne ever saying that he prayed "his heart out to be changed," although that very likely describes his experience before his 37 years in the gay world. He got discouraged by what he perceived to be the church's attitude that his very being was an "abomination" to God -- that he had to become "heterosexual" to be acceptable to God.

What made the difference to Wayne is that he discovered that God doesn't require heterosexuality. He requires obedience. Furthermore, He has promised not to allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear, and He has promised to deliver us from the power of sin.

Big difference.

Heterosexuality is not equal to holiness. If he had been magically transformed to a heterosexual orientation, he would only have had the same problem in relation to women as he had in relation to men. The big difference would have been that it is a bit harder to bed down a woman on a casual basis than to have sex with a man on a casual basis.

Wayne specifically does not say that God created him "defective." God does not create each of us individually from scratch, as He did with Adam and Eve. Christ took on a body which had suffered from the degradation of 4000 or so years of sin, with the attendant changes in genetics and tendencies. We are now born with bodies degraded by the effects of 6000 or so years of sin. We all have hereditary tendencies that are less than what God intended for humanity. We have physical defects, mental defects, psychological defects, emotional defects, etc., and we don't usually blame God for them, or do we? (Perhaps some here blame God when they lose their temper, because God "made them that way"? I don't know.)

Heterosexuals are no more inherently holy than homosexuals, as Wayne specifically states.

As for "lives of loneliness" -- heterosexual marriage has been vastly overrated. It is possible to be lonely in marriage, and it is possible to be fulfilled in singleness. A good thing, too, since approximately 60% of church membership is single.

But another popular misconception is that it is impossible for homosexually oriented persons to have a satisfying heterosexual marriage. I see that quite the opposite is true for a number of couples that I know. One of the men attended the conference. (Unfortunately, he forgot to ask his wife if she wanted to attend, but I doubt that his lack of sensitivity had anything to do with his sexual orientation.) He is sure that, except for his marriage, he would probably be dead by now. God sent him a very understanding woman in direct response to prayer. He fell head over heels in love, and sex was good too. They married within four months of meeting. Mind you, I don't see this as the usual scenario, but I do know of two other gay men who are heterosexually married who tell a similar story in regard to meeting their wives and what it did for them.

From what I have personally observed straight/gay marriages have at least as much chance of success as straight/straight marriages provided the marriage is entered into transparently. And, no, marriage does not "cure" homosexuality. All of these men still have an underlying attraction to men -- just as most straight men still have an underlying attraction to women to whom they are not married. In both cases, they have to discipline their sexuality to focus only on their spouses.

Perhaps this is a good place to address Carrol's comment that "two of the married men who were previously examples of her theory have since left their wives."

Two men who came to our support group as married men have, indeed, left their wives. But they were never "examples" I would have held up. Their marriages were troubled from the get-go, and they left their wives because they were not committed to be faithful to them. I can think of a whole lot more heterosexual men who left their wives for the same reason. They do not "prove" that heterosexual marriage is a sham. Neither do the homosexual men who leave their wives in favor of a gay partner "prove" that gay/straight marriages can not or do not work. They do work for quite a lot of people. In fact, I daresay that the ones we meet on our support lists are the very tiny tip of a huge iceberg. The homosexually oriented men in heterosexual marriages have absolutely no incentive for "coming out." So they don't tell anyone about their underlying sexual attraction. They only come to us when something isn't working, or when they feel the need to give their testimony because God directed them to do so.

Inge Anderson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God's Love - Our Witness
GLAdventist.org

Nick, if you have read my book you will be aware of the death threats and other harassments suffered by my son. He did talk to the dean of men about it, but I only assumed that you knew about it. After the third, frightening incident he decided to move out of the dorm. His journey since then has involved living with a Catholic man for nine years, becoming a Catholic, joining a monstery and then leaving, and spending four years in reparative therapy trying to change his orientation. At the end of that, he said he had learned to repress his attractions to men and, after a year of dating he finally found a woman who is his "soul-mate." They share many interests and, as Catholics, both strongly desired to have children. We dearly love both of them and pray every day that their marriage will last, especially now that they have a new baby. However, I know SO many marriages like this that have ended in heartache, and am not personally aware (out of the hundreds of glbti people I know) of any faithful marriage that has lasted long-term, so we do have concerns. But we are giving them all the support we can.

Why do I continue to support my many gay friends and acquaintances who have not chosen this path? Because I have studied this issue and read everything I can find about it for 20 years now and, along with the hundreds of experiences I've heard and lives with whom I've shared, this has gradually led me to the conclusion that the Bible does not speak to the issue of homosexual orientation, since that concept was unknown in Bible times. God speaks to people where they are. New truths are revealed when people are ready to understand them. I personally believe this is a "present truth" that God is opening our minds to, as we have recently come to a much better understanding of homosexuality, and as many other denominations and other faiths are discussing this issue today.

I am also dear friends with many gay and lesbian couples who are faithful to each other, some of whom are successfully raising precious, well-adjusted children, and who are at peace with themselves and God and are fulfilled and contributing members of society. There are even a few Adventist churches where they feel welcomed and accepted and can grow spiritually.

And by the way, Nick, it seems to me it would have been common courtesy to let me know ahead of time that you were planning to use my son's story.

Yes, Johnny, my son has given me permission to tell his story, as long as I include his present situation. He certainly believes and plans for his marriage to continue for a lifetime, and we strongly support him in this. When I originally wrote _My Son, Beloved Stranger_ he was happy for me to share our experience, but a lot of dysfunctionality went on when he was in the monastery, and it was as a result that he entered reparative therapy. He perhaps would just as soon forget the publicity at this point, but his story has been out there for 15 years now, so it's pretty hard to retract it. I would not have mentioned it here if it hadn't been for Nick telling his story at the conference - and yes, there were quite a few people there who recognized who Nick was talking about. It was a shock to me that he told it and very difficult to sit and listen to, when not all of the facts were given, especially the fact of his abuse at PUC, and that he doesn't claim to have changed his orientation.

Since Ezequiel has put words in my mouth that I did not say, I feel compelled to respond.
First of all, God created man, not his sinful nature. Satan is allowed to tempt. You might have an inclination to kill someone, but ultimately the choice is still yours. God has provided me His Word to tell me what He expects/desires from man. He did not put the same-sex attraction in me. By choosing to deny self and do His will, I am seeking a closer relationship with Jesus Christ as He asks of all of us.

God’s plan for man is to seek one female life mate. I don’t know what God’s plan for me is, but since He is almighty, He could provide this one female before my life ends. If so great! If not, the church and church community will prevent me from utter loneliness.

By reading God’s word, one can see that there are many temptations in life. Being attracted to men has been a big one for me. As I stated at the conference, I choose to continually surrender my will to God. It is wrong for you to suggest what you believe I dream about. However, as long as I am abiding in Christ, I don’t dream about men and lust after them. I draw closer and fall deeper in love with Christ who promises to watch over me.

It is somewhat of an outrage for you to accuse me of sexual falls or impurity. You have no knowledge or proof of this. It doesn’t exist. That remark is entirely uncalled for. God has blessed me in my recommitment to Him. In that time, although it is no one’s business, I am content and blessed to tell you that I have neither masturbated nor engaged in any sexual activity.

God has not given just homosexuals, but heterosexuals the need for companionship and life enjoyment. He has also told us how He ordains our achievement of it. The Bible has absolutely everything to do with what happens between life partners and how that partnership should be formed. To not agree with that, is to disagree with God’s Word is to live in discordance to His will. He created us with choice. No one is forced to do the will of God. We choose. If we choose not to do His will and follow the desires that are sinful in nature, we will reap its result.

I don’t like to clobber... I believe God is using me to help same-sex attracted individuals to evaluate God’s will and make Godly informed decisions. The most important relationship exists between man and His maker. It is only Christ in the end who I will answer to.

Many prayers and God’s blessings to each of you who seek His leading in your life,

Wayne Blakely
Same-Sex attracted Christian

Thank you, Joselito, for catching my mistake in not identifying Dr. Yarhouse as being from Pat Robertson's Regent University. My book and the chapter I wrote for the book produced by Adventist Forum were personal experiences, which I have never heard were subject to peer-review. I quoted some peer-reviewed sources. I do believe that having one's research peer-reviewed is a precaution against biased reporting. The report you quoted seems to overlook that the percentages in their analyses were based on 61 participants who were involved in the study the entire six years.

And Wayne, I apologize for referring to you as an ex-gay. I'm not sure I understand in what way you found my report of the conference inaccurate. I did say that it was my thoughts and impressions that I was sharing, which may differ from those of others, but I trust any inaccuracies have now been corrected (calling you an ex-gay and believing that Nick Miller knew about the harassment against my son).

Inge, I was told by another person that some of the heterosexually married men on your list have emailed him privately and shared that things were not going as rosily in their marriages as their posting on your list would indicate.

"Different ways to think about something are not a yardstick of the truth of a thing.
You dont change the clear meanings in scripture by saying, "I have found a new way to think about it."
It sounds more like a thought process known as rationalizing."

Because a 4000 year old text says something is not a yardstic for the truth of a thing either. I've seen a lot of rationalization go into people's belief in supposed 'clear meanings in scripture'. Given that such belief is based on faith rather than proof or evidence, I think that respecting other points of view is perfectly valid. You don't have to believe that my point of view is the truth, but I don't have to believe that your point of view is the truth either.

Carrol, I can't possibly reply to what you were told: "I was told by another person that some of the heterosexually married men on your list have emailed him privately and shared that things were not going as rosily in their marriages as their posting on your list would indicate." People say all sorts of things, not all of which are necessarily accurate.

For that matter, I don't recall any who posted about their marriages going "rosily" years back when either you or your friend might have been on our lists. Individuals usually join us when they are troubled, and painting "rosy" pictures is generally not high on their priority list. Not sure I would always paint a "rosy" picture of my own marriage, for that matter.

I believe that marriage is a school for eternity. It's a school for character development -- a school from which we never graduate. It is up to us whether we benefit from it, as we submit ourselves to Christ, or whether we choose to "drop out." (This is not meant to question the experience of those who were in genuinely abusive marriages.)

The fact remains that some people's lack of success does not nullify the experience of others.

If I were hanging out with a support group for divorcees, I might very well doubt that there are any good heterosexual marriages. So I can certainly understand that you might doubt that there are any good straight/gay marriages, given who you are hanging out with.

I believe that a great many GLBT folks among us are victims of some false teachings -- both by the world and by the church. And I believe it's time we let some light shine on the subject. That's why I'm pleased that "at last we're talking" -- even if I was a bit uncomfortable with some of the presentations and the over-emphasis on doctrine, at the expense of human experience.

