Interesting commentary written as a report. Tom

Hi Tom,

For your convenience, the article provides a link to both audio and video recordings of the sermon itself so that you are able to compare the "interesting commentary" with the recordings if you would like.

Thanks for the note!

I find it interesting that the author of this piece, in what might* be an implicit criticism of Nelson's statement "Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Anna the Prophetess all lived without sexual relationships. . . It can be done," immediately concludes that paragraph with the observation: "Nelson has two children." Perhaps Nelson's married state may make him a poor person to address those who must struggle with unfulfilled sexual desires.

I find this interesting because often, when speaking of the benefits of a married priesthood in the Catholic Church, individuals note that married men can better speak to the concerns and problems of married couples. Apparently though, married pastors may be poor candidates to speak to the concerns of those with unfulfilled sexual desires (homosexuals, single individuals). Perhaps these individuals need to be addressed by a "Paul," "John the Baptist," or "Anna": that is, individuals who live out their days committed to a celibate lifestyle: monks, nuns, priests, etc.

Jared

Thanks--I think you gave a satisfactory account. The question that no one seems to address is the Christian Charge to the witnesses that includes the traditional phrase: "Those whom God has joined together, let no one put asunder."

What is the Scriptural basis for that use in a same sex
clergy administered wedding? Why didn't the pastor discuss that since it seems from your report the pastor was not pleased with same sex unions although he attempted to demonstrate compassion for those struggling with the issue.

In my mind, God reserved the right to define sin but gave man the right to define crime. I believe that homosexual activity has been decriminalized in most if not all 50 states.

As I have stated many times on this site, I strongly believe in civil unions--I have seen too many financial disasters when property rights are not defined. As a citizen and as a neighbor I have no issue with such consentual and legally recognized unions. However, a church is an institution that can define its own standards as it understands God's will.
I can't understand anyone demanding recognition outside of the fundamentals of that private institution. One may not agree with those fundamentals and emphatically declare so, but they have no right to force a change. Bigotry may well be a sin but it is no crime if it doesn't infringe on the civil rights of either party. Tom

In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices to God. God rejected Cain's offering. Why did God reject his offering? Because it was not what God asked him to do. It was disobedience. Cain harbored rebellious feelings. God asked for obedience. God still asks for obedience. The whole sin problem is about obedience versus rebellion.

Those individuals who have same-sex attraction have a difficult, but not impossible task. All of us have a difficult, but not impossible task with sin. We have to ask ourselves, am I going to accept God's word or am I going to trust my feelings and thoughts. Am I going to be obedient to God, or deny what his word says plain and true. This is the real nature of the sin problem, obedience or rebellion. Rationalizing away sin is a part of rebellion. We can take God's word and try to reinterpret it to suit our sin, or we can reform ourselves and be obedient.

Jared, instead of your constant reporting on and judgement for the conference at Andrews, you would do better to tell those who have SSA to humble themselves before God and surrender their heart and mind to his will. He will show them the way. That is where the rest of us come in. We need to accept them, support them, and love them in their struggle, just as we are to accept, support, and love all other sinners as they overcome their sin. They will be overcomers.

Jesus kept the company of sinners. He brought them in to his company to REFORM them. That is what the church should be about today. We need to love and accept sinners, and help them OVERCOME sin, not stagnate there.

New Man,
Come clean Ron.

It is heart-breaking to see the Bible, and the Gospel, used to prop up such a hate-filled agenda. While I do not know Pastor Nelsen, I am sure he is in most ways a loving minister of the Gospel, and I am sure he did not intend his sermon to be hateful. But it is. I hope that our LGBT brothers and sisters who heard and read this sermon know that it does not speak for the Gospel.

One positive outcome: This sermon makes it clear that the opposition to gay marriage is based on (misguided, IMO) religious principles. While the Andrews Conference was intended as a response in part to the Adventists against Prop 8 Group, this kind of thing only proves the main argument against Prop 8.

Noel, I am not sure who Ron is, but if you think you know who I am, you do not. I have never met you before. I am just another man who has struggled with SSA just as you have. I have taken a different path, a path away from homosexuality, toward my true God-given heterosexuality. I love where I am today. I am married and have children. I would not trade anything to go back to my previous position with SSA. I am glad that made the choice that I did. I know you don't agree with me, that is your choice. You, and Kinship, and Jared, and Dave Larson, and Carol Grady are just one opinion on this problem. There is another side that teaches how to overcome and walk away from SSA. I prefer my side to being stuck in yours. You can choose to be stuck there, that is your choice.

I don't have a problem with Dwight Nelson's call for sexual purity because I think we can all benefit from more of it.

My difficulty is that I think that he misssed a great opportunity to shine the light on the greatest threat to society. This would be heterosexual men.

People like me are the ones who have done so much damage to our planet, virtually institutionalized our promiscuity and repeatedly acted violently and murderously against gay people.

I wish Pastor Nelson had asked to stand to their feet all those who pledged by the mercy and power of God as we receive it through Jesus Christ our Lord not to be driven by our fear and hate, not to forget the logs in our own eyes while trying to remove the splinters in others and not to abuse, oppress, wound and kill homosexual men and women.

That he didn't do this, that instead he took the easy path by stirring up passions against a small and already marginalized and wounded group surprised and disappointed me.

Surprise and disappointment. Those are my feelings. I expected more and better from Dwight. I thought he would be like Jesus. I really did.

David, thanks for your comment. I agree with you that it is high time that heterosexual men of the SDA church take ownership of harm that they have done to people who struggle with SSA by their judgement, gay jokes, put downs, and physical harm. It is time that the men of our church repent of this. When this task of repentance has happened and their hearts are changed, then our churches will not be big enough to hold all of the people who will come in for healing from their sins, SSA or otherwise. The world is full of hurting people who want delivery from their pain. What a glorious day that will be.

"Why did God reject his offering? Because it was not what God asked him to do. It was disobedience."

I must have missed that part in Genesis where God told him the specific offering he desired. Could you give us that specific text?

Could it be that sometimes, things are interpreted in the Bible, or in EGW that is often conflated? If you were giving a "proof text" Bible study, where would this instruction about offerings be found?

Will the next sermon or conference be on adultery? There are many more Bible text on this subject than the few on homosexuality.

In years past, divorce meant that both were disfellowshipped, unless each wanted to sit before a church board of inquiry and list the specific actions leading to the divorce.

If those events and "shame" attitudes still prevailed, there would be fewer members. In Hebrew, or OT times, it was only a wife who was labeled an "adulteress," as she was either the property of her father or husband. Men could only be called an adulterer if he took another man's property: his wife. He could have as many wives or mistresses as he could support.

When was the last time you heard someone like Dwight thundering from the pulpit the awfulness of adultery? Unlike homosexuality, adultery brings untold misery to the participants and children, while homosexuality affects only the two involved and has no impact whatosever on heterosexuals or heterosexual marriages. Why all the conferences and sermons? Is it the "sin" of the decade, replacing adultery of the past half century? How many broken homes has homosexuality caused? Now, consider how many broken homes adultery has caused.

Elaine,

Hebrews 11:4 "By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died he still speaks."

It seems pretty obvious that from Genesis 4 that when Abel brought the firstborn of his flock, he understood about the evilness of sin and the need for a savior. That lamb or goat (from the margin of my Bible) offering was symbolic of the coming Christ. Abel seemed to understand that and God rewarded him. The fruit of Cain was not representative of Christ, only his (Cain's) works, that is why I suspect God rejected them. See also 1 John 3:12. What a great early example of righteousness by faith.

This all seems to make sense to me. Do you have another explanation?

This is an open invitation to Dwight Nelson to preach a sermon series on adultery. He opened the door, let him finish the task. While he is at it, why not preach on lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, overeating, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, laziness, and all of the rest. Isn't it time that we stop playing games and get at the task of cleaning up our act and serving the world?

I am sorry New man if I have mistaken you for someone else.

Your path is not new to me or anyone else.
The problem is when you hear of others who have taken your path and have fallen back.
Whose life is on the rocks then, yours or your wife and children.
We all Struggle with life.
No I am not stuck with my life. I don't see it like you do.
I see it as I am, not a choice.
Yes I have a choice in other things but not as I am.
I do not have a perception that I need to be married to a women to feel normal.
I am married to a man and have been for 27 years.
No I do not see it as sin.
I love women and some of my best friends are women, but to have sex with them, I could not. That would make me feel like not being normal and true to my inner self.
Sorry for your preception in thinking you are right and I am wrong.
I wish you well in the future and may you have a long and happy life with your wife and children.
Noel

Elaine, you wrote: " ...while homosexuality affects only the two involved and has no impact whatosever on heterosexuals or heterosexual marriages."

I agree with your basic thesis (that adultery is sin, while homosexuality, per se, is not), however cannot escape the reality that nobody lives their life in isolation. Recently some friends of mine (two families, each with several children) experienced the break-up of both families because the two wives commenced a same-sex relationship.

Your definition of heterosexual marriage might exclude the two marriages in question (because technically they may have been hetero-lesbian marriage), but given the two husbands had no prior knowledge their wives were closet lesbians, the impact to them was very real.

Rather than judging the two wives (who arguably have committed adultery), I see this situation as the type of fall-out that occurs when religious stereotypes interfere with the choices people make as they're growing up. In an ideal world, these women would never have married men in the first place.

So I'm passionately opposed to the church's stance on same-sex relationships, but don't believe you can convincingly argue that homosexuality has no impact on heterosexuals.

Noel, Thanks for your conciliatory post. I certainly do not wish any evil toward you or anyone else for that matter. I want you to know God and all the happiness you can have. I cannot help but read that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but all of us sin, so we are in good company. Thanks to God that Jesus came to save us from our sins. I trust Him!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the studying I have done of the "clobber texts" I understand that the word translated as "homosexual offenders" in the NIV and a few other versions of 1 Cor. 6:9, "arsenokoites," has been highly disputed as to its meaning. This is the first instance found of its use, so it may have been coined by Paul. It is a combination of the words for "male" and "bed" (a euphemism for "have sex"). It could mean a male who has sex with someone (male or female) or it could mean a male who has sex with another male. Many scholars consider that this word and "malakos" which is here translated as male prostitutes are pair words, so "arsenoiktes" probably referred to the men who paid prostitutes for sex. This is an exploitive form of sex, and in Roman society both male prostitutes and men who used them may not necessarily have been homosexuals, as we understand them today. Roman men were privileged to have sex with anyone below them socially, male or female, and male prostitutes sold their sexual services to both men and women. So when Paul says, "and such were some of you," he wasn't saying that homosexuals could become heterosexual, but that those who accept Christ will stop exploiting others.

From the lead: "Nelson ended the 50 minute sermon with several minutes of appeals, first to young men, then to older men followed by young women and older women. He asked each group in turn to stand if they were willing to commit their bodily temples to sexual (presumably heterosexual) purity."

Did anybody rise and walk out? Or would I have been the only one?

Kenneth James

Kenneth,
I wouldn't have managed to stick around to the end to be able to walk out with you - I would've been gone long ago :)

While I think sexual purity is a noble topic, it just bugs me to no end when I perceive double standards being applied to heterosexual and homosexual purity.

For example, no less than Jesus himself clearly states that the only legitimate reason for divorce and remarriage is adultery by the other party. If you divorce and remarry, you are living in sexual sin unless you fit that criteria according to Jesus.

I have no doubt that there are people who are members of Pastor Nelson's church who were nodding their heads about how those homosexuals cannot be allowed to continue in their sexual sins and be members of the SDA church and yet they themselves have divorced and remarried outside of those stringent bounds. Has anyone told them lately that they must sever that sinful relationship, divorce, and live single, celibate lives if they want to be members? It's Biblical isn't it?

If homosexuals are seriously being told that they must end any long-term loving relationship - even if children are involved (imagine the pain and disruption that would cause) if they want to be ok in the eyes of the church, then it is only fair that the same Biblical standard should be applied to straights.

Any prospective member who wants to join the church must know that if they are remarried after divorce, the only way they can continue in that second marriage is if their ex committed adultery AND they didn't. Otherwise, they are living in sexual sin, they must divorce (kids or no kids) and live celibately for their remaining days. Any current member who divorces cannot remarry and must stay celibate and single until such time as the ex commits adultery and of course whoever does the adultery must always stay celibate and single no matter what. You committed adultery 30 years ago, divorced and remarried? You are living in sexual sin and Paul has some words for you. Celibacy and singleness is a tough burden yes, but we are called to obedience are we not?

Should I hold my breath that that is going to happen? Nope. Homosexuals simply make a much more satisfying target than the large percentage of your church body who are divorced and remarried outside of Biblical bounds.

If 1st Corinthians 6:9 had said "heterosexual offenders" would anyone conclude that heterosexuality is wrong? This one argument alone--at least when made from the NIV--is how you tell the bigot from the serious questioner. There is no reasonable explanation for why one would conclude that homosexuality is wrong from the phrase "homosexual offender" when one would never make the analogous conclusion from "heterosexual offender".

Never mind the host of problems associated with the translation of this verse.

David Larson,

Having been a preacher for aound 30 years, I note with interest your diappointment that Dwight Nelson did not preach according to your particular perspective. As I'm sure you know, for every sermon topic there are a multitude of tacs, we can take in making our presentation.

Dwight, as a powerful and skilled preacher took the one that the Spirit led him to embrace for the occasion.

Surely David, you were able to detect the huge amount of compassion in Dwight's sermon for the plight of his gay correspondent.

There is an opinion article in the current online AR, "The Case for Early Marriage," which argues that "'when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex.' Nevertheless, Christians are called to a moral standard that, by any secular standard, is profoundly unreasonable. I would prefer to argue that the delay of marriage is unwise, not only because of the demonstrated risk of sexual immorality, but because of the loss of so much God gives to us in marriage.

I wonder - are homosexuals all given the gift of celibacy? If not, isn't it unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex, and are they not just as much at risk of sexual immorality, if they aren't allowed to marry and aren't they losing all that God bestows in marriage?

Yes I have heard the phrase that they sit there like dumb dogs.

Adventists love a show and they got one IN Dwight Nelson.
A lot of Pastors would have made better showman than preachers. Then, I am talking about the United States and people hamming it up.

It is a shame that people trust there Pastor and give over personal stuff that should never be given, unless of course you want it to go round the grape vine of Adventism.

The one thing I have learnt in the Christian faith is the human nature shows through regardless of his/her faith.

just a few thoughts

time and again as i read the report, i was pounded with the feeling that the writer did not like, nor appreciate, D.K. Nelson or what he had to say. i'd be hard-pressed to find a part of the report without a negative undertone. yes thank you, i'll click the link.