Nicholas Miller did the best he could be expected to do under the circumstances, and I am very grateful to him. (Hindsight always shows us what could have been done differently. Unfortunately that's available only after the fact.)

I'm looking forward to the day that we, as a church body, can genuinely love the gay, lesbian and transgendered folks among us.

In my experience, love includes telling the truth -- even when it hurts. We raised five boys, and we often found it necessary to tell them truths that hurt and even to discipline them for "transgressing" the rules. It was part of our loving them. They are grown now and have children of their own. And they are thankful that we loved them enough to discipline them.

I have seen the results of love without discipline, and it's not pretty. It does not result in happiness, but in unhappiness and failure in life. And there's a parallel in the spiritual realm. God loves us enough to give us rules for our happiness. We (and I'm including my gay, lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters now) cannot always see just how certain rules are for our happiness and welfare. That's when faith comes in.

Only when we submit ourselves, including our sexuality, to Him, do we begin to experience the "better plan" He has for us. I've seen it demonstrated in men and women who came out of lives of promiscuity or even long-term gay relationships in order to be obedient. At first they felt terribly lonely, and the road was hard. Sometimes they feel lonely still, as we all do, but their lives are full and satisfying, if not always easy.

I'd love to meet more of them in person to see their faces light up as they tell of their experience in the Lord, as I as did those whom I first met in person at this conference. (There were three others in attendance, besides Wayne.)

Be blessed ...
Inge Anderson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God's Love - Our Witness
GLAdventist.org

"I'm looking forward to the day that we, as a church body, can genuinely love the gay, lesbian and transgendered folks among us. In my experience, love includes telling the truth -- even when it hurts."

And what if they don't believe you? What if they truly believe that the truth is that they can live healthy happy lives with a partner of the same sex without God's disapproval? There are many who believe this? How should the church treat them? Does it still come down to "my way or the highway"? Or should they be allowed to participate fully in the membership of the church, worshiping in the same pews, perhaps lending their talents in church leadership positions (as so many gossips, liars, and other sinners are free to do)?

You can tell me what you think God wants for me all you want, but I don't believe you are correct? What should become of people like me? How should the church treat us? And what if I bring my partner with me to worship?

Thank you Carrol for putting forward a more refreshing viewpoint of a very sensitive issue. You've always had my whole hearted support, prayers and encouragement because you do reflect the love of Jesus in everything you say and do. It is sad that only a one sided vewpoint was presented at Aundrews University and sadly, many folks were hurt and disappointed. I for one an one of them. However, I do love th e Adventist Church, more importantly, our Saviour who would bend down and just hug any soul who craves for love, recognintion and acceptance by an insenitive church. The church to me is and should be a lighthouse of hope, love to a world who seeks it. It should reach out and sare the love of Christ to all, not just to a slected few who toe the line and adhere to the "black and white" statements of Scripture. Thanks Carrol for giveing that hope and encouragement to keep focusing on Christ and through others in s seemingly uncaring church.

Little, if anything, in our world today is the way God intended at Creation, Yet there is still beauty in this fallen world. God didn't create the world to have months of cold, frozen winter, but how beautiful the falling snow that covers the barren earth. He didn't create trees with leaves that die and fall, yet how we enjoy the gorgeous colors of autumn. God never intended that we would grow old and die, but we appreciate the halo of silvery white hair and the wisdom of an elderly person. God commanded the first man and woman to be fruitful and multiply, yet since the fall, many have been unable to follow this command because of infertility. But they have been able to have a family by adopting orphans, and today God has increased reproductive knowledge so that many infertile couples can bear their own children. And God did not create people to be born with same-sex attraction, but I believe, just as in these other examples, that He blesses those who form committed, faithful and monogamous unions of tender love and care.

I think it's too bad when we reduce this discussion to the topic of sex. Some people seem to be fixated on it.

Carrol, I'm not sure why you think that common courtesy required that I alert you to the use of your son's story ahead of time. Consider that I used neither your name nor his, and that I obtained his permission to use it. Frankly, this is more than you did in making claims about the dorm leadership at puc in your book. Did you alert Dean Boyd to this, or ask him his side of the story? You certainly never alerted me. Now, I'm not particularly complaining about that, just showing that you seem to be holding me to a higher standard than you require of yourself on these matters of courtesy. I accept that mentioning it to you may have somehow eased your surprise over its use, and perhaps had I thought about it, and had the opportunity, I would have done so. But that it was somehow a matter of courtesy, I cannot see, no more than perhaps you can in relation to your book's stories about puc.

Perhaps we all need to be more sensitive to each other. Insensitivity, a problem more difficult to overcome than same-sex attraction. Hmmmm.

What if they truly believe that the truth is that they can live healthy happy lives with a partner of the same sex without God's disapproval? There are many who believe this? How should the church treat them? Does it still come down to "my way or the highway"? Or should they be allowed to participate fully in the membership of the church, worshiping in the same pews, perhaps lending their talents in church leadership positions (as so many gossips, liars, and other sinners are free to do)?

You can tell me what you think God wants for me all you want, but I don't believe you are correct? What should become of people like me? How should the church treat us? And what if I bring my partner with me to worship?

Posted by: Jamie (not verified) | 22 October 2009 at 8:37

You ask some good questions which get to the heart of the issue which many dance around. I find it insightful and refreshing.

Let me ask some questions. How should the church handle the questions of leadership, membership and doctrine for unrepentant doctrinal issues?
Do you really believe SSA is a sin like the ones you mention like gossips, liars etc?
Do you recognize and accept the fact that not all worship is acceptable to God as we see in the case of Cain and Abel?

What I believe and what many sitting in the pews every week believe may not match, and I hope you can answer my original questions nevertheless, since the answers should not be conditional on my answers to your questions.

But I will answer your questions.

How should the church handle the questions of leadership, membership and doctrine for unrepentant doctrinal issues?

I don't have an answer for this. When it comes to homosexuality, one group sees gays as 'unrepentant' and the other group sees them as 'being who they are'. There isn't much room for compromise between the two. I guess people need to figure out what to do when real life comes up against doctrine. I wish I could actually answer this question, but I don't know how the church should handle this.

Do you really believe SSA is a sin like the ones you mention like gossips, liars etc?

No, I do not believe SSA, homosexual orientation, or homosexual behaviour is a sin. But many people in the pews do believe it is a sin. And since they believe this, why not treat it the same way they treat sins of gossip? Or even better, the sin of divorce? But they don't. This particular sin is set aside and used to exclude people from full membership in the church, where other sins are not.

Do you recognize and accept the fact that not all worship is acceptable to God as we see in the case of Cain and Abel?

I see the story of Cain and Abel as a myth, perhaps to keep people in line with the customs of those in power or perhaps for another reason that I don't know.

I'm not sure how any of your questions would affect the answers to my questions, though.

Nick, I did not mention you in my book. I did mention the Dean of Men because my son told me he had appealed to him for help. Interestingly, shortly after my book was published, when I was asked to speak at the ASPA meeting (I think that is the right acronym for the organization of academy and college deans, chaplains, etc.), Dean Boyd was there and boycotted my meeting where I shared my story. The two women's deans who did attend remonstrated with him afterward and he approached me with an apology.

Perhaps I am too sensitive. Several other people who heard you tell that story did think it unkind that you hadn't alerted me. Perhaps if you had tried to put yourself in my place you would have realized how traumatic it might be for me to listen to. I believe I saw you several times during the reception before the first meeting, which would have been an opportunity to tell me. But perhaps, for some reason, you preferred not to.

Nicholas,

You asked Carrol why she continues ‘to defend such a lifestyle given the experience of (her) son.’ And you said that this fact ‘perplexes many of us’. Of course, you are referring to her son’s marriage and the recent birth of his child.

Nicholas, I am even more perplexed that you, a Seventh-day Adventist church leader, need to ask that question, given all that we know about this subject. Personally, I find it an insulting question.
In desperation and near total naivety, I sold my soul to Colin Cook in the early 1980s. Since you speak for THE CHURCH, I will remind you – as church representative – that Mr. Cook was paraded around the continent as a shining example of change. At that time, no CHURCH LEADER dared question his ‘testimony’ – what with wife in tow and baby in hand, what other proof did the church need?

Mr. Cook’s testimony was exactly what the ITCHING EARS OF CHURCH LEADERSHIP wanted to hear. His testimony was written about in Insight, Ministry Magazine and sold on It Is Written.

Those who did question Cook’s claims were dismissed as servants of the devil.

Well, the servants of the devil were correct and THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP was Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! All that the victims got was a few pathetic apologies, usually off the record. Ministry Magazine had a lengthy follow-up of Mr. Cook’s ongoing ‘struggles’, but little about the damage and confusion he had caused. More importantly, church publications said nothing about those who were not ‘changing’.

That was some 25 years ago. Since that time, ‘the world’ – those nasty gay activists – has forced the church to pull its head out of the sand and come to terms with its simplistic claims of what the ‘healing’ of one’s orientation really means.

Now, even the staunch advocates for change use ‘statistics’ that demonstrate that change is sometimes possible to varying degrees for some people some of the time. That’s helpful! For those of us who have been around, this information is nothing new.

In the last 30 years I have learned that:
‘change’ statistics become less credible over time;
those who say they have changed are seldom as transparent as they claim; and
for many in this church, the end justifies the means;

Carrol’s son is not the first person who has been able to get himself into a marriage and father a child. Please, Nicholas, do not take us for such fools.

There is nothing perplexing about Carrol’s love and support for her son and her concern that rises from a very informed knowledge on this subject.

Nicholas, if your question of Carrol is representative of what perplexes the leadership of our church at this point in history, I am more concerned today that I was yesterday.

Adventist Stance and View on Homosexuality

With all due respect to Carrol. I have lived the life of a homosexual to the maximum pretty much most of my life. I have an enormous homosexual experience that I speak from. At least forty years. More if you count the developmental years. From Genesis to Revelation Jesus Christ never speaks of homosexuality in a positive light.

Who are we to question His Divine instruction for us? I lived in shear hell during many of the years that I fought for what I thought was my right to go against God's will. I argued that my feelings were real. And they were. We have many feelings that we cannot claim to be holy.

I fretted over God not saying a lot about homosexuality. The church and my family could not very well explain my feelings. But when you study feelings, you can easily see that it would be dangerous, if not deadly for us to live by them alone. Truth and light that beams from God's Word will lead the way. After years of prayers; mine, church members and my parents, God made clear to me what seemed to be such a mystery. God simply did not need to speak volumes on something He declared to be much against His plan.

Obviously, homosexuality is a tool that Satan has used from the beginning of time. If you are versed in theology at all, you recognize that there is a great controversy taking place. If it was possible for the serpent to tempt Eve's curiosity to the point of disregarding God's simple instruction, it is just as possible for Satan to use countless means to take our focus off of Jesus and put it above Him and on fleshly desires. Homosexual or heterosexual.

Consider the fact that we are living nearer to the destruction of this world every day. For what reason? Many... one of them being sexual immorality. How did practices not according to God's plan for man become so popular? Look at technology. Technology in just the last hundred years. Sex is everywhere. Diversion of God's original plan has run rampant. Even to the point of twisting His original plan for us into something He tells us He did not plan for us. Why? Once again... because He allowed Satan to try and fool those whom He provided with choice. Choices to do what is God's will or the will of self influenced by Satan and being drawn away from truth by not continually immersing ourselves in God's Word. Matthew 6:33 "Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need."

Life, our feelings, our desires, SELF, has gotten in the way. When we separate ourselves from God, we cannot hear Him. I would challenge each of you to trust what He tells us and know that He is our creator and will make clear His plan for us. If we keep saying... "But God...." Then we are not listening and He can't get through.

Continue to remember we were born with a sinful nature and that nature has become pretty sinful over the 6000 years of this earth where Satan is very present running about convincing as many as he can to turn on their Creator and Redeemer. He's allowed. You also are not only allowed, but given the power to choose over life or death. Ask for His guidance. He will give it. Don't compare yourself to anyone else or their experience. Just let Him lead. Clearly I am expressing my opinion. I am only sharing what God has shown me. If you are living in the truth that God has shown you, your faith will remain strong.

As far as the Adventist church goes and acceptance of sinful practices; that is not an expectation that an individual who wants to be a member should expect.

Churches and organizations have standards, guidelines, rules, etc. The stand of the Adventist church is based on truth as presented by the Bible. In that truth, the practice of homosexual sex is a sin. Individuals wanting to worship Christ should be welcome in any church in their continual search and understanding of truth. But in an institution that has well founded doctrine, it is the right of that institution under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to not put known sexually immoral individuals into church office. That is a right of the organization. If one has a conviction that this is not the truth as God has revealed it to them, they have the right to seek a place of worship where they feel comfortable if comfort is the motivating factor.

All sinners should be welcome in the house of worship, but under God's guidance and the divine guidance provided in spiritual writings, not all sinners, especially those who are struggling are best suited for church office.

Again... let me be clear that this is my opinion and conviction. No one should feel forced to attend a congregation where they believe contrary to the beliefs of the church. Nor should they force their personal beliefs upon the church that has publicly professed and made clear its doctrine and practices.

There is not a one of us without sin. Each moment we should seek to abide in Christ and seek His plan for us. That's why the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It is Holiness. Desiring to be more like the Christ who set an example on this earth for us.

Wayne Blakely
Same-sex attracted Christian

Wayne.

In these discussions, people often bring up the argument of obedience to the ‘clearly revealed word of God’ and that personal beliefs should not be forced upon the church. This argument would hold more water if the church were actually consistent with what it ‘publicly professed and made clear is its doctrine and practice’.

While I do not equate the issue of sexual orientation with wearing wedding rings, I use it as an example to illustrate how ‘this church’ is not consistent.

Not so long ago this church would disfellowship people for wearing a wedding ring.

When I was in my twenties, my little home church was nearly torn apart over this subject. This ‘doctrine and practice’ was based scripture and was taught to be as much of a sin as any other. This church, of which I am still a member and pay tithe to, has often changed what it once publicly professed and made clear is its doctrine and practice!

I don’t add this to the conversation to discredit your comments or experience, however, I have lost a lot of respect over the years for how this, and other churches, decide and ‘force’ their professed doctrines and practices on the members.

I find that church leaders are often very poor at helping its members learn enduring principles that are based in both spirit and truth. Because of this, it spends too much time just putting out fires. People are always getting hurt – and the church blames the victims when they disagree or protest.

Who are we to question His Divine instruction for us?

Who are we not to? If you've come to the conclusion that the bible is His Divine instruction, how did you do that without questioning it? Those who haven't questioned it, and still take it as His Divine instruction must be doing so because they were told by someone at a young age that the Bible is divine instruction, not because they've ever checked for themselves.

Okay ... So that I might have a better understanding of what many here seem to desire, let me see if I understand correctly.

In your opinion, since the church and other churches seem to be off in their theology, let's say anything goes.

Come on in one and all. Free for all. Marry who you like. Have sex with whomever you wish, anyone and everyone will be viewed as equal. Since the bible doesn't seem to be right about homosexual practices, I'm assuming the other things that are inclusive in texts that I've read that advise against it, may also have additional clarifications and allowances.

Who decides what if any guidelines need to be in place? Is it okay to steal of some money from the offering plate of you are broke and need a meal? Is it okay to cheat on your wife or significant other if you are not being satisfied the way you think you deserve? Should you disregard spiritual advice about adorning and drawing unnecessary attention to yourself? Would there be an extreme for that or should you just do whatever you like regardless of how it may affect someone else? Now the bible says the dead know nothing, but some spiritual leaders profess to be able to make contact with them. What if a small group of people want to participate in such a function in the church conference room.

Sounding pretty ridiculous and far fetched? You get my point. Do we throw away all our doctrine or just the parts that make people uncomfortable? What do we sacrifice for God? anything? Since the Bible seems to be mean so many different things to so many different people, how does any organization take place? Is organization even necessary?

I have not seen a single shred of evidence that God ordains sexual relations between two or more same sex partners. No one... during this conference or ever... has shown me proof of God's instruction for me to find my same-sex life partner and live happily ever after.

Now I'm feeling pretty out there in even posting this, because this would not be a reflection of the God I love. The God who has opened and closed doors. The God who has forgiven much and shown me much.

Presuming at this point, you still believe in a second coming of Christ, what kind of people is God coming to take home? How are they different than those He would not be taking? With a "anything goes" theology, I'm lost in trying to figure out who these people represent and what sets them apart from society at large.

Please enlighten me.

Wayne Blakely
Same-sex attracted Christian

Wayne
how can anyone argue with your last 2 paragraphs?

Its overly convienient to say that what God has condemned for thousands of years is now to be overturned as "present truth" as Carrol suggests. What is God just like Emily Litela?
"OH, what I told you before.............Oh never mind.....

I've noticed some people don't see the difference between homosexuality and behaviour that actually causes other people suffering. And that's why we get nonsense like, "if we let the gays in we may as well start cheating on our partners and stealing from other people" as if those things are equal to homosexual behaviour. They are not. Stealing from someone isn't wrong because the bible or the church says so. It's wrong because it causes suffering to others. The idea that morality only exists because the bible spells it out is ridiculous. It exists separately from the bible (which is why we don't have slavery anymore even though the bible clearly condones it).

And you say "anyone and everyone will be viewed as equal" like it's a bad thing.

Jamie
I see your position clearer now. I will answer the questions for you too.
First I have them a bit out of order. The second one should come first dont you think?

Do you really believe SSA is a sin like the ones you mention like gossips, liars etc?
You put; I do not believe SSA, homosexual orientation, or homosexual behaviour is a sin.
I would agree with you on 2 out of 3. No sin for SSA or homosexual orientation but on homosexual behaviour I gotta go with the bible rather than my thoughts on the subject.
The second one is actually the first one.
How should the church handle the questions of leadership, membership and doctrine for unrepentant doctrinal issues?
You put; I don't have an answer for this
and I will say that following the question above I would have to say no problem with membership or leadership for SSA or homosexual orientation, but big problems with homosexual behaviour.
Last question
Do you recognize and accept the fact that not all worship is acceptable to God as we see in the case of Cain and Abel?
You put; I see the story of Cain and Abel as a myth which would say alot about your view of the bible to start with. Mine being different I would have to say that its not a myth
and so things do matter.
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

The thing that perplexes me most about Nicholas Miller and the entire so-called "religious liberty" movement in the church is that Mr. Miller is the first person to speak up for beleaguered victims of workplace religious discrimination. He will say that Sabbath accommodations need to be made and that employers must bend over backwards to make sure that people aren't forced to work 2 minutes past sundown even if it costs the company a lot of money.

Yet by the same token he has absolutely no regard for the right of homosexuals to marry each other because it is unbiblical or "unnatural." This is religious discrimination just as surely!

He even says that arguing for traditional marriage is the same part and parcel of arguing for the Sabbath. I'm sorry, but the last time I heard of a "Sabbath law" to uphold the "traditional Protestant Sabbath" in America the Adventists were scurrying for cover. So no, you don't argue for marriage and the Sabbath the same way. You say, "We want the right to worship God as you believe, and respect your right to get married as you believe."

He clearly wants to have his cake and eat it too so long as his religious beliefs are respected.

It shows little regard for freedom of religion, but maximum regard for his personal religious views. If he benefits, he will call for freedom, if he disagrees with your view he will call for discrimination.

I can't imagine AT Jones ever standing for this kind of nonsense. This is short-sighted, and frankly frightening. Even if you don't like gay marriage (just like you don't agree with the Sunday Sabbath), you can still stand for the right of people to make that decision.

Why the insistence on getting the government involved in this? Miller and his crew are going to do the church long term damage. I believe that only Mitch Tyner called it right at the conference - he's the one with the traditional Adventist view on liberty of conscience. This new wave fundamentalism that Adventists are now getting into should shock and concern all Adventists who care about their own freedom.

Gerald wrote:
"Not so long ago this church would disfellowship people for wearing a wedding ring."

I find that statement a bit hard to swallow. Could you document it, please?

The policy (note I said "policy" not "doctrine") regarding wedding rings has been flexible since the time of Ellen White, since she wrote that in countries where a wedding ring is seen as a symbol of faithfulness and morality (not her exact words), she had no burden to counsel against it.

As a matter of fact, my parents were married in double-ring ceremony by the Adventist pastor in 1943. So were all my aunts and uncles when I was old enough to remember. And since then, the use of wedding rings has become much more prevalent than it was then. So ... I find your statement regarding disfellowshipping for wearing a wedding band a little hard to believe. It sounds more like a convenient bit of mythology to make a point.

It is unfortunate that many people don't seem able to distinguish between biblical doctrine and church tradition. Matters regarding jewelry, clothing, what to do on Sabbath, what music is appropriate, etc., etc. .. are matters of tradition not doctrine.