2nd, why on earth, when dealing with such a sensitive topic, do we use the NIV? which was written for those at the 7th grade level and has drastically changed verses from what was originally in the KJV??? are we not adults? can we not "handle" as close an interpretation as possible from the original?

3rd, it was quite obvious that Nelson does not hate homosexuals, nor does he prefer that they are locked from the church, undeserving of basic human love, to burn in hell, , etc and so on. "Nelson said that his heart goes out to homosexuals at Andrews and in the Pioneer Memorial Church who wonder whether God and the Church has any place for them." this was the one defining positive comment in the entire report.

i am willing to take the time to go through and list the obviously negative facets of the reporting for you, if you'd like. but next time i think someone without a hidden agenda should write up reports on talks regarding homosexuality.

you know, before i move on with my day--why have i not yet seen the biological side of the argument presented?
for those of us who believe that GOD created the earth and all that in it is, and that GOD makes no mistakes which is why we worship and respect Him (who bothers to worship a god who messes up? not me)--then why do the human male and female chromosomes work so well together and have for thousands of years without any other possible way (not using technology) to reproduce?
why was adam, the first male, not given adam? who then together went forth and populated the earth as commanded to by God, the creator....?
why do the male and female bodies fit together perfectly to create life? two female bodies and two male bodies do not fit together in a way that can create life. to be brutally graphic, last i knew, babies were not able to be born via a male anus, and one vagina cannot fit inside of another. someone let me know if this has since changed, as well as any breaking news that two eggs joining or two sperm likewise somehow now have the right amount of the right kind of dna to create a whole human being.
why has reproduction been this way since the beginning of time?
for those who believe that we just came about, changing gradually: why have our bodies not yet changed to accommodate procreation on the homosexual plane? heck--for that matter, why aren't we asexual by now? yes, there was the man who had a baby a year or so ago--but again, only with the help of science.
what's interesting to me is that homosexuality has been going on forever, since after "the fall" in the garden of eden (or for you evolutionists out there, since "thousands and thousands of years.") there is nothing new about it. so from a stark evolutionary standpoint, at the very least *some* of the human population should've by now been created in the womb in such a way to accommodate the way our brains have already "changed."
i guess the sex organs are lagging by a few thousand millennia, huh?
it is said, "but it feels so right," yet without the help of science and technology.... reproduction of the human race would nevertheless be impossible. not to hurt any feelings, be politically incorrect, or to step on any toes, but this is simply the bottom line--whether anyone likes it or not.
so did God make a "creation mistake?" if you believe that's unlikely, then how on earth can anyone defend homosexuality as an acceptable way to live your God-given life for Christ? we all know that sin changes things--and that this change is *never* an improvement over the original design--the original plan.
that said, my heart breaks for those who encounter high and mighty church members who refuse to even look a homosexual in the eye as a human being. i feel for their inner battles. i worry about their self esteem and their mental health as they field insensitivity and cruel and condescending criticism, and hope that they never, ever doubt that God loves them. and i pray for them and their personal decisions and struggles.

From several of the comments posted here, I get the impression that some people think Dwight Nelson never preaches about anything but homosexuality. Just because he has chosen a particular topic to preach on does not mean he considers it more or less important than a myriad of topics the Bible addresses.

Has Nelson preaching on adultery? Yes. Has he preached against violence and discrimination? Yes. Has he preached an greed, pride, etc.? Again, yes.

Was it appropriate for him to preach on the topic in question? Absolutely yes!

David

It seems nobody was satisfied with Pastor Nelson's sermon.
"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." Dwight took the position that self gratification sex is one of those sins. Thus the title Sex in the Sanctuary. Clever, huh? Then he attempted compassionate sensationalism for 50 minutes. If he couldn't make his point in 20 he shouldn't have started.

He failed to consider that homosexuals believe that they have a gift or a birth right not a congenital anomoly. Thus, he left them at the gate. The issue was Prop 8. He could have given a riveting Patrick Henry sermon on Religious Liberty entitled: Fornicating in the State House.

What he should have done was rail against Jezebel, all the prophets of old did. Or done a Cliff Goldstein, a cut from the old prophets cloth. It seems you favor the Cliff Goldstein approach on this issue---Bash the bashers.

What he should have done is be out of town on important business and let the Associate Pastor take the heat. At least decline the invitation like you and Nam did.

Proposition 8 was wrong, the isolation of any classification of sinners for human abuse is wrong.

The greatest public sin in my mind is the pollution of our earth, air, water, and food. The second is war, even preemptive war. The abandonment and abuse of infants and children comes high. Heterosexual sexual gratification seems at the heart of child abuse. Yes for sure, Dwight had a lot to choose from. He tried and failed, as would anyone less on that Sabbath, in that Church, in that setting.

It seems to me from Jared's report the brethren from the Religious Liberty Department dropped the ball far worse than
Pastor Nelson.

Dr. Oliver W. Holmes, as professor of Anatomy at Harvard, was posted to give the lecture on the Sphenoid bone. That bone that forms the base of the skull. It looks like an owl in flight. Professor Holmes strode into the lecture hall white coat flapping. Took to the lectern, raised the Sphenoid bone high in the air in his right hand and said: "Gentlemen, (no women in medical school in those days) I give you the Sphenoid bone, damn the Sphenoid bone, and strode out of the lecture hall.

Pastor Nelson should have read a text from Revelation on who would be outside the heavenly city and then said: "Don't Be There, you'll!" and sat down. Tom

"so did God make a "creation mistake?" if you believe that's unlikely, then how on earth can anyone defend homosexuality as an acceptable way to live your God-given life for Christ?"

Either way you look at it, God had to have made a mistake if we are to follow your line of thinking here. A certain percentage of people on this planet are gay. They didn't choose that way, they just ARE that way. More and more evidence suggests that they were born that way. (Yes, I know they haven't found a 'gay gene', but that doesn't mean that there isn't a biological cause...it doesn't even mean there isn't a genetic cause, considering there are all sorts of human variations that science hasn't found a gene for yet).

I know the next argument is usually that because homosexuality wasn't represented in Eden, then it wasn't part of God's original plan. But if you go down that road, then we'd have to also accept that the variety of races represented in humanity are also not a part of God's original plan, since there were only, at most, two races represented in Eden. If there were two people at the beginning of humanity, then there have been millions of variations on those original two since.

I wish Pastor Nelson had asked to stand to their feet all those who pledged by the mercy and power of God as we receive it through Jesus Christ our Lord not to be driven by our fear and hate, not to forget the logs in our own eyes while trying to remove the splinters in others and not to abuse, oppress, wound and kill homosexual men and women.

That he didn't do this, that instead he took the easy path by stirring up passions against a small and already marginalized and wounded group surprised and disappointed me.
Posted by: davidrlarson | 31 October 2009 at 11:16

I returned home to LA last night following a farewell evening concert at Campus Hill in Loma Linda honoring Hyveth Williams who will soon be leaving to join the Andrews U Seminary faculty. I came across these two Spectrum blogs: first, despair and depression among pastors; and second, a critique of Dwight Nelson's most recent sermon in connection with the Marriage, Homosexuality, and Church Conference in Andrews. The thought that came to me after reading first one, then the other was: "What in the world are pastors and will-be pastors saying about Dwight Nelson (perhaps without the person concerned being aware of it)!"

Although it was late, I took the time to watch Pastor Nelson's sermon on my WMP. What struck me was how biased and slanted was the reporting, actually editorializing (more commentary, Tom observed) that was offered on this site. It amazes me that the contrast between the confessions of the two Davids, Israel's king and David Letterman, was totally omitted by Jared.

While Pastor Dwight preached on the theme of I Corinthians 6:9-20, the other portions of Scriptures he used to support his thesis were:
Psalm 51:7; Hebrews 9:14—washed by His _________ (see also I John 1:7, 9; Revelation 1:5; Titus 3:4, 5); Acts 22:16.
Finally, 1 Kings 14:8 (New International Version)

"I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes."

http://www.pmchurch.tv/site/1/docs/2009-10-17_Temple-7.pdf

What was Pastor Dwight's message regarding Israel's king? Briefly, justification in the forensic, biblical (in his view) sense of the word. Agree with him or not theologically, I thought it was a balanced presentation, not sparing anyone present, at the same time offering hope to those who fail again and again in their endless search for personal moral purity.

Lastly, I believe some of us are essentially asking for another sermon from Dwight Nelson. That may be forthcoming, who knows?

Within the last three months an elderly man told me in great sorrow that years ago one of his sons had died in a different city and that he had "had to bury what remained of him."

I think he could see my perplexity even though I didn't want to pry.

"Somebody beat him up and tied him to a set of railroad tracks and once the train went over him there wasn't much left for me to lay to rest."

I was stunned into silence.

"I think he was gay," he whispered. "Why couldn't they have just left him alone?"

I know where Jesus is today.

Jesus is lying on the railroad tracks, or their equivalent, with those whom we heterosexual men are savaging because of our own sexual insecurities.

Yes. Jesus is on the railroad tracks. About this I don't have the slightest doubt.

Thank you, Dave.

Dwight Nelson was called for sermon on the Sabbath of a week dedicated to one special topic - and did not preach about serving the mammon - whow ! And he has two children - whow !

Maybe he could have shown more reconciliation, maybe he should have presented more compassion, maybe an apology of the straight, happy, successful, well adjusted father and renowned minster was apt for those having suffered in the past - and still will suffer.

May I remind of the millions (!) of women in one generation, who never could have a husband or who had lost a husband they scarcely knew - because of the battlefields in WW II - and the societies here and there just suspiciously kept a watch on their chasty lifes ? (Just for example). We all, those healthy - wealthy - pretty or healthy - happy - holy, should be very very grateful for the circumstances we meet in our life. And be very very careful not to hurt others - also with a sermon or with the commentary to a sermon.

- - - - -

This is a serious request : Newman, could I please get in contact with you (svrcg@chello.at) ? For a very long time I repeatedly from the pulpit or the rostrum have heard about one - personally known - who successfully had changed his orientation. When kindly asked to introduce me in some way :

It was long ago or the address is forgotten or the person at last did not appear for the testimony- So please be so kind - - - .

I pray that God's Spirit will continue to penetrate and occupy the hearts, minds and actions of those who sincerely seek His will. I also solicit your prayers as I prepare to present the sermon "Sex and the City" at the Oakwood University Campus Church on Wednesday evening. May God's will be done.

okay jamie, so how does different races who are still able to sexually procreate with the original equipment stand in the same instance as seeing that homosexuality was supposed to have happened at some point down the road.....?
explain that one to me. everyone of every race with the original male and female parts can procreate with another of the opposite sex...... so that means homosexuality was supposed to happen. right.
and are you really saying to me that God made a mistake? or am i supposed to believe that one day men will be able to procreate with men (women v.v.) just because we'll evolve that way or some miracle/accident will happen?? you may want to rethink your argument and come back....

also, why does everyone automatically assume that adam and eve were the same color? they could've looked completely different for all we know! at Babel, their languages were made different and they spread out across the earth, yes--which only enhanced their differences, but do people really still picture a huge tribe of look-alike caucasians wandering outside of eden bemoaning adam and eve's mistake?
in most pictures you see of creation, they are two caucasian beings..... really sad. God outdid Himself creating the human body, yet people can't get beyond thinking that "in the beginning" it was two caucasians who were supposed to one day evolve into steve and rick....? smh.....

and if you really believe that "God had to have made a mistake" then why do you bother to respect or worship Him? why bother capitalizing the first letter in the word god?
if i could even entertain the thought that God was apparently making mistakes every now and then, i would rather trust my own instincts and fumble along in life as best i could.
playing devil's advocate here, but hoping you see my what i mean....

David

Might be well if we all read Gen. 18, and 19. Recall what the men of Sodom wanted to do with Jesus and His angels. hate, violence is pandemic.

When I was in dental school in Chicago, the Chicago retail store was directly across the street from a porno theater.

One afternnon, I took the "El" downtown to Sears. As I came down the stairs, I noticed s Salvation Army Band playing directly in front of the porno theater. The manager of the theater was outside protesting violently against the members of the band. He never hit any of the women but came very close to physical attack.

Funny, I understood the theater manager more than I did the Salvation Army. I knew what the manager wanted--cash flow. I couldn't understand who the Salvation Army was trying to save or say.

My point is there are enough stories of abuse on both sides to fill many books. None of which say more than man is a very perverse willful sinful being. One need read no further than Lot and his daughters to know that destroying Sodom didn't change the sexual habits of mankind. Tom

kb, you'll notice that I said that there were "at most, two races in Eden", so I, for one, was not assuming they were the same race. And though I didn't say it, I certainly wasn't assuming they were caucasion either.

I think you are stuck on procreation as being the end all and be all of the argument, as if the love between two people isn't enough all by itself. Because two men or two woment cannot procreate does not mean that their love for each other is illegitimate or unnatural, or that God didn't mean for them to be that way.

i'm not saying their love is not real in any way, shape, or form. unnatural? yes. is it following the natural plan for our bodies and the way they were created based on the way basic biology works? no. like i said, sin tries it's best to deviate us from the original plan and homosexuality is no different in being just another form of deviation.
but i hate to think of people who strongly feel that their orientation is what it is, having to deal with hatred from other human beings. that hatred is *also* a deviation from the original plan and it's the human race's (eve and adam's) fault that any of this "deviating mess" exists--not God's.
i promise that i firmly believe that homosexuality is not okay just because people strongly feel that it's "so right," JUST as firmly as i believe that hatred of someone for sexual orientation is not okay just because it feels "so right" to hate on them.
feelings cannot be trusted; they are not to be a baseline measurement for us of what is "okay." we are sinful beings, we cannot trust ourselves--only our Creator.... whom i don't believe has ever made any mistakes, btw.
and yes tom, i agree. there is no new thing under the sun.

"our Creator.... whom i don't believe has ever made any mistakes, btw."

Who creates the Downs Syndrome child, the anencephalic, the ones with an arm or leg missing, the ones with Tay-Sachs or other diseases? Is it God or the Devil who does not always produce a perfect child? Can you choose? Do parents choose to have a homosexual child, or with any anomalies?

Does one blame or credit God for the many defects of birth which we constantly see? Are they mistakes? Is a homosexual person to be called a "mistake"?

While none of this comment is about homosexuality it is about understanding the Bible.

Newman wrote:
--
It seems pretty obvious that from Genesis 4 that when Abel brought the firstborn of his flock, he understood about the evilness of sin and the need for a savior. That lamb or goat (from the margin of my Bible) offering was symbolic of the coming Christ. Abel seemed to understand that and God rewarded him. The fruit of Cain was not representative of Christ, only his (Cain's) works, that is why I suspect God rejected them. See also 1 John 3:12. What a great early example of righteousness by faith.