Sexual standards, by contrast, are foundational doctrines, because they are founded in biblical teachings. And it so happens that Adventist doctrine says that sex belongs only within a marriage between a man and a woman. If your understanding is different, it makes more sense to seek fellowship with those whose understanding is like yours than to rail against a church with whose doctrines you disagree.

Blessings,
Inge

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God's Love - Our Witness
GLAdventist.org

Jamie

Have you had any success using the relationship of David & Jonathon?

1 Samuel 20:30 (YLT)

And the anger of Saul burneth against Jonathan, and he saith to him, `Son of a perverse rebellious woman! have I not known that thou art fixing on the son of Jesse to thy shame, and to the shame of the nakedness of thy mother?

The Bible says they kissed, David loved Jonathan more than any woman, etc. At a minimum it was a physical and emotional attraction and quite plausibly was sexual. Going through everything David did there is not much evidence that he was aware of the Torah and the Bible does state that the books had been "lost" and found again in the 8th(?) century BCE. Yahweh loved David more than any other while giving him 7 wives. When David took a wife his own way God said he would have given him more if he had asked!

Seems people would have a hard time arguing that David is a bad role model.

I am not sure if Mr Miller has a mind of his own.
The Standish brothers have the same mind set.
What a shame there Father was a better man in holding his tongue on the issue.

I see your position clearer now. I will answer the questions for you too.

Michael, this is where I get a little frustrated. You told me my questions were good and refreshing, then you asked me a couple. In your last post, you then answered your OWN questions that you had posed to me (and I pretty much knew your answers to them already), but you didn't answer my original questions (and nobody else did either). Let me reiterate them in case someone wants to take a stab at them:

"I'm looking forward to the day that we, as a church body, can genuinely love the gay, lesbian and transgendered folks among us. In my experience, love includes telling the truth -- even when it hurts."

And what if they don't believe you? What if they truly believe that the truth is that they can live healthy happy lives with a partner of the same sex without God's disapproval? There are many who believe this. How should the church treat them? Does it still come down to "my way or the highway"? Or should they be allowed to participate fully in the membership of the church, worshiping in the same pews, perhaps lending their talents in church leadership positions (as so many gossips, liars, and other sinners are free to do)?

You can tell me what you think God wants for me all you want, but I don't believe you are correct? What should become of people like me? How should the church treat us? And what if I bring my partner with me to worship?

Keafan, I don't think it's a stretch to say the story of David and Jonathan involved homosexuality (or maybe bisexuality). I don't think it's a sure thing, either.

However, for me, the bible has to be measured against reality and what we know now to be true and just. That statement shocks many Adventists who do the same thing without admitting or realizing it. That's why people keep bringing up the issues of slavery and women's rights, because modern Adventists, for the most part, measure the biblical view against their modern understanding of equality, and then rationalize away what is in the bible by saying things like 'context' and 'culture'. We do the same when asked why we wear mixed materials and why we don't kill our children for breaking the Sabbath.

The church has rationalized plenty away when it comes to the Bible and then hypocritically accuse gays and their supporters of doing the same thing. I think it makes reasonable people, who haven't already been brainwashed by a fundamentalist religion, shake their head in disgust.

Jonathan and David...uh huh...
Ruth and Naomi...uh huh...

Since Judas kissed Jesus, they were homosexual lovers too.
And since John layed his head on Jesus' bosom, they were homosexual as well...

Maybe all of the 12 disciples were gay since they were together so much?????

Jamie said,

"How should the church treat us? And what if I bring my partner with me to worship?"

You and your partner can sit next to my family. Then you can come over for dinner and our kids can play (if you have any) while we eat and fellowship. We can take a walk if the weather is nice. We can discuss the sermon and complain about work. You sound like a great guy from your comments and I'd love to get to know you and your partner.

As for committed same-sex couples being a sin, if it actually is (which I don't believe) I think it is so far down the list of things to worry about it probably ranks up there with me getting secretly irritated with my kids when they are being too loud. Maybe not perfect but not even close to the level of energy actually being expended to address it. There is no doubt that both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity can be quite harmful spiritually and physically. By addressing the issues that can underline why someone would want to be promiscuous, the church could serve a very useful purpose.

I wrote a response earlier but didn't get it delivered somehow.

Carrol writes:
Thank you, Joselito, for catching my mistake in not identifying Dr. Yarhouse as being from Pat Robertson's Regent University.... The report you quoted seems to overlook that the percentages in their analyses were based on 61 participants who were involved in the study the entire six years.
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 22 October 2009 at 7:09

Based on the 61 retention (after 6 years), here's the breakdown of the J&B data you noted:
14 successful conversion
18 reported attaining chastity
10 felt they had moved some degree toward heterosexuality,
4 no progress but were still trying,
3 had given up but had not embraced a gay identity,
12 had given up and accepted themselves as gay

Our selection of data to report is not without methodological flaws, I admit. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I cited a friendly reviewer, who has published in peer-reviewed journals with Yarhouse and others, who used the 73 figure at an average of 3 years stay with the study. According to him, here's the breakdown of the J&B data:

33 people reported change in the desired manner (from homosexual at the outset toward heterosexuality at follow up) (45%)
29 reported no change (40%)
8 reported change toward a gay identification (11%)
3 were unsure how to describe their experience (4%)

His verdict:

"The participants realized personal gains from involvement in Exodus ministries even if their sexual attractions did not change to the degree originally desired."
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=205

Among other things, besides upholding quality standards, what peer review does is to provide balance by keeping editorial bias to a minimum.

Finally, since it's not the first time I heard Pat Robertson's name mentioned in connection with Regent University, let me suggest that namedropping may work both ways. In my country, that sounds "good" to "really good". Though it has no relevance to any serious conversation, it's some people's way of poisoning the well.

And since John layed his head on Jesus' bosom, they were homosexual as well...

Maybe all of the 12 disciples were gay since they were together so much?????

With God all things are possible. :-))

The way they word some of this arouses my suspicion. What does "toward heterosexuality" mean?

In general I live my life trying to believe what people say. When they say there is a change, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, after all, who am I to say there isn't?

However, I've lived that life and I know how much self-deceit goes into it. Any little string of hope that I wasn't gay I'd grasp on to. Any evidence that maybe I was 'just bisexual' would make me cling all the harder to my delusion. If I had been in that study, I have no doubt that during several years of my life, I would have reported change 'toward heterosexuality', because at that time, to me, thinking Madonna or Cher was beautiful would have been enough proof that I wasn't really gay.

For this study to hold any meaning for me, lets see where they are in 10 years (even though it took me about twenty to stop deceiving myself).

Wow - my head is spinning from all the back and forth! Some impressions:

1. Wayne - I'm so so sorry you have been in such pain and struggle. My mother's heart aches for you. To have so much hate and revulsion for the person you are when you hurt no one by loving someone of the same sex. I am sorry you are so convinced. When my son was 13, I approached him once again about the possibility of his being gay when I noticed he was searching on the internet for answers. He told me he didn't know, but that he had decided he would be okay - he was not very social anyway, and he would live alone with his dog for the rest of his life. This made me cry. I told him it wasn't okay with me - that everyone deserved to have someone to love and to love them. That no matter what the church or society said, I did not believe in a God who would condemn someone for who they loved. Luckily for me, my son has chosen to believe in the God I obey and love and trust. The God who has never let me down, and who has taught me in the many years I have prayed for my son that he is exactly who he should be.

2. There are those who fear that if we question the validity of Biblical interpretation regarding homosexuality, then we question all matters of sin, and everything becomes subject to rationale and argument. As if we have no moral compass to work by, and no experience and relationship with God to inform us. It's very simple to me - God's laws are not arbitrary or irrational. All His commands have to do with loving Him and loving each other. Sin is every choice we make which causes hurt or harm to ourselves and/or to others.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that Jesus had a single thing to say about homosexuality during His time here on earth. Nada. I would assume that if this was important, He might have mentioned it a time or two. And I have no doubt who he would be hanging out with were He to return to earth today - our version of the outcasts and tax collectors.

4. I asked my son some time ago if a 'cure' should be found for homosexuality if he would choose to take it. He thought about it for some time, then said no. Because it would change who he was - affect the clothes he wore, the friends he had, his sense of humor, his very being. Being homosexual isn't just about sexual attraction - it informs the person you become, just as being heterosexual does. His answer made me happy. I had accomplished what I needed to as a mother - raised a son comfortable with who he is, and assured of the love of his family and his God.

God bless you Cheryl, your son and your witness.

What if they truly believe that the truth is that they can live healthy happy lives with a partner of the same sex without God's disapproval?
Posted by: Jamie (not verified) | 23 October 2009 at 12:36

I'll take a try at it Jaime.
1st I agree with Beth as to how we treat people. We support and encourage and love them as God loves us. We all fail sometimes because we are human.
Now to answer your questions one at a time.
If someone truly believes as you have stated and we were trying to come to an understanding of your question just between us I might ask how you arrived at your conclusion.
In other words I would assume that we both came to our conclusions based on what facts we both held.
I would enquire if I was missing some information that might cause me to make an incorrect evaluation, or if you had done the same.
The idea that one of us was missing something could change either of our opinions.
Should we possess the same facts of the issue I would next evaluate if we both held the facts with the same weight. The idea being if we were evaluating according to long held standards. That could be biblical, cultural, historical whatever.. or if we were making our evaluations on our feelings.
If we didn't hold things in the same regard the idea that our own personal opinions plays sole role would come up.
In that case we could really proceed no farther since if a person only sees right or wrong according to the dictates of his own heart what place does religion actually have in his life?
The concept of I submit to God and follow his commandments and his teachings as long as I agree with them would be the natural result. In my understanding of salvation, those are not the thought processes that allow us to be covered under the blood of the lamb.

We could also consider and discuss beliefs as a coping mechanism. The idea that to maintain our mental health we subconsciously process things in ways that let us retain functionality. Split personalities, Hysterical amnesia, all sorts of rationalizing and coping mechanisms color our beliefs in stressful situations.
Depending on what the answers and results of said discussion were, we would have to decide if that was contrary to the biblical position or not and as such if it made leadership possible or not.
Christ said, A house divided against itself cannot stand. Can you see how part of a house saying practicing homosexuality is wrong and part saying practicing homosexuality is fine would be problematic?
Worshipping with and association with are no problem.
Does any of this help or answer your questions?
Thanks

Yes Carrol they are talking?
But what are they talking about!!

Michael,
The house was divided when Adam sinned.
We did not divide it.