This all seems to make sense to me. Do you have another explanation?
--

If you say that in the first place as Newman did say:

"Because it was not what God asked him to do. It was disobedience. Cain harbored rebellious feelings. God asked for obedience" and then your proof is the above based on Heb 11:4 which is about faith you have equated faith as obedience. In fact you have placed obedience first when it cannot possibly be first.

Then as is the problem with the original exposition that the Cain and Abel story was about obedience you add that it was symbolic of the coming of Christ which is nowhere given in the story or the proceeding stories and the idea of something symbolic of something never seen or told about is a complete absurdity. So all you have done is assert that you can answer the problem by continuing to read your ideas into the story. Which is a huge problem when the problem exists because you were already reading your ideas into the story. (see end quote from the Expositor's Bible Commentary on the Heb 11:4 verse)

The reading into the Bible is a huge problem in Christianity Nelson does it as well when he says as the report/commentary says:

"Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Anna the Prophetess all lived without sexual relationships, Nelson pointed out. "It can be done," he shouted. Nelson has two children."

First we should exclude Jesus from the list as His mission was unique to humanity. Then we have Paul who we don't know if he had been married or not:
--
Question: "Was the Apostle Paul married?"

Answer: The Bible never says whether Paul was married or not. Some think that he was at one time based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Paul was married at one time, his wife likely passed away considering he never mentions her in any of his writings. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.
http://www.gotquestions.org/apostle-Paul-married.html
--

The basic idea is that if the Bible record is silent on a subject than it did not occur. The argument from silence is a logical fallacy (whether one assumes something not mentioned is there or is not there, all we know is it is not in the story, Cain could have been given instructions but why would that not be included in the story as it would be crucial to understanding. If John the Baptist had a wife it would not be crucial to any story about John.). Considering that the majority of the Bible was written when women themselves were often simply property the wives of people in stories are not often relevant to the story.

The Anna the Prophetess is just silly. From the 3 verses in Luke that mention her we know:
" * She was a prophetess.
* She was a daughter of Phanuel.
* She was a member of the tribe of Asher.
* She was widowed after seven years of marriage (her husband is not named).
* She was a devout Jew who regularly practiced prayer and fasting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_%28Bible%29

The point is that what you read into the Bible is often more influential with many Christians than what the Bible actually says. And that is often before the point where we even interpret what the Bible is saying. Because if we read something into a story we then always carry that eisgesis into our interpretation.

From the Expositor's Bible Commentary on Heb 11:4
--
4 The first example of faith is Abel, who brought God a more acceptable sacrifice than did his brother Cain (Gen 4:3-7). Bruce (in loc.) canvasses a number of opinions as to the reasons for the superiority of Abel's offering: it was living, whereas Cain's was lifeless; it was stronger, Cain's weaker; it grew spontaneously, Cain's by human ingenuity; it involved blood, Cain's did not. But all such suggestions seem wide of the mark. Scripture never says there was anything inherently superior in Abel's offering. It may be relevant that there are some references to Abel as being a righteous man (Matt 23:35; 1John 3:12), while the author of Hebrews insists on the importance of Abel's faith. Abel was right with God and his offering was a demonstration of his faith.
Once again, NIV's "commended" represents the passive of the verb "to witness": "it was witnessed" or "testified" that he was righteous (cf. v. 1). This is explained as that God "bore witness" to (NIV, "spoke well of") his offerings. This indicates the importance the author attached to Abel's sacrifice offered in faith, for very rarely is God said to have borne witness. The meaning may be either that on the basis of Abel's sacrifice God testified to his servant or that God bore witness about the gifts Abel offered. We should probably accept NIV's "And by faith he still speaks," though the Greek is simply "through it," where "it" might refer either to "sacrifice" or to "faith." Whichever way we resolve this problem, the main point is that Abel is not to be thought of as one long-since dead and of no present account. He is dead, but his faith is a living voice.

Ron

oh elaine .... you always try to come up with hard-hitting questions, but they never fly.
of course God doesn't make mistakes--and he didn't create any of the diseases that are prevalent these days. what *did* He create? a perfect garden with two perfect people who chose to disobey God.
i guess you either don't believe in or understand what happened in eden and how sin affects us. if that's true, i guess you don't believe in the Bible? or God, for that matter, since you seem to be fighting for the side that believes God makes mistakes???
that is a whole other story to get into. if you simply don't believe in creation and how sin came into the world the way the Bible tells it, then i wonder what you are doing on this, a christian, forum, constantly battling with people who believe in the Bible.

I wonder if he thinks homosexuality is worse than adultery. The sermon was supposed to be about marriage and he ignored the problem of adultery - perhaps because of the situation that is close to his family. Firing grenades at others and conveniently steering away from one's own issues. Clever smokescreen.

Even accepting the Genesis story of the origin of sin, how does it explain the many things occurring in nature that are causally accepted as the results of sin? How can we so confidently differntiate between natural and evil conditions? While the Bible writers attributed certain things to sin, many more are added by man. Is man omniscient in such determination?

"Believing the Bible" is always dependent on the individual's interpretation; what is "clear" to some may not be clear at all to others.

a perfect garden with two perfect people who chose to disobey God.

kb

As the couple had not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil how could they possibly know that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was evil? I prefer to be able to discern evil when I see it, such as the homophobic vitriol which spewed forth at the Andrew's "conference".

The character 'Eve' should be a hero to every freethinking person on this planet.

Thanks Ron, for addressing the extra-biblical interpretation so frequently heard about Cain. The Bible says nothing about the reason for God's action, other than He was displeased. There is no record of a requirement for offerings, or even the type that would, or would not be accepted. I fear that EGW and the Bible have been conflated again.

they did know it was a choice for evil because they knew that God was good and perfect in what He'd said. they understood that they didn't create Him, but it was them who were created! and so it goes without saying that they understood that to do the opposite of what He'd said was choosing evil (disobeying).
why on earth else do you think they would they have HID after they disobeyed?? they were guilty and they knew it!
this is going in circles. some people just do not like to accept the simple answer because it's just that....too simplistic. they like everything difficult and multi-faceted....maybe life is more interesting to them that way....
i agree with you, elaine, in that what is clear to some, may not be..." which is what makes these discussions interesting. in response to your question, "natural" for this earth is the active and constant "condition of sin." what evil high angel thrown out of heaven roams the earth? satan. therefore anything happening here that goes against God, as well as we can understand Him through thorough reading of the Bible, is sin and is unfortunately natural --let me be clear-- *for this earth*......in this sense i am glad for a God who can take whatever happens to me and turn it for good--genesis 50:20 "you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good...." (not you, per se)......... and keafan, you sound like my brother, who for a long time hated God because to him, God was "obey Me, or else you end up with satan."
even though the reality is really just as simple as an evil power against a good power (how star wars isn't it), he felt that that really wasn't free choice at all, but a forced type of decision.
i don't know if he was looking for some kind of alternate dimension with special "extra" choices, or what, but i know he was very unsettled and unhappy with God for a long time.
honestly, this is how it is throughout life on this imperfect earth!--obey the speed limit or you get a ticket. so what-- am i going to speed anyway because that would be "freethinking?" would you applaud me in this? we're told not to speed for a reason. how much more willing should i be to obey my Creator, whether i understand that reason fully or not, if i am willing to obey common earthly law enforcement!!
there is obeying God in what we understand Him on and studying more. always, always studying and praying for more understanding and wisdom and willingness to obey. like i said, our feelings alone should never be a baseline for everything we do or how we live. if you believe in the Bible and in creation by God, then you believe that we did not create ourselves, we were not "there" in the beginning, and we cannot see the whole plan. if you applaud eve, i can only take that to me that you see yourself as some sort of deity..... interesting as that was satan's problem right from the beginning--he wanted the throne and everything that came with it.
i don't look up to eve's decision at all, whereas you do, and so i suppose our discussion on eve/sin/"knowledge of" ends here and now because we'll apparently never agree.

i trust in a God that has led people through good and bad and time and again has blessed them for their faith. there is proof in Bible history, and proof in the lives of believers around me today. i do not praise, nor aspire to be like, people who choose to disobey--like eve.

they did know it was a choice for evil because they knew that God was good and perfect in what He'd said.

That is false. They did no know what was "good" until eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil.

they understood that they didn't create Him, but it was them who were created! and so it goes without saying that they understood that to do the opposite of what He'd said was choosing evil (disobeying).

You are claiming that they knew Good from Evil before eating of the tree.

why on earth else do you think they would they have HID after they disobeyed?? they were guilty and they knew it!

DUH! They had eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil.

kb, I can't help it if the creation story contradicts itself. To expect otherwise is to expect that ignorant Iron Age goat herders knew anything above the level of simpleton.

like i said, we may never agree. and here's how i disagree. i will be as clear as possible:

they did know that God was good in that they knew Him as their "Creator" who provided for them-- example: He made so that they could eat what ever herb and tree whose fruit yields seed to eat, gave them all of the animals to name and keep busy caring for, an entire garden for their keeping, and for adam-- a companion. why? because God knew it wasn't good for him to be alone. after all of this, yes, they understood good. just because they didn't yet know what bad treatment would've been, doesn't mean they didn't love and trust their God because of all He'd done for them already. they had absolutely no reason to fear Him, to distrust Him whatsoever. "ah ha here," you say, "kb, you have proven my point through your very own words!" wait, i'm not finished.
(and i am sure that after seeing eve, adam especially understood that God = good!! ;)

then they received the warning--to not eat of a certain tree for they would surely die.
at the instant this warning was rendered, there is no doubt, all of us being human and understanding the basics of how the human mind works, that they then understood that it would be wrong to go ahead and disobey God by eating of this tree anyway.

do you see what i'm saying? even though they didn't yet understand what evil fully entailed, they did realize and know, at that moment, what it was to "do" wrong--which was to fall away from God and to disobey Him--which would be the first time in their lives, ever.
they knew bad as the opposite of everything God was telling them they needed to do--they simply didn't know for themselves the specifics of *what* would come after choosing Against their Creator.
and just a side note--what could've possibly even had more of an impact on them initially after the warning was issued, of how their God must love them and be all things "good," was the realization that He cared enough to warn them beforehand of this apparently harmful, awful thing. i can see them now-- "a tree with knowledge of good and evil? what does that mean exactly? what is death? why the warning? why is it so bad? it looks like a beautiful tree. i don't get it."

again, the only difference between them and us was they didn't know how evil, evil itself could be. they didn't understand the horror of the consequences that can follow, and had never felt that gut-wrenching feeling one has after making a big mistake.

in a nutshell: not understanding the consequences of evil as deeply as we now do, doesn't mean that they didn't understand that disobeying God--moving away from and not trusting that He knows what is best--was wrong.
they had been given an out (don't go near the tree), but like us now, they couldn't resist testing God, sating their curiosity--instead of simply trusting.
so how does that make genesis contradictory? doesn't the Bible say that you must become like a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven? if you have a different view, let me know, but i always understood that verse to mean trusting and obeying in God supremely.

first eve, and then adam, chose to not do so and even as eve reached for the fruit, we both know >>*since she had been forewarned* << that she knew in the back of her mind what she was about to do was against her Creator's command. that is a fact. she was told "this thing." and she knew full well that she was instead disobeying and choosing "that thing."
that for the first time, she was doing the exact opposite out of everything her so-far-good Creator had ever told her.
so to say that adam and eve didn't know good from evil, and that genesis contradicts itself, is kind of a moot point here, keafan.

maybe what you are referring to is the different meaning the warning had for both parties? God knew, of course, what was really going on if they ate of the tree-- simply that they had chosen rebellion, sin, disobedience, as opposed to peaceful, simple trust, which allowed them all to continue to live in harmony together. choosing your own faulty path is sin--and i mean, they were warned in advance! it's not like it was a trick--and sin against God could in no wise exist in the perfect garden of eden while the divine God of the universe continued to commune with them.
they, on the other hand, only knew that it looked beautiful and wondered why the "knowledge of good and evil" was apparently such a horrible thing. in fact, they already had the knowledge of good and evil--they were wrestling with choosing between God = good, and disobeying God = rebellion and this thing called death, amidst an ominous warning--every single time they looked at that tree and debated trying it anyway. obviously, they didn't realize this on the surface, did they?
the only thing they were missing--and which was what God was trying to protect them from--was the consequences side of "the knowledge of," for they had not yet, until that day, committed any sin.
i ask you, is it our job to know everything God does right off the bat, or are we to simply trust in Him and do as He asks?--seeing as how He IS the omnipotent one, after all...
do you really think that you're going to get to heaven with all of your questions, and God is going to just look at you with His mouth sealed? rev 20:12 promises us that the books will be opened.
in disobeying, they did in fact fulfill what God had warned would happen--death did eventually come, and their inoculation to the consequences of choosing evil died that very day. and we certainly do now understand all too painfully better the consequences of the knowledge of good and evil, don't we? :s

if they'd just kept to obeying God they could've avoided sin in the first place. this was the beginning of free will--and look where it's led to. now you have free will. i have free will. are you happy with the way the earth is going? because i'm not. i'd like for someone to show me how the whole of the human race on this earth is becoming a better people, century by century. where are the stats to back it up?
so based off of your issue with the very beginning of the Bible, which would mean you had an issue with God himself and how good and evil ended up having to be played out, means that you're not Christian? you don't appreciate God or His gift in His Son?
i'm just trying to understand, because i think then that coming to these forums would be a form of mental torture if i were where i understand you to be standing.....just wondering....

Tom
Once again you've made good points and followed them up with a pertinent anecdote. Thank You!
Dave

Its interesting to me that we have latched onto the "sin" (depending how we fall theologically) of homosexuality for this right/wrong debate. I suppose part of it has to do with the way some people have pressed the issue insisting that the Bible does not condemn it. But what about all the other "sins" our culture has Validated: Greed/Capitalism (oops...), Killing/Bombing/War, Judging others, Revenge/Grudges/Not Forgiving, Entitlement, Defending our wealth/position, indifference to the suffering of people who are determined to have earned their position, punitive punishment of wrongdoers - things like these have largely been accepted into church culture without thought.
At the same time, we have relegated as 'ridiculous' or 'wrong' Biblical virtues like peacemaking/pacifism/'turning the other cheek', transparent accountability in community, confrontation/rebuke, etc...

It seems to me we need to find a reasonable way to talk about sin/virtue/gray areas in church that includes everyone and gives everyone a place at the table: a way that allows the scripture to genuinely confront our lives, and a way that provides grace and acceptance to all no matter where we are at.

I'm so glad God's love isn't based upon my interpretation of scripture, my performance at meeting that interpretation, or whether or not I think homosexuality is a sin.

"I'm so glad God's love isn't based upon my interpretation of scripture, my performance at meeting that interpretation, or whether or not I think homosexuality is a sin."

That's easy for each one of us to say, but how about the pastors, like Dwight Nelson, who thunder it from his bully pulpit, indoctrinating the young people? Where do they figure in their interpretation of Scripture? Or where are they considered when their SDA religion teachers also so easily condemn certain sins? Mature readers have the added ability to discriminate in their reading of the Bible, as you, but for all the children and older ones who may be listening to their religion instruction, what is their choice?

It seems to me that a subject as intimate and personal as my sexuality, and how it relates to my faith and spiritual well-being, is most meaningfully and respectfully discussed and prayed about in a smaller group of trusted friends, with people whom I admire and respect and believe in. People who can hold me accountable--because we have personal relationships. To gather a congregation together to worship and praise their God and Saviour, and then turn that worship experience into a "sermon" on the evils of homosexual love seems abusive, not to mention a waste of precious corporate worship, and praise, and thanksgiving. I can't sit through anything like that. Not ever again. And to think that this young person's letter was read publicly (even if anonymously or with permission) strikes me as an abuse of confidence. I go to church to be spiritually uplifted and encouraged. I wonder how many left church that day feeling validated and loved by God.

As I've indicated elsewhere, I think we should start planning for a conference on:

MARRIAGE, HETEROSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH

The premise of the conference would be unassailable: human heterosexual males are the most dangerous animals on earth and those of us who are Christians should do something about it.

We could start with scholarly studies of the millions of men who impregnate women and then abandon them. That would be one problem we could discuss. There are many others too. Adultery, for example.

Some apparently think I'm kidding. I'm not.

Reading the report on the sermon and the entire debate above, it seems clear to me that the true challenge has nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality or adultery or greed or what may or many not have been an acceptable offering for Cain to bring; the real challenge stems from the true tragedy of Adventism.

I am convinced that the real tragedy of the SDA church, the church I belong to and love, is that as a Church we continue to believe that salvation is about what we do, rather than about what Christ HAS ALREADY DONE.

Until we finally accept this beautiful truth we will continue to major in minors and continue to see our children walk away from the church. Oh how I ache to be a member of a CHRISTIAN Church.

While the Bible does prohibit sex between men (homosexuality), it can nevertheless be shown that the prohibition does not apply today when the sexual activity causes no harm. Also the prohibition does not apply today because it applied only to the ancient Israelite and Roman cultures. The Bible criticizes, but does not prohibit, sex between women. Full reasons for these conclusions are given on the Gay and Christian website (www.gaysandslaves.com).

i like RD's idea--definitely.
david larson--i don't think anyone doubts you're kidding. yes, we could use a whole series on every single sin listed in the Bible, sure why not. i think they bothered to have a conference on homosexuality, though, because pastors speak on many, many things. it's not often though, especially in this day and age of trying to keep within PC confines, that you'll find a pastor who will spend his entire sermon hour exploring the theme of homosexuality in the now, and how we should understand it based on what the Bible says, how we as a people should treat the subject.....
i'm an ex PK and grew up exposed to the sda church, its doctrines, and heard sermon after sermon, week after week. no, i'm not brainwashed. i've researched other religions and denominations and did my bit of wandering and exploring.
but what's interesting is that for all the many sermons i've heard, speakers tend to spend that sermon hour talking about Jesus' love, grace through faith, or a significant exchange between Jesus and his disciples, or what adultery does to people on both sides, or the 7 deadly sins, or how to have great health and help your body (temple) function as optimally as possible, or how self control is needed in all areas of life--for example to not let one's temper run rampant, etc and so on.... but i don't recall anyone ever taking that hour to go on and on regarding homosexuality.
i just think its a subject whose time has come. it needs to be discussed because people have strong and varying views on it--and take note that it is not only SDAs who all share very differing, impassioned opinions on it. the U.S. view regarding it is changing in the same way, with the same impassioned responses to every little political move that affects the rights of those who identify as homosexuals.
long gone is the way of treating it as though it's some dirty little secret-- as though we're all still living in 1920s.
so no, i don't see the church's agenda as making it worse than anything else. anything you see happening in the world, you will soon see the adventist church wrestling with and finding a place for whatever issue is "hot" and noteworthy--in the SAME manner as what other denominations and religions go through.
does anyone here really think we're the only church who bothers to respond to whatever is the "now" subject matter in the news??
and i'm done here as far as this responses to the report. i still know where i stand. thanks all for sharing opinions and ideas.

Raycol, your post proves an interesting point.

Some people will believe ANY LIE just because it is posted on some website on the Internet.

The Bible requires only simple faith to believe, the faith of a small child. It convicts us of our sin, provides us with a savior, and asks us to live changed lives all based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is not complicated.

We would do well to stop trying to rationalize our sins, and get at the task of getting ready for Jesus' second coming. World conditions and the Bible seem to indicate that it could be very soon.

Personally I don't have a problem with a sermon on homosexuality. It needs to be talked about.

My problem is that the way it is talked is often a greater sin IMO than the sin itself (though I don't think practicing homosexuality is necessarily a sin.) The reasons given to support the condemnation are unevenly applied - they are trotted out for homosexuality but quietly ignored in other equally applicable situations. The "solutions" given (celibacy) are draconian and not asked of other sexual sinners (those remarried apart from adultery.) Even if asked of other sinners, they are not enforced. For example, straight singles are asked to be celibate but no one is checking whether they are sleeping with a partner before they are allowed to teach SS - you better believe gays are.

The message almost always allows the straight listener to feel morally superior and justified in the singling out of this particular "sin" as especially bad and dangerous. Many straight men have a visceral repulsion towards gay men (notice how so much of the focus is ALWAYS on gays not lesbians) and they interpret that repulsion as evidence for the wrongness of it. Their message says more about them then the issue.

David Larson wrote:
--
As I've indicated elsewhere, I think we should start planning for a conference on:

MARRIAGE, HETEROSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH

The premise of the conference would be unassailable: human heterosexual males are the most dangerous animals on earth and those of us who are Christians should do something about it.

We could start with scholarly studies of the millions of men who impregnate women and then abandon them. That would be one problem we could discuss. There are many others too. Adultery, for example.

Some apparently think I'm kidding. I'm not.
Posted by: davidrlarson | 02 November 2009 at 7:27
--

Too bad, that should have been a joke, a poor one no doubt. Why just heterosexual males that are the most dangerous why not just say males. Nero noted in history was the first to dress up a boy as his wife and he was not some peacelover it appears. But why stop with men, what about women we can find women who kill others, kill their own children or kill their husbands. So why not have a conference on getting rid of human beings...after all according to some they are spending all their time making carbon dioxide and methane and causing global warming. Of course we have all kinds of animals creating carbon dioxide and methane recently the news reported that having a large dog is equivalent to driving an suv every year. To save the earth we must get rid of animals.

Perhaps I went too far. Or perhaps the suggestion that heterosexual men are the most dangerous animal is myopic.

Ron

Just to be sure I didn't miss anything important Dwight Nelson said, I watched the video of his sermon a second time early this morning. I must say it was a well-crafted piece he delivered; and that most of the negative criticisms I've read so far, starting with the main article and subsequent comments, are either due to misinformation or because as listeners with our own unique personalities we hear things differently.

Instead of responding to all the critiques, I invite you to compare Jared's analysis with my own notes:

JW: Then, turning to the scriptural passage for the morning, 1 Corinthians 6:9ff, Nelson apologized in advance "for all the blushing you're going to do." Nelson called the passage "One of the great, great human sexuality passages in all the holy scripture."

JC: Possibly hyperbolic, but definitely a rhetorical device. Moreover, who will argue that the portion of 1 Cor 6 Dwight chose is not mainly about food, neither is it simply addressing lawsuits against one another, as we've been taught in Sabbath School and by evangelists, but about sex and every sin of the flesh?

JW: The text begins with the question, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God (NIV)?" The passage goes on to admonish hearers not to be deceived (and Nelson inserted, "Don't let the culture pull the wool over your eyes--don't be snookered by society, don't be duped_dramatic pause_by politically correct thinking"). The sexually immoral, adulterers, male prostitutes and homosexual offenders (in the NIV rendition) will not inherit the kingdom of God, according to the passage. The text also mentions drunkards, people who swindle, steal, and slander and the greedy. Nelson added several comments of elaboration on the sexual offenses, and simply rattled off the other categories.

Then came the punch line for Nelson, a line he wanted to let hang on the screen all by itself: "And that is what some of you were (verse 11, emphasis Nelson's)."

Nelson finished the thought for Paul: "But something radical has happened to you, and what you were, you no longer are." Those words do not appear in 1 Corinthians.

JC: Whatever conclusion Jared would like us to draw from the passage, that Pastor Nelson simply added his own words to the text ("... you no longer are"), it constituted the preacher's main thesis.

Here's the complete statement of vs 11, ch 6 (NIV): "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Greek (Westcott and Hort): και ταυτα τινες ητε αλλα απελουσασθε αλλα ηγιασθητε αλλα εδικαιωθητε εν τω ονοματι του κυριου [ημων] ιησου χριστου και εν τω πνευματι του θεου ημων

JW: Punctuating the sermon for emphasis, Nelson repeated the phrase, "What you were, you no longer are." He added you have been_________________ and then asked congregants to fill in the many blanks in the study guide with the words "washed," "sanctified," and "justified," commenting on the latter that it is a phrase right out of the courtroom. Nelson then described standing in the courtroom and hearing read out a list of "all your guilty sexual sins."
Nelson's repeated insertion of the phrase "What you were, you no longer are," gave the impression that it was part of the text although the phrase is absent from the 1 Corinthians passage.

JC: I'll let others to decide for themselves whether or not Pastor Dwight's assertion of forensic righteousness (justification) and sanctification by the Spirit, he believes the passage suggests, is valid or not. "What you were ... you no longer are!"

JW: Drawing toward his conclusion, Nelson again referred to the student's letter and the plea for allowing homosexual monogamy. Again, Nelson quoted Hays to respond, noting that for Hays, homoerotic monogamy is not acceptable and Jesus charges, "Go and sin no more." The quote went on to compare homosexual activity to heterosexual fornication or adultery.
Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Anna the Prophetess all lived without sexual relationships, Nelson pointed out. "It can be done," he shouted. Nelson has two children.
Nelson threw in one more statement from Hays, who seemed to be doing most of the talking for Nelson. Homosexual individuals do not have the option of homosexual marriage, according to Hays. Gays are "summoned to a difficult, costly obedience, while groaning for the redemption of our bodies," quoting Hays.

JC: The comparison Pastor Nelson made, quoting Hays, if I heard them correctly, was in particular between homosexuals who choose celibacy and heterosexual singles for whom celibacy is not a choice.

Newman,

Some people will believe ANY LIE just because it is posted on some website on the Internet.

The Bible requires only simple faith to believe, the faith of a small child.

************

Don't insult the intelligence of the many thoughtful, educated people on this blog by accusing them of believing "ANY LIE"... You actually hurt your credibility by such irrational charges. The people with whom you disagree, the people with whom you don't WANT to agree are often people who have spent considerable time following the Biblical injunction to "study..." and to "prove all things..." Those who put together the book, "Homosexuality and Christianity..." included people who have devoted considerable prayer, effort, and study in preparation for what they wrote.

The number of dedicated, educated, prayerful Adventists who are changing their thinking about homosexuality are, I think, simply a threat to you and others on this blog. They are not "traitors" (Hansen), they are not ignorant (Newman), they simply do not agree with you! And my guess is that, in truth, they are far better informed and less reactionary than you are.

If the Bible is so simple to understand (at face value, depending on the translation), why does our denomination spend the money to have a seminary at Andrews and other universities where graduate level work in theology and religion are studied?

"If the Bible is so simple to understand (at face value, depending on the translation), why does our denomination spend the money to have a seminary at Andrews and other universities where graduate level work in theology and religion are studied?"

This seems in total contradiction to the Protestant belief in the "Priesthood of All Believers" and the "believers" must rely on the "educated" seminarians and theologians to tell them how and what to believe, similar to the papal pronouncements. This patronizing attitude leaves no room for open discussion and encourages members who think for themselves to either part company with an institution that practices this concept or relinquish their minds to others. Which is it?

Helen, the Bible was given to all people. It is not necessary to have a PhD to understand it. The Holy Spirit is here to teach us if we are humble and teachable. It seems to me that some of the most confused people about Bible are those who over-analyze it.

As for SSA and homosexuality, I'm quite tired of those who have never experienced it telling those of us who have that they are experts on our situation. How would you like it if I told you that I have studied what it means to be a woman and I am an expert in your situation. You would say I was nuts and you would be right.

As far as knowing about my SSA past, I am an expert about it, just as you are an expert about your past. I know what worked for me to get my life together. It is arrogant for you to assert that others know more about me than I do. Much of the stuff on the Internet about SSA is LIES. I know of many, many men who are on their out of homosexuality and are dealing with their SSA in healthy ways. They are a silent or less vocal group of men who are redefining their lives on their terms. Just because the gay agenda is loud and constant, does not make it right.

I am sure that those who put together the conference at Andrews did it prayerfully and with great effort. I see a whole lot of unkind words toward them from those who write on the blog and who would support the book "Homosexuality and Christianity..."

There is another path. It leads out of homosexuality and deals with SSA in a healthy way. It helped me to find my true God-given heterosexuality. Let those who are affected with SSA consider both paths and decide for themselves.

Newman,

I am not be an expert on SSA, as you say. I respect the path that you have *chosen* in response to your SSA (I call that homosexuality or "gay" because I don't think it is merely SSA). But I am informed enough to know there is more than one path - although that may be difficult for you to accept (I could understand that).

There is growing acceptance among religious people - that being gay is not a choice. That the choices regarding that are how you decide to live.

I call on you to respect those who chose differently than you have. I perceive you have chosen to suppress or deny your innate sexual orientation. While the American Psychological Association has determined that this is often a harmful "path", you have the right to choose that.

However, I know that other sincere gay people believe that God did not answer their agonizing, sincere prayers to change them [do NOT tell me they didn't try as hard as you have] and have chosen a life of monogamy and faith (and it is not your God-given right to declare those mutually exclusive)! Miracles are exceptions, not the norm. Perhaps you have been given a gift others have not. But I believe you are unfortunately mistaken if you declare, "I've done it. Therefore anyone can do it." You may sincerely believe that, but I think to say / think that may be conceited, proudful, or ill-informed.