So your reasoning makes no sense to me.

"biblical position"

If you are talking about the Adventist church accepting us, then I think you should check again, as it will in time.

The house was divided when the "Whites" were alive and that will go on.
We are just another bump in the road, that the christian faith will have to get over.
As to us going away and forming another church that wont happen.
We are already in your church and in most places within your church.
We have infiltrated it.
We make up your church and fill it.

Now here comes the crunch. The Adventist church believes that Christ is in the most high interceding on our behalf.
So let him be the judge of us and not humans.

Cheryl, Thank you so much for your testimony.

Michael, I agree our conclusions on a subject are shaped by what we already accept as fact (or as you put it, "In other words I would assume that we both came to our conclusions based on what facts we both held.") To accept that homosexual behaviour isn't inherently sinful, does turn a tradtional SDA approach to biblical interpretation and/or application on its head. Although we haven't espoused a verbal inspiration model as such, we've been very close to that position because we've taught that God directly inspired every thought that's in scripture (just not the actual words).

There's also the question of whether everything in the Bible should be applied universally. Typically we've held that it should be (though have made exceptions for Paul's comments about how women should be quiet in church and men should shave their heads).

To someone who has long held a traditional SDA view on the role and use of scripture, the issue of homosexuality will always be an open & shut case. However I'd challenge you to consider how you can reconcile a God of love with a God who would create a man gay (or a woman lesbian, for that matter), then forbid them to enter a loving relationship with someone of the same sex.

If two seeming "facts" contradict one another, one of them must be incorrect. Because the issue of same sex orientation is obviously so real, I've been prepared to accept that my previous views on the role & use of scripture must have been incorrect. I've therefore re-evaluated my stance on the questions of inspiration, interpretation and application of the Bible. Far from destroying my faith in God and the Bible, this process has actually strengthened both, and my faith can now embrace those wonderful Christians who happen to be gay.

Did Jesus say...you have heard in Moses......about gays...but I say.....??

Anyway... all 4 gospels record how Jesus had something to say about the sabbath yet 99% of "Christianity" trashes it.

Fair enough Robert. Lets talk a bit about your first point.

"...consider how you can reconcile a God of love with a God who would create a man gay (or a woman lesbian, for that matter), then forbid them to enter a loving relationship with someone of the same sex."

Lets leave aside weather the Devil or God influences the deformities people are born with and just deal with the deformaties themselves.
As I understand it you think God creates gay men? And they are supposed to be gay?
How would you use the same reasoning with other issues such as Anencephaly
Spina bifida
Arhinencephaly / Holoprosencephaly
Hydrocephaly
Anophthalmos / Microphthalmos
Anotia / Microtia
Transposition of great vessels
Tetralogy of Fallot
Hypoplastic left heart syndrome
Coarctation of aorta
Cleft palate without cleft lip
Cleft lip with or without cleft palate
Oesophageal atresia / stenosis with or without fistula
Small intestine atresia / stenosis
Anorectal atresia / stenosis
Hypospadias
Indeterminate sex
Renal agenesis
Cystic kidney
Polydactyly, preaxial
Limb reduction defects
Diaphragmatic hernia
Omphalocele
Gastroschisis
Trisomy 13
Trisomy 18
Down syndrome

Are they as God wished them too?

Michael,

Thank you for thoughtfully and respectfully telling me what your answers would be. I appreciate your thoughts, but most of all, I appreciate the respectful tone in which you offered them.

Noel
You have an interesting understanding of things.
But I sense you would say just about anything to show what you believe to be right.
I really dont get a sense that you are interested in spiritual things. Let me give you a few examples that would cause me to consider that.

"We are already in your church and in most places within your church.
We have infiltrated it.
We make up your church and fill it."

A person who was really a faithful practicing and participating member would not constantly use the phrasing "your church" all the time.

Further it seems you are an agitator against Christians in general.

"We are just another bump in the road, that the christian faith will have to get over."

Again not an inclusive description.

"Now here comes the crunch. The Adventist church believes that Christ is in the most high interceding on our behalf.
So let him be the judge of us and not humans."

I agree 100% as long as what you believe does not infringe on what I believe. In other words your beliefs cannot curtail my beliefs.
It is a live and let live perspective. The SDA church already exists. It already has established the position practicing homosexuals have in it just as it has always been since before the bible was written.
Therefore the solution to a live and let live philosophy (that is if you have the same generous philosophy) is not for you to stage a revolution changing the church who believe such as I do, but in the creation of one of your own.
So even though you say, let Christ be the judge and not humans, you judge and agitate and infringe on what already is established.
Your own words say you are not a man of peace.
"As to us going away and forming another church that wont happen.
We are already in your church and in most places within your church.
We have infiltrated it."
If you work as a thief does it surprise you when you are treated as one?
I feel sorry for you. I hope I am wrong and you spoke in haste and the ignorance of the moment.

Michael,

In my view, it's a pretty big leap to equate birth with same sex orientation, with birth defects and congenital deformaties.

But supposing for a moment that you're right (I did get the impression this is what you're implying). God commands people to work, but clearly wouldn't expect someone who cannot work by virtue of a disease or birth defect, to work. Therefore God makes allowances for people who, by virtue of their birth circumstances, cannot fulfil his perfect ideal (and once again, I'm not for a moment suggesting this does apply to gays).

I only bring it up since of late many defenders of those practicing homosexuality have constatly refered to the research that showed that homosexuality was determined pre birth.

Michael, you wrote: "I only bring it up since of late many defenders of those practicing homosexuality have constatly refered to the research that showed that homosexuality was determined pre birth."

What, and by deduction, this makes it a disease? Are you kidding me????

Wayne, I want to honor you for the difficult stand that you made for the truth. I know it was not easy for you to stand up and tell about your life and how God has helped you to come to peace with SSA. From reading your posts, I sense that you have thought long and hard about what God wants from you and you are OK with that. You have been a faithful servant. I sense you have peace.

You are in good company. The Apostle Paul was stricken with some infirmity that he had to live with just as you live with SSA. Paul prayed for God to take it from him and God did not. Fortunately, you have decided to honor God and follow his word. If God's grace was sufficient for Paul, it can be sufficient for you too.

It is amazing to me that in this generation, if someone doesn't agree with the Bible, they reinterpret it to make themselves comfortable with their sin. God does not ask us to reinterpret his word, he ask us to be obedient to him, whether that is easy or hard. He can empower us and his grace is sufficient.

I too have dealt with SSA. I have chosen that I want to be obedient to God also. He has been merciful with me and given me a family. I thank him for that.

Thanks again Wayne for stepping up and being an example of a person redeemed from SSA!

Carrol, It was very interesting to read this story and all of the comments. It was particularly interesting to hear the rest of your son's story about how he married and now has a family. Congratulations on becoming a grandmother! God is indeed infinitely powerful. Miracle about individuals with SSA need to be broadcast so others can know of God's redeeming power.

Robert

You can read the medical definition here;

Birth defect: Any defect present in a baby at birth, irrespective of whether the defect is caused by a genetic factor or by prenatal events that are not genetic.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11042

Perhaps you are not familiar with the research that shows homosexuality is something many are born with.
Perhaps your misunderstanding of the differences between disease and birth related defects leads to you to your conclusions.
I am sure you remember God created man and that God also created WOman to be his help mate?

Michael,

Of course I'm familiar with the research that shows homosexuality is something many are born with. But I don't accept this means its a defect.

Inge
Since you questioned Gerald's statement re:wedding rings I felt a response might be in order.
The SDA Church had no official position on wedding rings until the Annual Fall Council Session (if my memory serves me correctly) in 1970. At that session it was decided that the wedding ring issue would not be a test of fellowship but local churches could deal with it as they deemed fit. At that time the GC brethern started leaving the headquarters church at Takoma Park and moving further into the suburbs around Wash. DC one of which was the Beltsville SDA Church. A number of the brethern had built condos in "Pitcairn Place" in preparation for retirement near Beltsville Church. The Beltsville Church had just completed a new church building after many yrs. of fundraising by a relatively small group of church members. Suddenly there was a large influx of brethern who quickly took over the leadership of the church. They promptly made a rule that anyone who wore a wedding ring would not be allowed to hold any church office (including social committee or teaching SS, etc.) this caused a great deal of upheavel and split the church with a number of the original members ultimately leaving the church some never to return again. The GC brethern involved never seemed to feel that they had created a problem or felt bad about the outcome.I am aware of another episode where they did disfellowship individuals over this issue. Unfortunately our history has a number of dark chapters. All churches have their problems but ours is not exempt.
On the gay issue I will leave the "reading of man's heart" up to the only one who can. I trust the Creator to make the right judgement. In the meantime I will treat all of God's children with love and respect and pray for His soon return to bring healing to a world in great need!!
May God bring peace to each one of us!!
Fred

From what I have read above, I strongly suspect that one of the most important issues these comments and questions raise within the Adventist church is the nature of Scripture. I believe Adventism is being tested on what we believe about the Bible. Human nature might tell us that the traditional, conservative way may be the safest route. It is dangerous when our view of Scripture is molded by an unthinking reaction to distressing events. It is understandable but unwise to run for cover when we feel others have gone liberal, appearing to have given up on Scripture completely. We must not react; we must reason. Let not fear mold us. Our God can be trusted. He does not desert us because of our wrong views. We must not delude ourselves: we ALL must confess we have wrong views.

I read in the news recently, that many conservative Anglicans, over the issue of homosexuality and the ordination of women are running for refuge to membership in the Roman Catholic Church. They know that Rome will never "go liberal." They are distressed by apparent apostasy. They are reacting in fear, hoping that Rome, at least, will be safe.

This is not simply about liberal and conservative views. This touches on our understanding of how Scripture works.

Some in this blog have suggested that others do not take Scripture seriously. They are puzzled how seemingly sincere people like Carrol Grady and others cannot simply be content with the clear Word of God. The Word seems clear to them. Why is it not equally clear to these others? Are these others so liberal that they have set Scripture aside? What kind of Adventists are these?

Seventh-day Adventism, in this crisis is in danger of becoming fundamentalist. This would be a disaster, a betrayal of historic Adventism. And yes, I believe this is a crisis which has the power to change the Church for better or for worse.

Historically, Adventism has stood with the best of Protestantism in not being fundamentalist. Do not make the mistake in thinking that by refusing to be fundamentalists that we opt therefore to be "liberal."