BTW, Elaine. I think you misunderstood me. I meant to disagree with Newman's idea that reading and understanding the Bible is a simplistic exercise and requires no effort or depth of study. Of course all of us can and should study for ourselves. I believe Carrol Grady is an example of someone who is not a trained theologian but has studied intensely to understand this issue. But, fact of the matter is, the Adventist denomination does have seminaries for some reason, don't they?

You illustrated the paradox in those claiming everyone can read and interpret the Bible for themselves and the many seminaries training in theology. So which is it? Should we, who don't have theological education, have no opinions on the Bible and rely on official church prounouncements? Even those trained theologians are neither medically educated or an expert in psychiatrity. Should they use the Bible's recommendations for treating other disorders? If so, they would be denounced as quacks. By speaking on their interpretation of the Bible's few mentions of homosexual acts, they must ignore the plethora of conflicting evidence from the American Psychological Assoc. and the majority of psychiatrists who have had much more extensive experience in this area. (Disclaimer: I have a granddaughter who has a doctorate in psychology and she agrees that this is not a medical disorder, and should not be "treated.")

Helen,

I find it very interesting to watch the state of the church right now. The church is splitting. I believe Sister White calls it the shaking. There are definitely two groups forming right now before our eyes. One group says that the Bible is true and does not need to be reinterpreted to suit our modern ways, we only need to trust our Lord and his righteousness and prepare for His soon coming believing the Bible for what it says. The other groups says that the Bible does not agree with modern science, and when we hold the two together, the Bible loses and we must reinterpret the Bible to agree with modern science. This is happening in multiple ways: evolution vs. creationism at La Sierra and our other Universities, homosexuality, and with the smorgasbord Adventists that pick and choose which beliefs that they want and disregard the rest. I'm sure that there are other areas too, I am just not aware of them.

I choose to stay with the Bible. The APA is not an unbiased organization, they have an agenda. I choose to trust the Bible over the APA.

"The APA is not an unbiased organization, they have an agenda. I choose to trust the Bible over the APA."

Where have you found a single unbiased agenda?

A challenge: If you choose the Bible over the APA, would you prefer an exorcism of demons with symptoms of hallucinations or even epilepsy, over an experienced physician? These were the recommended Bible "treatments" and diagnoses in the Bible. Would you rely on the recommended treatments there? Or, the diagnoses of treatment of skin disorders. Consistency would demand that the Bible should be trusted over physicians.

Newman,

"I AM RIGHT! I have THE truth!" So Adventist. So sad. The opinions you express remind me of when I was a young woman and my children were all pre-teen. In those days it wasn't unheard of for a "good" Adventist to tell their Catholic neighbors that they had the mark of the beast and wouldn't be saved. Of course, they thought they loved those neighbors and were only trying to warn them. But, many Adventists have since learned that this was counterproductive and not Christlike. Now we seem to have a new "mark of the beast" issue to learn about. Homosexuality.

I believe you are wrong, Newman, to even suggest that your way is the only way, that if people don't believe the Bible the way you do they are profligate sinners, and infer at the least that they will not be saved. I believe you are very enthusiastic and committed to your view and the solutions you have found to taking the Bible seriously.

Jesus Christ never approached people the way I think you do! I take the Bible very seriously. I'm sure others like Carrol Grady, David Larson, Jared Wright, etc. take the Bible very seriously! And I think it is very wrong for you to sit in judgment of whether those who read the Bible differently than you do are not taking it seriously.

My grandmother was expelled from nursing school at Paradise Valley Sanitarium for cutting her hair. That was "against the Bible." Do you believe it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair? I've always cut my hair. Am I ignoring the Bible? The people in charge at Paradise Valley would have said so. But most Adventists today see the Biblical injunction about a woman's hair being short differently than Adventists did 100 years ago.

When I was a young mother no self-respecting woman who truly considered herself an Adventist ("good Adventist") wore a wedding ring. We believed what EGW said about it being wrong to wear a circle of gold on your finger. We were proud to be "different" and believed that if we lived virtuously it would be obvious to others that we were married even though the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" was to wear a wedding ring.

Today good Adventist pastors and their wives wear wedding rings. People in rather prominent positions within the NAD and GC wear wedding rings.

So, Newman. Who was taking the Bible more seriously. Those who refused to wear a wedding ring (and some still sincerely do that) or those who now considered themselves to take the Bible seriously but do wear a wedding ring.

Views change. Ellen White told us to be prepared to have new understandings of the Word of God. It is fine to say, "With all due respect, I disagree with you." But I believe it is wrong to suggest to someone else that they don't take the Bible as seriously as I do because we understand it in different ways.

Hansen, I bother responding to you because I cannot quietly abide having people like my gay grandson and others I know even possibly discouraged from knowing that the Lord loves them and wants them. I take the Bible very seriously, and I believe with all my heart that this is the message from Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels.

Be very careful, please, lest you be the one who discourages a child of God and leads them to believe the lie that God no longer accepts them - regardless of the reason. Please be careful lest you become a "millstone" weighing down another child of God.

Believe the Bible as you do. Stand by it. But please stop short of claiming that anyone who believes otherwise is a lesser Christian. It is so wrong and I believe that this violates a clear Biblical injunction: JUDGE NOT! That command does not say, "Judge not those who you think agree with you and see the Bible as you do." No! It says, "Judge not!" And I think that means, Newman, don't judge anyone.

Newman, you are free to believe as you do and, as I've said, I'll respect that. But I beg you not to judge those who believe differently. I think you're wrong to even suggest that they don't take the Bible seriously.

Sign me a concerned Adventist grandmother!

A loud and ringing AMEN! Helen.

Helen,

You have most eloquently stated what should be the Christian's position. From another very concerned grandmother, who though has no gay children, am concerned for all of God's children that they be welcomed, loved unconditionally and accepted as the song says:
"Just As I Am." God help those who usurp the Judge of All.

Thank you Helen!! It's so wonderful to have folks like you and others who truly reflect the love of Jesus! I was getting so depressed and disheartened with the so called "rightness" of some folks on here. Yet, I believe that Jesus loves them too and I pray for them. Thank you again, Helen and also Carrol, and others!

Helen, thank you for articulating what I think most of us were thinking, but were unable to put as eloquently as you did.

Helen
As to cutting your grandmothers hair. Do you find a text in the bible that says its an abomination to cut it?
If so please refer me to it since you hold it on par with practicing homosexuality.
Also refer me to the churches official position at the time as one requiring girls not to cut their hair. Thanks.

My grandmother was expelled from an Adventist institution for showing her ankles on a tennis court. So what? She at the time, nor any of the generations since took that as anything more than a few people that were in charges opinion of decency standards. Actually the handbook said as much and she knew it. Didn't stop her from kissing her boyfriend behind the gym. Instead of passing on her indignation to her children at her shameful treatment by the school, she always chuckled since she always thought she had gotten away with something. A healthier approach it turns out.

If as you say wearing a wedding ring is the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" why is it so pathetically ineffective?
You must evidently think societies procedures are more effective than Gods since he doesnt require any mark or outward sign.
I mean if it is so important to you that you think everyone should do it, it should at least work shouldn't it? So recognising that wearing a wedding ring is a complete failure as an aid in preventing adultery, why then do you still recommend it?

You object to the time when Adventists you knew, told their Catholic neighbors they had the mark of the beast like it was a denominational requirement and yet at the same time I assume you knew that Paul talked of using winsome methods in talking with people. EGW said Christs method alone will work. I dont remember him coming in and putting people on the defensive with untimely and unwise abrasive statements. Who's fault is it then that people back then couldnt recognise they dycotomy between what they were doing and what the bible and EGW taught? Their own. Hebrews 5:12-13 NASB “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food."

So here we go again. Instead of learning the right lesson from those experiences people use what happened as a justification to do the same thing except on the other side of the fence. Failing to recognise elementary principals like God creating humanity male and female.

Perhaps you should consider that the different view you refer to are more complete views of the whys and hows that already exist and not the different views that put it 180 degrees opposite of the biblical position.

Michael: you write "If as you say wearing a wedding ring is the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" why is it so pathetically ineffective?
...
I mean if it is so important to you that you think everyone should do it, it should at least work shouldn't it? So recognising that wearing a wedding ring is a complete failure as an aid in preventing adultery, why then do you still recommend it?"

I'm sorry, but your logic just doesn't follow. Sure there is a lot of adultery in the world. But why would you conclude the wedding ring is the sole variable involved? It most certainly isn't. If you want to isolate one variable and determine the effect it has you would need to somehow run a study where all other variables are controlled and this one is different.

Reality is that there are many many reasons for adultery. For all you know the wedding ring could be a significant deterrent to adultery. Perhaps if everyone took them off the rate would skyrocket. You don't know one way or the other and neither do I.

How then can you say wearing a wedding ring is a complete failure? If you want to draw such an extreme conclusion - picking out one variable and attributing all cause to it - then please provide some empirical data to support this.

Unlikely that any exists.

To be honest, I have to go by my own life experiences. I am gay and I am fine with that. I tried to suppress it, but the fruits of that were disasterous and hurt a lot of people, including myself. I've tried to be straight and saw no benefit to that. Accepting myself as a gay man has brought me peace. Enough peace that if I have to choose between accepting myself for who I am or belonging to a church community, accepting myself wins hands down.

For other people, pretending to be straight might work for them, but not for me. That the Adventist church won't accept me is sad, but not unexpected, and they have that right. Trying to over-reach that right and control my and everyone else's sexuality, though, is where they cross the line into evil behaviour. Fighting to keep me from having the same rights as they enjoy is shameful for them, and more and more members are starting to realize that.

I'm reading "It's Really All About God" (which was reviewed here awhile back), and the one phrase that resonates with me is that when it comes to life or religion, 'life wins'. That's what I found. I tried to fit myself into the Adventist Mold for almost 40 years and it was detrimental. Life eventually won. And those who gleefully warn that I'd better turn or burn don't really make a shred of difference to my reality.

Rich
Read the original quote from Helen.
You miss every salient point.
I'll only point out one. Your conundrum of "why would you conclude the wedding ring is the sole variable involved?"
I didn't conclude that.
Helen said "Today good Adventist pastors and their wives wear wedding rings. People in rather prominent positions within the NAD and GC wear wedding rings."
That was contrast with when she was a young mother.
"When I was a young mother no self-respecting woman who truly considered herself an Adventist ("good Adventist") wore a wedding ring."
Due to the changes over time she asks, "Who was taking the Bible more seriously?"
She offers no answers except in her contrast of the Adventist position compared with the worlds at the time.
She says, "even though the normal societal sign of saying "I'm married, I'm not available" was to wear a wedding ring."
Hence, wearing a wedding ring is designed as a signal warning off advances.
Since a 50% success rate is not considered effective in any medium we can conclude that the stated practice given (not by me) is ineffective as a solution to the stated problem.
I asked since the practice is ineffective for the problem, why support the practice?
It takes a lot of effort to even walk you through this one point. I hope I wont have to do it in the future.

I have heard many men of different ages all agree that when a female is wearing a wedding ring, they "back off"--she's married and they do not want to pursue further friendship. The same applies to males wearing wedding rings. Either sex is declaring they are not open to "dates."

While there are both sexes who disregard the wedding ring, unless a "friendship" is pursued that encourages further advances, the ring is an excellent deterrent. While it is not a "protection" for further advances, either party can easily refuse involvement.

Claims that a wedding ring is insufficient to prevent adultery, the ring is neither a deterrent nor protection. The essential deterrent is a simple refusal. Unless someone has made blind studies, any statement otherwise is a sheer speculative one.

Personal story: many years ago (late 40s) I worked for the Air Force in the Inspector General's office where there were far more majors, colonels, and even generals, than lieutants. The military services rely on identification of rank by the bars or birds on the shoulders. On being introduced to a visiting officer, I was introduced as Mrs.... The officer immediately said: "Aren't you flying under false colors?"

As "camp followers" have always been associated with the military, it was a distinct rebuke when he noticed I was not wearing a wedding ring. To him, and the other officers, I was being compared with a "female camp follower" and "available."

This is a tiresome subject, or an annyoing one, at any rate. Why would a loving God allow little five year old boys to be attracted to hired hands [male] they saw showering in an outdoor shower? I am quoting from my own experience as a very adventist five year old who paradoxically was fascinated by what I saw in that outdoor shower area. It was not simply fascination with the adult body I assumed I'd have one day. It was an attraction before I even knew what sexual attraction was. A God of mercy would have allowed that little boy to at least grow up to adolescence before he even had an attraction for nude showering males. Conservative Christians who drone on and on about homsexuality being a choice are sadly misinformed. Those who suggest marriage for gays who really have no stomach for heterosexual sex are the cruelest of the lot. Those who insist that gays should be celibate should lead the way and give up relations with their own wives before dictating what others should or should not do regarding their sexual make-up.

Elaine
I have waited long but consider today to be a red letter day. One where I can finally agree with you.
As you said here, "the ring is neither a deterrent nor protection. The essential deterrent is a simple refusal."

I so totally agree. What then is the draw or purpose of wedding rings? Sentimentality about a so called never ending circle of love or any of the other trite devotions of love motifs that are again no assurance of a lifelong commitment?
Or do some people just like wearing jewelry and want to feel good about spending all that money on themselves??

What are your thoughts?

Michael,

A simple wedding band can be very inexpensive.

Some people wear a wedding band so as to not bear false witness in their culture.

A story. My brother tragically lost his wife in an accident. Heartbroken, it took a very long time before he could get the courage to ask someone out and begin dating again. Working at an Adventist hospital, he decided to ask a woman to a concert. It took every ounce of courage he could muster. She did not wear a wedding ring, so he assumed she was not married. When he finally summoned the courage to ask, he was quickly told by her that she was married. He was mortified, embarrassed, and quite upset. NOT wearing a ring sent the wrong message.

Many wear a wedding ring to avoid this kind of confusion and to avoide assumptions of promiscuity. A physician was prescribing birth control for a woman without a ring, not realizing that she was married. The Adventist woman was sending, unknowingly and embarrassingly, the message that she was sexually active and single when actually she was and have been married for several years.

"Why don't you wear a wedding ring?" the Doc asked.

Why, indeed, the woman wondered, realizing the false message she was sending. She and her husband immediately discarded the mantra of "not one penny should be spent on a ring of gold" from the agrarian age when neighbors for miles around knew everyone's status, bought inexpensive rings, and focused on truth. Sentimentality, feeling good about spending all that money on themselves had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Ironically, to judge people as unrighteous, sentimental, and showy for wanting to tell the truth is an amazing assumption. Assuming without truthful knowledge is risky.

A wedding ring is significant and important to some people for a lot of reasons. It is unimportant to God. "Man looketh on the outward appearance but God looketh upon the heart."

The 1949 engraved wedding band that I gave Betty cost $7.00.

Living in Chicago and riding the "L" to work, it was very important. Tom

"...why on earth,when dealing with such a sensitive topic, do we use the NIV? which was written for those at the 7th grade level and has drastically changed verses from what was originally in the KJV??? are we not adults? can we not "handle" as close an interpretation as possible from original?"

kb,
You have got to be kidding! As "they" say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"; and I might add, no knowledge ends up with statements like this.

As it turns out, the KJV is based on the Greek New testament that was hastily put together by Erasmus, who translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. Besides that, Erasmus relied on some shaky manuscripts that he begged and borrowed from who knows where, some of which had missing pages that he had to improvise. And you prefer the KJV, because ... its sounds intellectual? Can we not handle some research into how the various versions of the Bible got written? and dispel the myths associated with the good old KJV?

Bunbury, as Wayne has suggested on this blog, the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it is holiness. It is not right to suggest heterosexual marriage to someone who experiences same-sex attraction (SSA) as a "cure" for their SSA. Heterosexual marriage is something to consider only after much healing has occurred, and It may not be right for all individuals. As for whether a man with SSA should be celebate, that is between God and that man, with the understanding that the greater focus is holiness and being ready to live eternally with God, not just on things of this world. Our God is so ultimately powerful and wants more for us than we even want for ourselves. The usual barrier to finding that greater good is our own self-imposed barriers, ideas, perceptions, and misconceptions. Jesus spent a great amount of time trying to help us learn to think in better ways, to achieve real, lasting healing and happiness. True healing from SSA in MY life happened when I learned to think about myself, the world around me, and others differently. I like this saying, "my belief about my perceptions creates my reality."

As for why a 5 year old boy it attracted to the male physique, only God knows. Why are children born with cerebral palsy, cleft lips, or with AIDS? What about the the little kid who is born into a family with obese parents and becomes obese himself? The answer is simply because we live in a sinful world, affected by thousands of years of sinful behavior, and we are born of parents who are also affected. God's grace is sufficient for all of us. It only illustrates how totally evil sin really is and why God must rid his creation of Satan, the author of sin.

The real question to consider is this. Am I going to trust God enough to realize that he has my ultimate happiness at heart, and knows what is right for me. Can I trust His word the Bible and realize it is not the Bible that needs to change, it is me that needs newness of life.

PLM
I can see that happening, I mean about your brother.
Perhaps I would problem solve it differently or go about it differently.

In engineering the saying form follows function is big. It means the way you go about things or design things is based on how you want it to function.
You might condense it further to something about the ability to reason from cause to effect and weigh the variables.

I might have tried to be friends first and get to know her before asking her out. I would then have discovered if she was married or not prior to making embarrassing declarations. Also one can get to know the real person before one is overtly putting their best foot forward, like on a date where you only see what they want you to see.

Empirically the example you have given is not the best one in favor of wedding rings because that girl could have as easily had a boyfriend that would have amounted to the same reaction! Right?
So the solution is get to know her FIRST not make her wear wear a ring.

As to the Doc. His assumptions are his own. Or does he do confessions on the side?
Women send many more false messages with their attire and demeanor.

PS I looked up the quote by Sullivan and it works even in general context of this thread.
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.
-Louis Sullivan-

This principal is in our modern physics, biology and science.
It even applies to How God made us.

Michael

Please read Ezekiel 16, particularly verses 1-14--then give your song and dance. Tom

Newman :

I still am waiting for your mail.

I was not at all kidding, For a long time I search for a man or woman having changed the sexual orientation from homo - - to hetero - - . Repeatedly I heard the speakers down the pulpit, the rostrum and the TV screen talking about persons with a change of sexual orientation they definitely know. Kindly requiring a personal contact I always heard : " - not in contact any more"/ "has moved away"/ "does not reply just now" / "Was very long ago" - "passed away inbetween"- - - .

Your last posting seems to reveal your approach : " - is not heterosexuality, it is holiness" . This is a clear statement I have to accept.

Anthropology and Theology thereafter have to deal with the issue "sexuality vs. holiness" - am I right ?

Michael asked:

"As to cutting your grandmothers hair. Do you find a text in the bible that says its an abomination to cut it?"

This is the text that was used when I was a girl:

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has lng hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering?"
(1 Cor. 11:14-15.)

This clearly is a cultural practice; otherwise why all the portraits of Jesus with long hair?

I recall a girl who was threatened expulsion from an SDA boarding academy if she or any of the girls cut their hair! They used "shrinking soap" a euphemism for scissors.

Most all the modesty prohibitions were ordered and enforced by men.
When did you remember men having their "proper dress" being censored? For women it was: no makeup, no jewely, even wedding rings, no hair coloring, no cutting of hair (this was when "bobbed hair and makeup" were seen as the dress of prostitues; long stockings at all times, etc. Men were untouched by such censoring of dress.

Tom
Everyone knows Ezekiel 16 is a story of redemption and betrayal not a treatise on adornment.
The whole chapter is an allegory.
Unless you actually believe Jerusalem is a woman whose father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. In that case there is little hope you will understand what is going on there.

Michael

Don't lecture me. Allegory for sure, but why did God choose that imagry, if jewelry was intrinsically sinful? The fine linen and the adornment wasn't sin. It was the puffery that
Israel fell into. As is with the case of pietism. The holier than thou mind-set is just as sinful, if not more, because it is so difficult to reach or reform. Even Jesus had only three recorded successes: Nichodemis, Joseph of Arimatheaea and Saul/Paul.

The typical mind-set of Adventism is parallel to that of the Pharasees of Christ's day. The patronizing of young women with a wedding band is a classic example. Sin is of the heart not the adornment is the bottom-line of the allegory, in case you didn't get it. Tom

Elaine
I do not understand. The text says long hair is a dishonor to a man and yet you say Jesus is always portraid in long hair.
I've seen the pictures too.
Are you saying portraying Jesus with long hair was done to dishonor him?

My grandmother told me of one girl she knew,if I remember right, she held the opinion that a womans hair was her glory so she felt, the more glory the better. I guess it eventually reached the floor or nearly and due to EGW's counsel of not wearing excessivly long skirts for sanitary reasons, was forced to braid and ball it up on her head, where she started recieving rebuke for all the time she was spending "adorning" herself.
So on the one hand she was following the dont cut your hair thing and on the otherhand she was chastized for expending the energy to manage it.
There will always be nuts. They used to involve themselves in trivialities like cutting hair. There are still nuts but now they are on both sides of the street.
On the right side you have the hair cutting nuts.
On the left side you have the homosexuality is just like hair cutting nuts.
They are both wrong.

Perhaps then Tom, you shouldn't lecture me. You dont get far enough from the barn to have much of a clue what Adventism is like today, at least not to the extent of your overgeneralizations.
Sing that.

God also said he was taking Israel to a land flowing with milk and honey. Shall we take that as the God given perfect diet?
In both cases he was using descriptions that were common and appealing to the hearer. But the hearer in Ezekiel 16 was a harlot. He was using descriptive imagery of how he was taking care of Jerusalem and providing for her in the context of what she valued as a harlot.
The same as he did when he described the promised land to people he knew would die before they got there.

We seem to have strayed from the original topic of this blog, but I'd be interested to know how Michael understands Gen. 24:22,30,47,53.

Michael,

I haven't been out of Adventism that long, but I still know, and am still friends with some of them, hear about what's going on at some of the schools, get the R&H, get the Hope Channel...and the churches doctrines and beliefs haven't changed, since I joined in 1976. Going to the movies and some other entertainment is done. Jewelry is worn more often, but there are still Universities, and of course academies, that still don't allow jewelry,among other things. I mean, I don't see much difference in the fundamental beliefs, teachings, and actual culture of Adventism than it was all those years ago. I think the gospel is coming in more, as people have read other Christian writers, and aren't so ruled by Ellen. But that isn't from the GC.

I think Tom's view is quite accurate.

What is Adventism like where you are?

Michael

God only implied the Wheaties. I use milk and honey on cerals most mornings. You should try it. I think you'll like it.
Only a suggestion not a lecture. Tom

Michael, You've either successfully used the political trick of changing the subject when you don't like the line of the conversation. Or perhaps you've demonstrated that you don't know how to stay on topic. Jewelry and hair length were NOT the topic of what I posted yesterday. They were illustrations. And there is a significant difference between those.

Newmann, You said, "the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it is holiness". I see that as the same conceited, arrogant, judgmental approach you continue to take. It implies that homosexuals are unholy! Now how do you judge that? You don't know the personal circumstances of every homosexual. I think you are judging again, and again, and again. I can't help but wonder if being judgmental and conceited like this helps you maintain the personal fortifications you need to deny your own sexuality!

And I still say to you, Newmann - that is very wrong! It is *unholy* to judge others. The Bible is very plain about that. Jesus said that He did not come to this world to "condemn the world". He said, "judge not." He told story after story and left example after example of meeting people in an accepting manner. Ellen White says "He never needlessly spoke a harsh word." And when He spoke harshly it was against judgmental hypocrisy. Jesus broke the taboos of His day. I think you would have been among those who would have rejected Him then because He didn't conform.

I will not remain silent about this because I have a very deep-seated concern for *every* person (all are children of God) to know that they are loved unconditionally by our Savior. "People need the Lord!" I want them to know that while some like you will judge them and stand on the Spectrum street corner and declare their "holiness", in God there is no south or north, no male or female, no gay or straight! He ordered us to call no one unholy (unclean) (remember the vision on the rooftop?)! And He made it very clear that He is God because HE is the one and only judge! Only He can declare a person holy or unholy!

I want to counter your voice as strongly as I can because I feel you are a danger to the faith of others!

Michael wrote:

"Elaine

I do not understand. The text says long hair is a dishonor to a man and yet you say Jesus is always portraid in long hair.
I've seen the pictures too.
Are you saying portraying Jesus with long hair was done to dishonor him?"

I agree, you do not understand.

Jewelry, in Adventism, at the highest level, all depends upon who is wearing it, where and when.

Story:
The Dell Webb Corporation was the builder of the original LLU Hospital (Health Center). At the dedication, Mrs. Del Webb was the honored guest, her husband having passed away. That evening a banquet was held with Mrs. Del Webb as honored guest. The seating was arranged so that the President of the General Conference was on her right and the Chairman of the Board on her left and I was seated directly across from Mrs. Del Webb. I was wearing a business suit off the rack. She was wearing a designer dress and three strings of pearls as large as humming bird eggs. Her right ring finger had a square cut ruby as large as a square of Hersey's. The ring alone was more than my net worth. I assumed the seating was arranged so that I, a builder's son and an academic leader in a worldly institution, could engage her in conversation. We had a delightful evening. The name of Ellen G. White never entered the conversation, nor was there even the slightest hint of disapproval of either the neckline or of the adornments.

I can say that Mrs. Del Webb is an excellent conversationalist. I don't know if she endowed a chair at the Medical Center, but I can testify that she was well endowed.

Now if the President of the General Conference can treat Mrs. Del Webb as a child of God why frown at some young lady with skin an clear as milk and honey entering church with a tiny gold wedding band? Beats me! Tom

Elaine

Just one possible addition to your last sentence: "I agree, You choose not to understand!" The man is not witless just enjoys himself a bit too much. Tom

Helen
I can stay on topic but consider the fact that I am conversing with other people besides your self. Don't let my other conversations confuse you. To the extent that you think I commented off topic, They were your illustrations, if my comments were off topic then perhaps your illustrations were as well.

Tom
Wheaties are a fine breakfast but they dont advance your point. Shall I take your lack of pertinent response to be a surrender or merely a retreat?

Elaine
Here is your post on the subject I was inquiring about.
"This is the text that was used when I was a girl:
"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering?"
(1 Cor. 11:14-15.)

This clearly is a cultural practice; otherwise why all the portraits of Jesus with long hair?"

Which is the cultural practice? The viewpoint of the text or the modern artist? Which is the "this" you are referring to?

Everything written in the Bible was during an era when common practices were far different from today. Unfortunately, there were no cameras in the first century, just as in the Middle Ages when portraits of Jesus and the Bible figures were often displayed in the dress of different eras.

Michael

I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. Fortunately most were highly instructive. But attempting a conversation with you has not been one of them. You offer nothing, you give nothing, you prove nothing, you defend the indefensible. The emptiness of your parleys is painful. To argue, as you have, that the wedding band is intrincially sinful and pass off God's use of apparel and adornment in an allegorial setting as without relevance to the issue is to denegrate God. Is God so febble minded as having to demonstrate His love and care taking of His chosen people by the allegorical use of gifts of sinful jewelry? The labored pietism you present is the heigth of self approval.

I concede nothing, I do repent of breaking my decision to avoid conversation with you as without merit or benefit of logic or rational resolution. If you think you won, bully for you. Never-the-less Ezekiel 16 destroys your comfortable little world of red books.

Besides we are miles away from the intention of this thread--but your verbal beating up of that little girl ticked me off. Of that I also repent.

I stand with God. My beloved receives gifts without pedestrian use or benefit. She wears them with comfort in my husbandship, as Israel should have been grateful and comfortable with the protecting and generous hand of God.
Tom

P.S. I do recommend milk and honey on Total et al.

Helen, we are all unholy, every one of us, me included. We all fall short of the glory of God. The Bible calls us all sinners. Homosexuals are sinners just like the gossips, liars, the arrogant and everyone else in the church and in the world. Unfortunately, the church has its acceptable sins and its unacceptable sins. To me they are all a problem. We all have work to do. The opposite of all sin is holiness. Holiness and obedience are what God wants for us. Works do not accomplish anything to earn our salvation, but after we accept Jesus as our savior, doing things his way keeps us out of trouble and makes us happy.

As for homosexuals, I have worked with at least 100 men who want to come out of homosexuality and who, when they finally discover their true masculine identity, are happier than they have ever been in their whole lives. I too have a very deep-seated concern for all people. In regards to homosexuality, the topic of this current blog, you propose to leave them stuck in their condition. I don't find that very compassionate at all. The Bible proposes helping people to overcome their problems, and have true freedom, including from homosexuality. That is compassion.

One last thing, you can keep making your snide comments about me and my freedom from homosexuality. Go ahead, you don't know me or my situation. It just keeps showing me and everyone else on this blog how closed minded you about the possibility of change.

Newman, you stated true healing from Same Sex Attraction (I hate acronyms) in MY life happened when I learned to think about myself, the world around me, and others differently. I like this saying, "my belief about my perceptions creates my reality."