Ellen White herself reflected an attitude about Scripture that was reverent and respectful, but as far as I can tell, her view of Scripture did not correspond to that of fundamentalism. I mention Ellen White because her influence on Adventism has been enormous. Many times she steered "the brethren" away from dangerous positions. Ellen White, while conservative in her views, did not adhere to a belief in verbal inspiration. In other words, Ellen White did not believe that God 'dictated' the Bible to its writers as though they were 'channeling' God.

Fundamentalists believe Scripture is in all ways infallible. Ellen White with the best of Protestantism professed that Scripture is infallible in one vital way: it is infallible it what it was intended to convey about God's saving work in Jesus Christ. Contrary to the fundamentalist view, the Bible was not intended to be an infallible book of science, history or of any other subject. The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed. (That was not the POINT of that parable) The Bible was not intended to be infallible in a host of other disciplines. The Creations story is not intended to be a science text book--it was intended to counter idolatry. That Jehovah created the world is a statement of faith, not so much a statement of science.

Nitpickers can find many genuine 'mistakes'. People's faith can be shaken by them if they let them. To those who believe the Bible is plain, I have a question--how did Judas die? Did he hang himself? (Matthew 27:5) Did he fall on his sword? (Acts 1:18) Which was it? What is the 'plain' truth? Can we reconcile these two accounts so that both are true? These views are mutually exclusive. Somebody---Matthew or Luke---was mistaken, fallible. I mean no disrepect to either writer. They were each infallible in their representation of the Christ event. Luke's research led him to a different conclusion as to the fate of Judas. Who cares? Fundamentalists care because it flies in the face of their belief in verbal inspiration.

Luke, who is believed to have written the book of Acts where one version of Judas' death occurs, testified (Luke 1:1-4) (like many gifted writers) that he had to research his information. God did not dictate it. He did not 'channel' his information.

I would find it troubling to believe Judges 1:19 was dictated by God. It says "The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." In the margin of my Bible, I have written "Is God so easily defeated because the enemy had iron chariots?" God did not dictate this. Because I do not believe in verbal inspiration where every nitpicky detail is infallibly correct, my faith cannot be shaken by doubts over inconsistent details.

Paul invites us to reason with him and leaves open the possibility we might disagree with him. If Paul were taking dictation from God, he could not do this. Paul says "Judge for yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it dishonors him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" 1 Cor.11: 13-15

When Paul speaks of "nature" he is referring to "custom."
Perhaps Paul would not have liked Harry Anderson's pictures of Jesus with long hair. African-American women sometimes are unable to grow "long" hair. Do they then lack "glory"? Of course not! According to Paul, they do, but we are free to disagre with him. Most women attending Adventist Churches in North America do not feel compelled to wear hats to church in compliance with Paul's thoughts.

We are not free to disagree with Paul when he preaches about the Christ event, or when Paul urges the members of the early home churches to unity in the Spirit.

When Paul rails against idolatry in Romans 1, he is correct in principle. When his Jewish 'listeners' get smug about the sins of idolatrous Gentiles, he takes them to task in the next chapter. Paul is infallible in his condemnation of idolatry. To Paul, idolatry is giving up truth in exchange for a lie. The narrative subject seems to suggest the experience of Adam and Eve who exchanged the truth of God for the lie of an enemy. To Paul, idolatry reflected that "exchange."

When Paul rails against homosexuality in Romans 1, can we safely disagree with him on what he chooses as his example? Perhaps. Paul appears to hold the view that homosexuality and lesbianism are a form of "exchange". Paul appears to believe idolatrous Gentiles deserted heterosexual intercourse and "exchanged" it for homosexuality. Paul was a Jew and held the traditional Jewish view that idolatry led to sexual sins (temple prostitution being a prime example) and that homosexuality was the most glaring example of idolatry. The fact that Paul had strong opinions on what was "natural" (such as men with long hair) does not mean he was right. Paul was infallible as to his point, though perhaps not as to his example.

The testimony of most lesbians and gays is that they never had heterosexuality to "exchange". Lesbians and gays have testified that they are not lapsed heterosexuals. We may not believe their testimony and that is our privilege. Can we speak safely about something that is not within our personal experience? Second-hand information is not always as reliable as first-hand, that which is based on experience.

Those who are drawn to a more fundamentalist view than me, must find the writings of Ellen White frustrating. Ellen White lived in the Victorian era when certain subjects were not discussed in polite society, so one would expect her to shy away from controversial subjects. She didn't. She railed against masturbation. (Most Adventists ignore her on this subject) She wrote openly about incest. Ellen White may have had refined feelings, but she was not the most reticent person on controversial subjects. And yet, she continually fails those who look to her for condemnation on the subject of homosexuality. In Patriarchs And Prophets, she has written a very moving chapter, "The Destruction Of Sodom." (pg 156) Never does she stoop to the uses frequently made of this story. Even if the word 'homosexuality' was not coined until later in her life, the phenomenon existed. She could have used this story in the same way that many have, but lesbians and gays need have no more fear of Ellen White's account than heterosexuals.

Sometimes I feel like one of the "wise" virgins who could not share their oil with the "foolish" virgins. (I am not speaking about wise or foolish people here. I am saying that there are sometimes things that just do not seem easily transferable. This feeling may cause impatience and the temptation to disrespect and distort the view of others. Frustratingly, some things cannot be convincingly shared in a paragraph or two. You must do the work yourself, and it is hard work as many here can testify.

As one writer has so rightly said, "So in matters of political and sexual ethics contemporary Christians are not excused from the hard work of deciding what is right and wrong just becaue Paul in his day thought certain matters beyond dispute." Robert Morgan, "Romans" Sheffield Academic Press, 1997)

Andrew Dykstra

"while many gay and lesbian couples are raising happy, well-adjusted children."

Can you cite proof from sources other than those which are biased in favor of a homosexual lifestyle?

Having a close relative who worked with families and reading considerably about the subject one is consistently made aware of the thesis, with no contradiction from reliable sources that I'm aware of, that the best environment for a child is the parental influence of a loving father and loving mother. I don't have time to look for sources but that view has been quite prevalent in both secular and religious commentary until the practicing homosexuals have promoted their unholy agenda.

Should one with same sex inclinations or involved in such a relationship be shunned by SDA Christians? Of course not. However, such compassion should not be mistaken for acceptance of an active homosexual lifestyle which obviously is being promoted by some.

Adulterous heterosexual lifestyles should be not be condoned in any instance.

Whether one believes that there are parents, hetero or homo, who should not be raising children is nothing but a personal belief. The CPS will only remove children from a home where there is violence, drugs, or such deleterious affects. Short of that, homosexuals have every right to raise children just as others do: often it's grandparents in the inner cities who raise their grandchildren. Many states allow gays to adopt children. Some things we simply learn to live with rather than fighting against.

Your Friend writes: Can you cite proof from sources?

And then writes: I don't have time to look for sources

Would you like another shot at this one?

Thank you Andrew for a very reasoned approach to Scripture and inspiration! Graham Maxwell would be in agreement with this balanced approach and so am I.
Fred

Michael,

Of course I'm familiar with the research that shows homosexuality is something many are born with. But I don't accept this means its a defect.

Posted by: Robert Sonter (not verified) | 24 October 2009 at 5:03

That is your right and privilege Robert.

Once all conventions and definitions are discarded to allow a personal interpretation one has no standing save their own opinion.

Everyone has a right to her opinions; No one has the right to the facts, they are the property of all and one may choose to embrace or ignore them.

There are still "flat-earthers," there are still those who refuse to believe man landed on the moon; there are those who fervently believe that they have been taken into a UFO and even had surgery.
Belief is as varied as the clouds; Facts stand alone.

Andrew:

You state that the Bible is "infallible it what it was intended to convey about God's saving work in Jesus Christ," and then go on to show how we can "safely disagree" with it on the issue of homosexuality. Unless you believe our personal morality has nothing to do with "God's saving work in Jesus Christ," it seems to me you have a problem.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Michael,

So what's your bottom line - are you saying that same sex attraction is a defect? If so it comes down to the definition of defect. Note the common definitions at this link:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defect

The only way same sex attraction could be considered a defect is if you consider, a priori, that a man should always be attracted to a woman, and vice versa. This is apparently a belief commonly held by Bible literalists, but is interesting considering God created a representative sample of ONE member of each gender.

There are a host of birth variations (skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, height, body shape, etc., etc.) which are undoubtedly different to how God created Adam and Eve. On what basis can you say that same sex attraction is a defect, as compared to a variation?

If you still believe that God is the designer of man and the designer gave the command to go forth and multiply, then I think the answer would be self evident.

It also states that woman specifically was created to be his helpmate.

Your thought process would find no problems with man acting on his attraction to sheep or the dead since they would only be additional variations.

The slope you are on is pretty slippery. Care to re-think your rational?

Skin color and eye color dont have the same express biblical prohibitions so equating them as you have done would not be a objective evaluation. Only an attempt at reductionism.

I have read quite a bit about following the "clear word". I might have a relevant Jesus story:

"...the Parisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. ... In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

It is at least worth noting that Jesus does not discuss what the Law actually says. His solution is completely unprecidented in the law or the prophets or even the writings. What is clear is that Jesus did not live and teach strictly within the bounds of the Law.

One more quick Jesus Story. When he was critized for allowing his disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath he justified their actions by noting that David ate the bread consecrated only for the priests.

Now unless I missed something the charge against Jesus was that he tolerated law-breaking. His response was that David transgressed the law and allowed others to as well, therefore the Pharasees shouldn't be critizing him. So Davids transgressions justified the disciple's transgressions?

The Bible is far less clear than some on this blog think it is.

Kunigunde

The law the pharisees charged Jesus with breaking concerning the picking and eating of raw grain kernels as they passed through a field was never the biblical Sabbath breaking of Gods law.
Being Pharisaical is by definition; marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness.
This means a level of observance in EXCESS of Gods law, not Gods law itself. When Christ responded it was to those excesses.

23″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! ....(snip) You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matt 22: 22-23

The same principal applies to the eating of the priests bread by David. Who had the authority to make rules in addition to Gods rules? Christ let them know it was not them. He reinforced the condition of the pharisees when he cleansed the temple of them and their permitted concessionaires.
"Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. Luke 19:46

In some stories of ancient times, the author might end a story by saying, "The moral of the story is...." This was because many people drew erronious conclusions leading authors to lay out for them what their meaning actually was.
This was especially true in childrens literature.

However it is important even today that one draws the correct lesson from every lesson. I was having a conversation with my brother in law today on this same topic. He was talking about how some people learn from experience. I said some sure do, but only the ones that draw the right lessons from the experience.
I suppose its true for the lessons in the bible as well.

Andrew, you have hit the nail on the head when you recognize that the basic problem in this, as well as many other controversies in the church, lies in how we understand inspiration and read the Bible.

Kunigunde, your illustrations back up the view that we cannot just read the Bible literally, as if it were written yesterday just for us. Jesus told those who rebuked His disciples, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." I think if He were here today, He might well say, "Marriage was made for people, not people for marriage." In other words, marriage is supposed to be a blessing God gave us, so why would He then deny this blessing to people who are born with same-sex attractions?

Your Friend, I know personally several gay and lesbian couples who are raising lovely children. I would encourage you to read the book, Gay Dads, by David Strah, to improve your understanding of gay families.

Michael, you wrote: "Your thought process would find no problems with man acting on his attraction to sheep or the dead since they would only be additional variations."

I'm aware of no evidence whatever to suggest beastiality or necrophilia are due to genetic or pre-natal factors, so there's absolutely no reason to suggest they represent birth variations. Frankly, I find their mention in this context quite offensive.

In the final analysis, only God can absolutely answer the question as to whether same sex attraction is a variation or a defect. Either way, a loving response to same sex attraction is to allow the individual to live their life as God leads them, and it's not for me to say their chosen course is inherently immoral.

I'd rather be judged for applying God's grace too liberally, than for withholding it from His vulnerable children. You can choose to live your life according to Biblical prohibitions, or you can choose to live by the principles of God's love revealed in the Bible. Frequently the two equate, but not always.

Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. Luke 19:46

Yes Michael,
It was a den of thieves because they were buying and selling in sins.
Women's and Children's sins were worth more within there temples.
So like today you think my sins are worth more.

No I do not go to the Adventist church.
It ceased to become my church when I heard people like you up on the pulpit.

I do not go to hear your hate and for you to say love the sinner hate the sin.
As for me having a interesting understanding of things, I don't think like American.

I applaud Carrol's courage in standing up for what she believes is right. Most mothers would have been thrilled to be able to go back to their previous narrow understandings of human sexuality if they were in Carrol's place. She stands apart because she is intelligent enough to see that her own experience doesn't dictate truth.

Thank you Carrol. I haven't met you in person, but I love you just the same.

Noel and Jamie, keep firing away, you are not bothering me in the slightest. I will keep speaking the truth as long as I need to. You guys always end up with personal attacks because you have nothing substantive to say. No more are you going to act like you are the only voice on SSA. There is a group of men who have dealt with SSA who are leading healthy lives. They are beginning to speak up.

Homosexuality is something that people are NOT born with. It is an environmental, familial, relational problem that develops. Over protective moms and absent fathers are patterns for many. People can walk away from SSA, there are plenty of examples, go to People Can Change website. Read the stories. Go to the NARTH (National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) website and read the papers. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. That is the truth. Homosexual men get more disease- both physical and mental, and they have higher chance of suicide. They end up lonely. These are not indicators of a healthy state! I invite you to walk away from homosexuality. There is a great life waiting for you, both inside and outside the church.

Michael:
I do think that traditional Adventists are in fact guilty of the same excesses as the Pharasees. I think Carrol's replacing sabbath with Marriage is a perfect application of this ancient story to our questions today.

I find the third paragragh of you post confusing. Jesus explicitly acknowledges that it was unlawful for David to eat the priest's bread. Are you saying that Jesus used his divine authority to change the rules for David?

I think Jesus is saying that human needs supercede The Law of Moses. In the Law itself there is precident for this. Numbers 9 commands the people to celibrate Passover on the first month. Some people were unclean however and when Moses inquired of God what should be done, God commanded that those who were unable to celibrate it on the first month should do so on the second. Human needs (including feelings) are more important than the law.

P. S. The people in charge of the temple were the Sadducees, Pharisees had no authority at the temple.

Newman, it's not firing, at least not any more than you are doing by blaming your mother for your gayness. I've read the sites you've talked about, I've read the criticisms of the studies as well, and frankly, the critics make more sense.

It's a bit paranoid to think we're against you on this website. I am all for your right to act as if you aren't gay whether or not you are. If that is what brings you peace, then that is wonderful, as long as you aren't putting it across as if it is the norm or the only healthy choice, because that would be a lie.

It is true that it makes it hard for me to muster up respect for people's arguments who cite incidence of disease or suicide rates as 'proof' that homosexuality is wrong, though, as if it is the homosexuality that causes disease, etc. No amount of gay sex...even unprotected gay sex, is going to cause an std if one of the two people having the sex isn't infected. That gay men statistically have more partners than straight men does mean that they increase their chances of disease, but to say that is an issue of being gay is to mix up the issues of promiscuity and homosexuality.

Kunigunde
Your not that far off.

Human need supersedes The Law of Men. Not of God.

However your way off here.
"Human needs (including feelings) are more important than the law."

Satan felt like he wasn't getting enough praise. He agitated and stirred the pot and claimed God was a mean old so and so for not treating him as he wanted to be treated.
If the principal you think exists, why then the whole throwing out of heaven thing since it was Satans feelings?

Just for the sake of discussion show me how "heaven" couldn't be the church and "Satan" couldn't be one practicing homosexuality since we are using your feeling arguement as a basis for discussion.

What would be the similarities?
What would be the non similarities?

Jamie have you read new mans website?

Sorry I do not subscribe to your judgement.

Your judgement is no better than.
If you take you out of your setting and put you back in the City, I think you would be different.
I feel for your wife and family.
It is a shame that to be accepted we go to great lengths.
We all want to be loved in this world by something that is real to us.
Judge not less ye be judged and that is the only way forward for both of us.
Thanks for your testifying of your success.
Your path as I have said before is not the only path.

Michael:

First I was careful to call it the Law of Moses not the Law of God. There must be a difference.

Second, the Bible say nothing about Satan's feeling or desires you are asking me to make an analogy of something that is not clearly described in the Bible. We really don't understand what exactly Satan was doing or why he was doing it.

Your "couldn't" challenge suggest that the most restrictive interpretations of scriptures are the prefered interpretations. I have already demostrated that Jesus did not teach this. It turns out neither did Paul, look at him declaring that circumsision is irrelevant to the church. And look at the council in Acts which likewise declined to demand obedience to the Law of Moses.

According to the fifteenth chapter of Acts, I am not obligated to prove something is permissible you are obligated to prove that it is not.

I think the advice of James is still relevant today:
"It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

I think the advice of James is still relevant today:
"It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

Posted by: Kunigunde (not verified) | 25 October 2009 at 11:56

Agreed. However if you had the context of the statement right it was the extraneous elements the converted Jews wanted to place on new Christian believers, not the law of God, hence the discussion of circumcision etc.
1st in verse 5 it says who was trying to get the new believers to do these things.
"5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Who is it? the Pharisees. How do we prove the Pharisees requirements were in excess? "10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples......? Further if you wouldnt stop at the convienient part for you in verse 10 you would see that when he goes on, instead of confirming or backing up your claim he specifically denies it.
Starting in verse 20. "20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from SEXUAL IMMORALITY.." He further puts it in writing in verse 29 in a letter to the new believers.

If you would read the bible you would know that Satan's problem was one of pride. He was upset that he wasn't exaulted just as God was. He FELT he deserved to be treated a certain way. How did he want to be treated?
“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:14).

These are two of the “I will’s” of Satan, or Lucifer, as he aspired to usurp the throne of God as ruler of the universe (see Isaiah 14:12–15; Ezekiel 28:11–17). Not content to be “the anointed cherub,” the highest of the angelic hierarchy (Ezekiel 28:14), he wanted to be God, and this monstrous pride became “the condemnation of the devil” (I Timothy 3:6), so that he is now “fallen from heaven” and will soon be “brought down to hell” (Isaiah 14:12,15).

If you dont know how Satan felt from the evidence in the bible it is no wonder you cant understand the analogy.
We definitly DO know what Satan was doing and why he was doing it.

It is important to draw the correct conclusion in the lessons. While you think you have shown Jesus making the law subservient to feelings you have not. You have demonstrated how one looks for a rational to justify a preconcieved mindset that is contrary to the straight testamony of scripture.

Wayne,

I was just reading over this conversation and came across your post: "I am a gay - homosexual - Christian who chooses not to sin as described by the Word of God.
As I have previously pointed out, Sympathy for an individual who has lived with this aspect of a sinful nature is fine. In fact the love and caring for such a sinner goes a long way. It certainly helped me find my way back to Christ. However...sympathy should not give license to sinful behavior. Nor should we look for ways to twist the bible within in it or from additional sources to again... give license to do any thing other than what God asks of us."

Wayne, I just want to thank you for simple and clear testimony--and encourage you to keep lifting up the name of Christ and the words of scripture. As a non-practicing homosexual, you are a hero in the eyes of many of us, and you're in a powerful position to testify to the fullness of life in Christ. I completely agree with you (and I imagine most everyone here) that our church has often not been a place of love and support for those struggling with a homosexual orientation. But I admire the stand you're taking against the promotion of any practice that opposes God's teachings. All the best to you, my brother.

Andy

Michael,
I think you would say just about anything to prove your point.
Of course, pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

You say live and let live but on the other side you say you must conform to your/our way of thinking.
You also say you would be happy to sit next to us in church, just as along as you can't catch anything.

"Hate" is a strong word don't you think?
It is the opposite to "Love"

If you call me a homosexual then you dehumanise me, correct?
So then you can hate me.
The trap we all make in this world is to give people labels.
It happens world wide.
Then we can kill our brothers and sisters.
That happened in Urangda and it is happening in parts of the world that our countries are engaged in war in.

Yes your right homo is a sin, in the Bible,(if you take it word for word) so is hate and killing. And by the way Homosexuality was not in the Bible till 1946.
But the Adventist church thinks that you can hate and kill.
Do you get my point.

Your sins are no different to mine and should be treated like wise. Not judged as more.
The Bibles says that we all sin, are born into sin and are conceived in sin.
With out Christ and for what was planed, we would have no hope.

Michael wrote..."Are they as God wished them to?" (to be) about deformities people are born with.

(And Michael, forgive me if I used words you had not posted about the label you use of being a "same-sex attracted" individual.)

God is the creator of all, yet it's a mistery why some are born deformed. How can a creator which in the beginning said "It was all good" allow for imperfect human beings to be born? But have you noticed how humanity in general the last fifty years have made accomodations for handi-capped individuals, when years ago they were taken to secluded places and considered abnormal and a shame to have around?
That proves humans can be convinced of the contrary of their formal beliefs thru education.