Yes, I also am a believer in the "I create my own reality" movement which is a big hit with the New Age movement these days. I also believe in the power of positive thinking, but we're dealing with raw physical desire here as well as deeply-ingrained attraction for one's own gender. This is not just a physical reaction, but an affectional one. One can very well learn to have sex with a woman, but one's affections and true heart will always be with men and the incomparable joys of maleness that only another man has to offer.

On the other hand, if you really have found the key that unlocks the secret door into heterosexuaity, you should provide links to a website of your own designing in which you would provide the steps, methods, etc., that you employed to change from SSA (as you put it) to the comfortable heterosexuality you say you now enjoy. To do less than this sounds very mean of you, I might add. If you really love your struggling Christian homosexuals who may want what you have found, then you owe it to them, to God and to yourself to come forward with the goods.

May God bless you, Newman, as you work on this proposed website with all the solutions to struggling Christian homosexual's problems.

Bunbury,

That website already exists.

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

It is not my site, but I know the owners and have worked with them on my healing, as well as helping in the healing of many other men who have worked with them as well. It is a great group of men, men from many faiths, SDA, LDS, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and others I'm sure. This is not all that i've done, but for someone who wants true change, it is a good place to start.

I am not the least bit New Age. I am not a total "power of positive thinking" person either. Sin does exist there is no way to avoid its effects. I did see myself and the world in very destructive ways before and by learning to see myself and the world differently, I am a much more happy person.

Newman says:

"I have worked with at least 100 men who want to come out of homosexuality and who, when they finally discover their true masculine identity, are happier than they have ever been in their whole lives."

You are comical! "When they finally discover their true masculine identity"! I don't know what kind of gay you "were" but to assume that all gay men are not in tune with their "true masculine identity" just proves how you view yourself and the world in stereotypes. Meet most of my butch gay friends, and you'll see why even straight men gladly take cues from them regarding "true" masculinity. Nothing sissy about them. This was obviously not your predicament or that of those select 100 men.

So GAY = EFFEMINATE in your world right? This brings memories of all the effeminate married men who sang in choir with me at Andrews, for Dwight Nelson's sermons at PMC. They were overly nice to me, offered me rides when walking to choir practice, and just plain liked being around me. A sense of longing was omnipresent. Looking back, I feel so sorry for them.

GlobeScout, are you always so superficial? Are externals all that you focus on? I never mentioned the word EFFEMINATE, you did.

The men that I have worked with have found themselves to be more self confident, learned how to see how they fit in to their world, how to relate to destructive relationships, how to deal with unhealthy events and memories of the past, how to deal with wrong perceptions, how to take better care of their body, how to release body shame, etc. It is really great work. It is really fulfilling to participate in and really great to help others experience too. Hope to see you there someday!

I am glad to say that Dwight Nelson posed nothing more than an unqualified opinion or a personal editorial on a subject that he is no more qualified to speak on than he is to explain the theory of relativity! His buffoonish effort to demonize real people, portray a level of disrespect that Jesus would never condone, and then have the audacity to indicate that he is speaking the truth is utterly abominable. This sermon is just another reason why Christianity is falling out of favor for many people.

I'd like to add that I truly value a very wonderful grassroots organization and would like to thank SDA Kinship for all that they do!

www.sdakinship.org/

Newman suggests:

http://www.peoplecanchange.com (sound familiar? Remember Colin Cooks ministry Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) which won support of the Adventist church?)

I went to this website you suggested and found this and I quote:

"In sharing our experience, we mean no disrespect to those who identify as gay and choose to live a gay life. They are as deserving of respect as we are. Their path may be right for them. We cannot judge another person’s life."

Newman, how are your comments reflecting this stated ideal?

The following website sheds some light on the history of such ex-gay movements:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/history-of-the-ex-gay-ministries

Finally, God Bless the State of Washington for passing Referendum 71 yesterday that continues to allow same-sex couples to have the same rights as other married couples!

"GlobeScout, are you always so superficial? Are externals all that you focus on? I never mentioned the word EFFEMINATE, you did."

Newman, I suppose you fancy yourself as the one with depth here. I'm not focused on any "externals" but you seem to be.

You mentioned: "I have worked with at least 100 men who want to come out of homosexuality and who, when they finally discover their true masculine identity, are happier than they have ever been in their whole lives."

I this sentence, you equate homosexuality with effeminacy by default, as you feel the need to help gay men discover masculinity. The opposite of Masculinity is Femininity from which the word effeminacy derives. Can't believe I'm having to spell this out!

Are all mild mannered men (often associated with effeminacy) gay? Anyways, what's so wrong with a mild mannered man, unless of course if you are influenced by a chauvinistic society.

Newman,

am I correct ? - You dont intend to change "homo-" to "hetero- ", I mean from the one sexual orientation to the very other sexual orientation, but you say "from homo - to holiness".

May I remeber Mt 22 : 30 - Mk 12 : 25 - Lc 20 : 35 36 ?

We (oh, sorry, I can only speak for myself) just have to accept that. The men you helped have improved by finding their true masculine indentity - - and are happier as they have ever been - - .

This I accept.

But what is "true masculine identity" ?

But where did your clients come from (that is the one question so often neglected)

and where did they get ( I am not satisfied with the validity and reliability of Joses and Yarhouse to measure their success.)

to happiness or to at once being attracted (or tempted) by the very and essentially female ?

This is an approach I miss in the discussions especially by some conservative Christians, maybe based on the disavowal
and denial of their very own (hetero)sexual orientation and all its facets.

Maybe we must limit our expectations.

GlobeScout,

you are the expert on all things related to sexuality, period. And a very angry expert you are. The truth is that you are not an expert on me or any of my friends who have left homosexuality. You are a loud, angry person who makes blanket statements and paints with a broad brush to try to silence opposing viewpoints. Why is it that people who so demand tolerance from others and claim to be so tolerant are the most threatened by opposing viewpoints?

You are an expert on you. If you want to be gay, then be gay. I have no problem with that. The information I have posted here is for people who don't know where they stand, or for those for whom homosexuality is not working for them, and believe me, it does not work for many people.

Many men who experience SSA don't feel like they identify with being feminine, they just don't fell masculine enough, like there is a vacuum of masculinity in their life. There are plenty of men who you would never know that they experienced SSA because they don't behave effeminately. They are very masculine appearing on the outside. The work that they do focuses on helping them to be different on the inside, that may translate into changes of external behavior, but that is not the initial goal. The goal is to help men with SSA tap into what God already created to be there, and build on that. For some men that may mean learning to be more assertive. For others it may be to fit in better with the men in their life. For others, it may be to learn to disconnect from smothering feminine relationships in their life. Each man is different and each path out of homosexuality is different. For all of these men, it is a growing process that takes time. As growth happens, the homosexual behavior begins to disappear. For many, heterosexual attractions begin to appear and they begin to want a relationship with a woman.

True masculinity is the point where a man who has experienced SSA begins to perceive himself as a man among men. He feels like he fits into the world of men. He begins to define what kind of man he wants to be. It is a growing process.

Helen Dunn must be invited to present at the next SDA Church Conference on Homosexuality for a fresh and vital perspective. It is so interesting that it takes a grandmother to put this debate into real life context, and in such a beautiful and forceful way too.

Newman, I respect that you have found happiness and peace. Looking over the people can change website, I don't doubt that it has helped you. Shame is something that many of us gays have had to overcome and it sounds like this particular group does a lot to deal with that.

What bothers me is when you say things like, "In regards to homosexuality...you propose to leave them stuck in their condition." You see, I went down a similar path of dealing with my shame. When I came out, I went to my pastor who suggested that I was a sex addict and sent me to a 12 step program. It was the best thing he could have done for me. While there, I was able to talk freely about my life in a circle that did not judge me for being gay, nor worried that my homosexuality meant I was "stuck" in a "condition". While there I worked on issues of shame and ultimately discovered that I was not a sex addict, but that I am gay and that gay isn't anything to be ashamed of.

Since going through that therapy, I have become 'unstuck'. Finally. It's been a few years now and I have found incredible peace and happiness by simply being myself, and not trying to hide who I am.

As far as my spirituality goes, that is something I am trying to rebuild. For me, my religion became something that spiritually abused me. God was (and still is) portrayed as a parent-figure who says, "You are not good enough for me, and you never will be, but just be grateful that I love you". Imagine your dad saying that to you! Imagine saying it to your own kids! Imagine the damage that would be done. Thank God I had two earthly parents who loved me and let me know it. But now that I have found peace in who I am, I can seek God just as I am. And as I do that, I am also seeing how I was essentially bashed in the face by the religion I grew up in.

So that is a part of my story, Newman. It is different than yours, but similar in that I have also found freedom. If you want me not to judge your path and if you want me to respect it, all I ask is that you do the same for me.

Truly,
Jamie.

If you want me not to judge your path and if you want me to respect it, all I ask is that you do the same for me.

I want to add, Newman, that one of the ways you can show respect for those like me, who have chosen a different path than you, is to watch the language you use. In many of your posts above you use phrases that make it sound like you are somehow superior to me. You make it sound like you have taken this wonderful high road, while I still wallow in the mud. I believe that this is unintentional on your part, but that is how you are coming across nevertheless.

I don't want you to betray your conscience, but if you really believe that people like me are 'stuck' in a 'condition' maybe it is best not to say so. Maybe it is best for you to simply tell YOUR story without denigrating mine, even if you do think I am depraved and unsaved. That way other gay people who may be reading this can read both your story and mine and make a decision without being made to feel ashamed of who they are.

Truly,
Jamie.

But what is "true masculine identity"?
Posted by: gerhard svrcek-seiler | 05 November 2009 at 10:58

I'm not answering in Newman's behalf since he's more than capable of standing his ground without extra help from those who agree with him. Because he reports his personal experience, his testimony speak for themselves requiring no further defense unless it's his reliability as a witness that is suspect. However, having followed his account since he started posting, there's no question in my mind he's telling the truth.

Briefly, to answer Gerhard's question, it depends on where one is coming from: whether back of our minds is an essentialist assumption that sexual orientation is an unchangeable, inherent trait or if we believe that our sexuality is a social construction dictated by our unique cultural contexts.

I believe (my bias) that Jesus' statement, reported by the evangelists you cited, suggests that our sexual identity mirrors God's image as much as it's the likeness of a social reality we've constructed about ourselves and of each other.

Mark 12:25 (NIV)- "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (cf. Mt 22:30; Lc 20:35, 36)

Carol,

Earlier you wrote something very interesting: "I wonder - are homosexuals all given the gift of celibacy?"

It strikes me as inconsistent that as Adventists we don't believe in predestination, but when it comes to homosexuals, we believe, by necessity of our stance on homosexual relationships, that every homosexual is predestined to exercise the gift of celibacy as a Salvific requirement. Never mind that some of the other "gifts" offered up to God are never an issue of Salvation, but rather a response to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

How often are we encouraged to help members find their "gift" within the congregation. Hospitality, Compassion for the bed ridden, Music, Organization, etc. None of these are compulsory to membership, and certainly none of them are considered Salvific. Yet we apply a predestined Salvific "gift" to any homosexual who desired membership and inclusion into the Christian body.

It seems Pastor Nelson must have missed this inconsistency when writing his sermon.

I applaud your efforts here Carol. The church needs more like you.

Afriend

If there is some "true masculine identity" is there a "true feminine identity"? Would that necessary follow?

To be assertive is masculine? To be nurturing and compassionate is feminine? Have you not seen the "qualifications for true maturity" as embodying most of the so-called "masculine traits"? These traits are liberally found in either sex. To divide them into sexual categories is an affront and offense to either sex.

Are Helen Dunn, Carrol Grady, and Elaine not assertive?

To Joselito :

Thank you for your comment.

I do not intend to correct Newman. Only the matter is , as far as I see it, developing towards a broader understanding :

Whe I hwas beginning my studies and training long ago, my preassumption was that everything could be trained, cleared, reinforced, improved : The low bood pressure, the asthenia, the panic attacs.

With a very uneasy feeling I had to accept "biological" limitations here and there.

One just has a dyslexia; I have something similiar in doing any arithmetics.

But may I display two cases (alienated) : The beloved
clergyman with a family, repeatedly found caressing the buttocks of young men in the subway - with two lawsuits.

The successful and renowmned business manager with family, not being able to withold his desire to caress the penis of a young man helping in the garden - lawsuit.

Do you know what I want to show ? - Well, , believe me, I never ( n e v e r ! ) had a temptation in that direction, and dear close friends assured me feeling in the same way.

That means : We also never had to fear the police or the court or the gossip in case we should lose our self control.

On the other side there were those couples of men the left - liberals used to invite ostentatiously to every social event in the seventies - - I felt uneasy.

Where do we place Newmans unquestionable personal experience ?

There seems to be a very broad spectrum that is not met by just quoting Genesis or Romans or Corinthians.

Newman, earlier today you wrote that "true masculinity is the point where a man who has experienced SSA begins to perceive himself as a man among men. He feels like he fits into the world of men. He begins to define what kind of man he wants to be. It is a growing process."

What do you say to homosexual men who perceive themselves as man among men (whatever that means to you)? Why do you assume that a homosexual man is unable to for himself "define what kind of man he wants to be"? I would counter that in coming out, most homosexual men MUST go through a process of self definition because who they are is counter to what society expects. Do you think that perhaps your (previous) homosexual behavior was actually counter to your God-given heterosexuality and that the verses in Scripture actually spoke to you? Can you consider that there are homosexuals who have NEVER identified as heterosexual and NEVER will be able to not because God can't change them, but because it's not in His plan for their lives?

You can be a strong voice for those who struggle with sexual identity and are unhappy with their homosexuality, but you can do it without tearing down those who have heard God's voice tell them they are fine the way they are. Be of service to those who are looking for God's voice, but don't make them feel bad for something that perhaps God isn't calling them to.

Afriend

Newman,

My perception is that you continue to sound very conceited!

You speak of the 100+ men you've helped. Please give us follow up on those men. How long have they remained "changed"? What do they report after five years or ten? (Anything less than that would not demonstrate true, lasting change in my view.)

Where can we read their stories? Not stories from some other ministry. The stories of the people you've helped!

Helen

Elaine,

You are right, Helen, Carrol and you are certainly assertive! No doubt about that. A bunch of female bulldogs! (meant in a complimentary way)

As for men developing assertiveness. There was no mention of assertiveness by me as a trait that women possess or lack, only that some men with SSA have a perceived lack of assertiveness and the developing of that trait (and other traits for that matter) for them helps them in their healing.