Gays have told their stories, sufferings, because of being misunderstood and put down, discriminated for being different. Yet, the difference in homosexuals do not affect in any way their functionality as perfect human beings. Why is it so hard for society, and more yet, for the
so-called "loving church" to accept them as God's fully created beings with one little and minimun difference?

Gays do not procreate in the normal sense of a man and a woman, but could do with the help of science (accomodations needed?). Infertile couples and people don't either. Should the last group be prevented from marriage? They are accepted as equal. Why can't gays, when it has been proved it's not a choice they made to be what they are? The efforts many gay people go thru to become heterosexuals or to act like such, would not exist if it were not for the pressure they are put under and inflicted on them by society and the churches.

My recent post/response mentioning Michael's reference and label as a "same sex attracted" person, was actually an apology to Wayne for my misused quotations. Sorry for the mixinng of names.

After all the desagreements related here on homosexuality, it comes to my mind the eunuch on the road to Emaus. Eunuchs according to Jesus own words (at least some of them)could have been the gay people of that time. Is it possible God was leaving us a lesson by allowing and impressing him to be baptized as one of the first converts (if not the first) to christianity after Jesus ressurrection? Jesus affirmed some eunuchs were born that way. If this assumption (that some eunuchs were gay) is true, why are we still thinking of gays that are confortable with themselvs as inferior in any way to other christians?

Even the few ones claiming to have achieved a degree of enlightnement (and power maybe?) to separate themselvs from an acceptance of their homosexuality, are still aserting they have not changed from being attracted to same sex. Is that a good life for eveyone? It maybe for some but not something for others. I have a great communion with God as a practicing homosexual with a partner, and God has not convinced me otherwise. If I had made such a decision to live alone or a celibate life I could not have survived. It would have been as if I was living on the edge. I knew God was with me and prayed even when I was promiscue during the eighties. He guided me thru the AIDS beginning era, while some of my friends died for not being caring enough for their well being and that of others. I never used sex and individuals as objects just for my satisfaction. In the middle of all that environment I asked (specifically and in many ways) God to find me a partner and He answered my prayer. We now have been together for over two decades. Any other choice for me would have been a continuation of a divided life, a life without inner peace.

"I completely agree with you (and I imagine most everyone here) that our church has often not been a place of love and support for those struggling with a homosexual orientation." Andy Nash Not Verified.

Why do we continue to vilify the SDA church? It's a convenient scapegoat for all sorts of alleged miscreant behavior. In all my years in various SDA churches I have never seen evidence of the alleged conduct. Has it ever happened? I have no doubt. Let's get off this kick that the corporate body has to accept everything, has to reject everything, has to correct everything, ad nauseam.

Reading what Spectrumites write I learn that evangelism is being pursued incorrectly, that the church isn't engaged sufficiently in correcting alleged social injustice, ad infinitum. Seldom, at least so it seems, do we see exhortations for members of the church to assume personal responsibilities with respect to the hungry, the downtrodden, etc. It's high time for committed SDAS to accept personal responsibility. EGW makes it clear in Letter 138, 1898 that while "constant work is to be done for outcasts,... this work is not to be made all-absorbing."

Take a look at all the criticism that has been leveled at certain organizations in the church when they held a conference about homosexuality. They should have done this, they shouldn't have done that. Give me a break!

In all the conversations about homosexuality, did anyone exegete the Matt. 19:12 text where Jesus said about eunuchs that "some were born this way"? In the Jewish system, such people were excluded from entering the temple and thus were outcasts. Jesus invited everyone.

How should that text be interpreted: "some eunuchs were born this way." Most of the damning texts were taken from the OT where they were excluded from the religious services of the community, while Jesus rejected such exclusivity. What should Christians do: accept the restrictions of the Judaic religion or adopt the inclusivity of Jesus?

Elaine, I doubt Jesus would be a very “good Christian” by the standards and assumptions of many Christians. Separation and exclusion are central to Christianity (the religion).

Jesus shared the most progressive ideas possible about inclusion and unity given the time and place. If the gap had been too big, people couldn’t have heard His message.

That was then. We could have taken many more steps since then. But “love thy neighbor” is often occluded by fear.

"3 Calif. Presbyterian churches leave denomination

The Associated Press
Monday, October 26, 2009 3:52 PM

"FRESNO, Calif. -- Three Presbyterian congregations in California's San Joaquin Valley are breaking with the faith's national denomination in a rift over the Bible and homosexuality.

"Trinity Presbyterian Church in Clovis, First Presbyterian Church in Fresno and Fowler Presbyterian Church all have held services this month to join the conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church based in Michigan.

"A similar break of conservative Episcopal congregations from the national church has sparked property and other financial disputes. But local leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) say this divorce has been amicable.

"The breakaway congregations will keep their church properties and have agreed to fulfill financial pledges for ministries run by the Presbytery of San Joaquin, which has about 7,000 members."

__________________________________________________________________

Is it remotely possible that at some future time those same differences could result in a separation? No church is immune from such possibilities. It is encouraging to note that the "divorce was amicable" and that potential disputes about property and finances were settled.

When such incidents have occurred within Adventism, they have usually been followed by expensive lawsuits and loss of property for the church building, which is always considered the property of the conference.

Currently, here in Fresno, the SDA church I attend has purchased a former church building and is in the process of renovation. In calling for donations, those who contribute should be made very aware that it will never be owned by the local congregation but the title will be held by the conference. Would that the situation with the Presbyterians could be followed.

---

Jesus inclusiveness of all was a sign that a new era was beginning. Enuchs "born that way" could surely have been gays, people born with a different "sexual Orientation".

After all, the clobber texts must have been refering to other situations and not to a person born different. Paul the apostle and others knew Jesus position on the outcasts of his days, therefore why would they forget Jesus inclusiviness and preach a separation and rejection Gospel?

Ezequiel,

You are not only changing the spelling of eunuch, you are changing the definition. The definition of eunuch is:

1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal: An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man

The only definition that fits with Jesus saying is a man who is not having any kind of sexual relations with anyone. The purpose of castration was to prevent any sexual attraction/ behavior.

Jesus 3rd catagory could apply to homosexuals who feel they can never successfully relate to a woman, but because they know Sodomy is sin, they choose to live a pure and chaste life and to channel all that energy into serving God.

It also applies to a heterosexual like Paul who was probably once married but continued life as a single chaste man so he could travel and spread the gospel.

Using the Bible's definition of terms limits our modern understanding. If we are to be limited to Bible usage, not only of terms, but of the culture prevailing at that time, we are choosing the impossible. We can't turn back the clock.

We must live in today's world with the problems as they exist, not as we would prefer.

Is there anything in scripture that alludes to, or indicates that they knew homosexuality as a condition from birth? Or, that they preached against homosexual behavior that was practiced by heterosexual men in the Greco-Roman world as we know from historical studies? To equate them as the same is to ignore the historical context in which scripture was written and attempt to apply it in every way to our world today. It is an abuse and misuse of scripture. No one would rely on a faith healer to heal the blind or lame (other than the followers of a few TV healers). However, that WOULD be following the NT example, wouldn't it? What they knew about medical science is abysmal compared to today, and who is guided solely by the Bible in needing what only a medically-trained person can provide? Yet, in some conditions, it seems that the Bible should the sole and only guide. Until it can be shown that all Bible-believing Adventists are willing to forego proper medical treatment and rely on the Bible for all their health care, it is hypocrisy.

So Elaine,

your point is, you agree with Ezequiel. When Jesus said "Some eunuchs are born that way", we should understand that as Jesus saying, gays are born that way. Please answer yes or no. (BTW, the defenition of eunuch that I pasted is from a modern dictionary.)

Why do you think going to doctors is hypocritical. Jesus chose Dr. Luke to document His story. This is an SDA web site, not Christian Scientist.

Elizabeth,

To answer your question, what you and I think are only personal opinions. It is my opinion that Jesus was speaking of eunuchs from birth--to be "born that way" seems conclusive.

Going to doctors today who practiced as Dr. Luke would be hypocritical; the analogy is that if we relied on two millennia old diagnoses in one area, consistency would require that we rely on all medical diagnoses that were prevalent when the Bible was written. We rely on the latest medical findings, not those practiced in Bible times; we should rely on the latest psychiatric findings today, not those of Bible times. Does that answer your question?

Elaine,

No. You have avoided answering every question I have ask you. Do you agree with Ezequiel's Oct 28 post that Eunuchs born that way are gays. What is your definition of eunuch?

No. What is your definition of the word Eunuch?

No. What is your definition of the word Eunuch?

Elizabeth, if I have not made it clear, I truly believe that homosexuals, i.e. eunuchs, are born that way. Is there another possibility in the text? If one is born that way, then it cannot be a choice, can it?

Cruden's Concordance defines "eunuch":

"Originally,an impotent man. Since those put in charge of the harems of Eastern monarchs were as a general rule of this class, the name became practically synonymous with a chamberlain, with no indication of his condition, although probably its use in scripture was strict. Eunuchs wer not allowed by Jewish law to enter the house of God. zzzz9Deut. 23:1); but they were present at the court. 1 Chron. 28:1, marg. A eunuch was over the treasure of queen Candace of Ethiopia and he was admitted to baptism, Acts 8:27."

Since we do not today have a category of eunuchs who care for a king's harem, it is not a commonly-used term. When Jesus was asked about divorce, the listeners said (without divorce), it is not advisable to marry, to which Jesus answered "It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted. There are eunuchs born that way from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by men and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heave. Let everyone accept this who can."

He described three classes of eunuchs: 1. those born that way; 2. those made by men; and 3. those who made themselves eunuchs (a practice followed by some of the early Christian fathers).

If the last two are made by what they did (performing surgery?) how would the ones "born that way" be described if not by nature?

Elaine,

Let me try a multiple choice question to try to get an clear answer from you.

Jesus statement that some eunuchs are "born that way" refers to:

1. celebate homosexuals that have no attraction to the opposite sex
2. practicing or celebate homosexuals that that have no attraction to the opposite sex but plenty of SSA.
3. old maids and odd bachelors that never seem to have any attraction to either sex. They are perfectly content to stay single all their lives. They could work for the queen without surgery.

Elaine, Would you please answer.

Wayne,

This is an older thread...so I don't know if you will see this message. But if you do, I just want you to know that you are awesome! You are the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Thank you for:

1) Having the courage to live your life in accordance with the conviction that the Holy Spirit has laid upon your heart.

2) Your gentle spirit in dealing with others.

We cannot convict others. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. But you are living out a most powerful witness!

Live on, brother!

Kelley