Helen, as for men publishing their life stories about their walk out of homosexuality, you will just have to wait until they choose to publish it themselves. You know that kind of stuff is confidential. There are plenty of stories on the PCC website. If you won't believe those, then you won't believe 30 or 50 more. Anyone who wants to walk out of homosexuality, who is an Adventist, has to do it outside our church. You know our church is in the dark ages with issues like this. By the way, calling me conceited sounds a little judgmental. I thought you were against that kind of behavior. You certainly wagged your finger at me for doing it. Sounds like you are a good progressive. You define behavior for everyone else, but the same rules don't apply to you.

Jamie, I am glad that you are finding peace in your life and are finding your way back to God. My use of the word "stuck" works for me because it is how I saw myself for most of my life. Stuck with a problem and no solution. I no longer feel stuck, only free. I am sorry that this hits a raw spot for you. I do not intend to hurt you or anyone else. As a matter of fact, you and I probably have more in common than most people who visit on this blog. I am sure that we could share life experiences that are very similar. We have only chosen different ways to deal with them.

Newman,

For someone that brands himself as some kind of counselor, I find it curious that you are relentlessly passive/aggressive, then somewhat patronizing, although with underhanded compliments. You navigate between these frequently as in the previous comments to Carrol, Helen and Elaine and Jamie.

Anyways, "assertiveness" has nothing to do with sexual orientation. In fact, all the traits you've talked about helping people with, are peripheral to the discussion of homosexuality vs heterosexuality, and as Elaine put it, they have nothing to do with masculinity or femininity.

So how in fact are you helping them change their orientation from "SSA" to OSA (to borrow your type terminology)? Or is it as Gerhard has quoted you and sought to confirm, whether you're leading them into "holiness" as opposed to heterosexuality? Heterosexuality certainly is not synonymous with holiness.

It would be a cruel trick (already documented in numerous ex-gay ministries) to teach young men to act "masculine", assertive or whatever else, then expect this to somehow translate into successful copulation where the object of arousal is not any movie that you play through your mind, but the actual sex appeal of the member of the opposite sex. Falling short of being able to function sexually with a member of the opposite sex when they were promised this would be God's reward, is what has sadly led more than a few to commit suicide, during and after such programs.

Here is a heart-wrenching apology by some of the well-meaning pioneers of the ex-gay movement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

Newman,

In response to your tirade directed at me:

"you are the expert on all things related to sexuality, period. And a very angry expert you are."

??? You're doing a great job at projecting! Sorry if I've breached your sensitivity.

"The truth is that you are not an expert on me or any of my friends who have left homosexuality."

I have a little story for you at the end.

"You are a loud, angry person who makes blanket statements and paints with a broad brush to try to silence opposing viewpoints."

??? Sounds like somebody is projecting again. If you feel like my arguments are tantamount to silencing your viewpoints, that's just something you have to work through. You've been rude to plenty of people on here, if you can't handle somebody dishing it back to you in the manner you dish out, then you really need to develop thicker skin before exposing yourself to the fire of a very heated and controversial subject.

"Why is it that people who so demand tolerance from others and claim to be so tolerant are the most threatened by opposing viewpoints?"

I demand nothing from you Newman, and certainly don't feel threatened by your views. They're very familiar to me.

"You are an expert on you."

If one were to following this reasoning, then there wouldn't even be a "comments" section here.

"If you want to be gay, then be gay. I have no problem with that."

Your words tell a different story.

"The information I have posted here is for people who don't know where they stand, or for those for whom homosexuality is not working for them, and believe me, it does not work for many people."

So, according to this rationale since Helen, Carrol, Elaine, Jamie, myself and many others who do know where they stand have no right to comment? This is Spectrum, not your friend's website. Has it crossed your mind that maybe some are responding to your postings here precisely to protect the more vulnerable who may not be as familiar with the history of ex-gay programs?

"Many men who experience SSA don't feel like they identify with being feminine, they just don't fell masculine enough, like there is a vacuum of masculinity in their life..."

I'm not going to delve into this obsession with masculinity you and your group seem to have. It looks more like an attempt to fulfill a deep longing for "masculine" companionship. There isn't a peep about reveling in the new-found joys of your feminine partners.

"As growth happens, the homosexual behavior begins to disappear. For many, heterosexual attractions begin to appear and they begin to want a relationship with a woman."

I will chime in with those who seek some hard evidence from the 100+ men that you've helped. How many have developed raw sexual attraction to women while no longer feeling attracted to men? ...after 5 years, 10 years...? Are they willing to back you up with their stories so that the rest of us can see the light, and allow themselves to be tracked for 5, 10 years etc?

Conversely, for the heterosexual men on this forum, what would it take, or how long would it take for you to become sexually attracted to men and no longer to women? Would the same be true 5 or 10 years down the road? How about for you heterosexual women?

__*__*__*__

I promised I'd tell you a little story. While I was doing my M.Div at Andrews, my struggle with homosexuality came to a head, and while on a study tour of the Holy Land, there in the land of Israel after a long struggle with myself and god, I finally accepted myself. I've posted my experience on the other article's comments section: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/10/28/hate_homosexuality_love_homo....

When I got back to Andrews, still in the seminary, word got around that I was gay and that I had a boyfriend. So this one student befriended me and my boyfriend along with his wife. We became best friends during that quarter. He seemed to have a special vested interest in my friendship. One day we walked over to Beaver Point, overlooking the St. Joe River, and he opened up to me about something he'd been wanting to tell me for a long time. He was dying to tell me that I could change, in fact he himself had already changed. He was no longer a homosexual and he obviously wanted to mentor me. After all, he felt the need to share the good news and bring hope to others. He had attended one of the many variations of ex-gay ministries and at the end of it he was ready to marry a woman!

In fact, before he got married to his wife, she already knew about his past, but they prayed about it and she accepted it as the Lord's will. Now he was happily married! ...or was he? He, like many others in these groups, was all about how great this was and had a drive to find other men in who shared his "former" predicament to help them shake it off and find their true God-given selves. But overtime I realized all the male bonding stuff was just a way for him to project the feelings he had quickly developed for me. The way he looked at me, and how poorly he dealt with the fact that I'd leave him to his wife on a Saturday night after we'd already hung out all day and half of the night.

The following quarter I went back to the Middle East, Jordan this time for the Andrews archeological dig. When I returned a few months later. His wife couldn't even look me in the eye. They'd had a nasty nasty divorce. I didn't need to hear the details, I could have predicted it. The funny thing is I felt really sorry for her, and not for him. I just could not admire somebody that would seek to deprive a woman of the possibility of happiness with somebody that would truly yearn for her, flesh and soul, and whose devotion would be his sole earthly care. And all this for what? ...an experiment to please family, church, society, and everyone else, except himself? Unfortunately the one most hurt by this experiment (God's will while it lasted) was the poor woman, who was used for very selfish reasons.

This happened about 10 years ago. Recently I've heard that he now lives with a male partner in NYC. While he moved on quickly after the divorce, she apparently had a much harder time healing from the trauma this marriage caused her. Last time I'd heard, she was single.

Unfortunately, cases like this seems to be the norm in the so called ex-gay ministries.

Here is some more on the ex-gay movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxDN_VMt4aY

GlobeScout, that sounds a bit like MY story at the end, except I had it in this fool head of mine that it wasn't fair for me to "burden" anyone else with the knowledge that I might be gay (I say 'might' because I also had it in this fool head of mine that this was just a stage, and how could I know unless I actually had sex with a woman...even though I knew about my attraction to men without having sex with any.)

I fell in love with a woman, though I'm not sure I should say 'fell in love'. To this day, I love her deeply, and we share a love for each other that, if I live long enough, I believe will be resurrected in a new and proper form (ie. NOT a sexual-romantic relationshiop).

So I buried my sexuality. I told myself that this was my cross to bear, and I would bear it dutifully. And silently. That lasted until I was about 36...through 14 years of marriage and 4 children. And then it all came crashing down and I just couldn't do it anymore. The truth came out and my wife was obviously devastated. I still thought that I should do my duty and stay in the marriage for the children and for her. But she would have none of that. She wanted me to love her as a straight man loves a woman (and why wouldn't she?!). To this day she doesn't understand why I can't do that. I could stay in the relationshiop, but I could no longer lie about who I was. She didn't want me to lie, but still believed, as many Adventists do, that I could make that lie the truth if only I surrendered enough to God.

And so here we are, living in two separate houses, just around the corner from each other, trying to raise our children the best we can. I can't regret the past as these beautiful children couldn't be here without it. But because I tried to 'play it straight' all of us have to go through an enormous amount of deep pain.

I eventually repented over my homosexuality. But not in the way the church would like. I asked God's forgiveness for the way I tried to be somebody he did not make me to be, and thanked Him for showing me the way to be who I really am.

Globescout,

What a tragic story of how homosexuality ruined and continues to ruin lives!

Newman, it floors me that you see that as homosexuality ruining lives. To me, that is clearly of case of this world refusing to accept that gay people are okay JUST AS THEY ARE that did the life-ruining here. If that man lived in a society where it was okay to be gay, he wouldn't have married that woman in the first place. Homosexuality didn't cause this pain, homophobia did.

Where do we place Newmans unquestionable personal experience ?
There seems to be a very broad spectrum that is not met by just quoting Genesis or Romans or Corinthians.
Posted by: gerhard svrcek-seiler | 05 November 2009 at 4:27

Gerhard - I agree there's a very broad spectrum of sexualities we're dealing with. The way this conversation is going, there's evidently no end in sight. No conference or collection of testimonies on either side will ever put this issue to rest. My solution is for us to hold a joint consultation (not a General Conference) among professional counselors, pastors, and laypeople that we may agree to disagree on at least two parallel courses of action and be at peace with one another.

Joselito,

i fully agre with your solution.

Anyway, the discussion - I feel - has stimulated some reconsiderations.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

GlobeScout and Jamie deserve our respect with their story of multiple tragedies. They have illustrated what we know out of numerous other fates. Their not at all jubilating presentation shows facts that siply cannot be put aside anymore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do I personally assume that "orientation" can be changed ? When I reconsider some problems we have with people of high age and their varied states of dementia ( and I in the last 15 years am in charge for a large nursing home, the inhabitants between 70 and 105 of age ) I imagine the sexual orientation like a continuous thread densely woven into the fabric of ones life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I experienced people having frequently gone to questionable places and after conversion avoiding these. I experienced some living quite careless and promiscuous and after conversion living in responisbility and monogamy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

For example a revision of Jones and Yarhouse ( "Ex - Gays ? A Longituinal Study - - ") or other studies together with some arguments in the very conversation stimulate to reaffirm precautions against testimonials and eager responses in questionnaires ; "Studies" in many fields of human behaviour are simply misleading.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Out of a part we gain our knowledge and out of a part we prophesy : That is I Cor 1 : 9 (literaly translated).

Joselito,

i fully agre with your solution.

Anyway, the discussion - I feel - has stimulated some reconsiderations.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

GlobeScout and Jamie deserve our respect with their story of multiple tragedies. They have illustrated what we know out of numerous other fates. Their not at all jubilating presentation shows facts that siply cannot be put aside anymore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do I personally assume that "orientation" can be changed ? When I reconsider some problems we have with people of high age and their varied states of dementia ( and I in the last 15 years am in charge for a large nursing home, the inhabitants between 70 and 105 of age ) I imagine the sexual orientation like a continuous thread densely woven into the fabric of ones life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I experienced people having frequently gone to questionable places and after conversion avoiding these. I experienced some living quite careless and promiscuous and after conversion living in responisbility and monogamy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

For example a revision of Jones and Yarhouse ( "Ex - Gays ? A Longituinal Study - - ") or other studies together with some arguments in the very conversation stimulate to reaffirm precautions against testimonials and eager responses in questionnaires ; "Studies" in many fields of human behaviour are simply misleading.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Out of a part we gain our knowledge and out of a part we prophesy : That is I Cor 1 : 9 (literaly translated).

I spent 7 yrs @ Andrews University and although I attended another church, I heard my fair share of Nelson's sermons. While he is not at all a favorite preacher of mine, I concede that he DOES deal with a variety of subjects, including adultery and promiscuity. He did not shy away from, but instead confronted the issues that surrounded the infidelity that took place in his own family. I may not be a fan of his, but give credit where credit is due: he doesn't make homosexuality out to be worse than other things he's tackled in the past. This particular Sabbath this was the topic. He evenhandedly distributes rebuke to hetero & homosexuals alike! LOL!

I'm heterosexual, but I'm unmarried--therefore I'm celibate. It's not easy all the time, but my sexuality doesn't consume me-aren't we more than that? Just because I'm celibate, my world doesn't come to an end...sexuality is only one part of my whole self.

I must say, I've never considered celibacy a "gift" per se, but I do know that just because something is difficult doesn't mean we aren't called to do it...Christianity is a challenge against our natural tendencies because ALL of our natural tendencies are sinful--whether we're homosexual or heterosexual (Romans 6 & 7).

"I'm heterosexual, but I'm unmarried--therefore I'm celibate."

However, you are not expected by the church to live a lifetime as celbate. Homosexuals are, that's the huge difference: there is celibacy that is impermanent, and for homosexuals who wish to be in their church, it is expected to be a lifetime committment to celibacy.

How come people who are against homosexuality, when trying to make up some reason outside of religion (yes, make up) that it is wrong, start talking about it being "unnatural" or "against natural law". But when faced with more and more evidence that it is not a choice, or faced with the celibacy question (as above) then say that our natural tendencies are sinful.

Which is it? Natural or unnatural? Can't have it both ways, people.

I'm not sure what "natural law" means in a legal sense, but if we are talking about what happens in nature, same-sex behavior has been observed and recorded in hundreds of species of the animal kingdom. See _Biological Exuberance_ by Bruce Bagemihl, for example.

Please take time to read the article at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR200911...

This was much like my story, and Jamie's. And this is why I think many who have spoken on this blog are concerned about the idea of a gay man claiming he has "overcome SGA" and can prove it with his wonderful "straight" marriage. Long-term, this has created thousands of tragic stories. Mine was one.

I would have been better to have understood who I was at 17 rather than 47 (when I acknowledged to my wife that I was gay). I know so many, many others with similar stories. And it was their stories that led me to decide that I would be better to accept who I was rather than trying to change who I was.

I sublimated my true sexual orientation. I was "changed". But true peace and happiness came when I was able to be honest about who I am - with myself, my family, and my friends.

I came out 13 years ago this week. In the perspective of years I can now say God true led me and has provided for me.

John

So I think it is much more tragic

How many sad women have been both "used and abused" to help some man foster a belief that he is not gay? Had homosexuality been viewed differently, as simply a condition of birth and accepted, how many people would have been saved from suicide, years of torture and abuse? Is this what Christianity is all about? If so, deliver me from such a religion.

In older times, all conditions not the normal were considered sin: either of the individual or the parents. Have we not progressed in our understanding since then?

John
Have you read anything on testosterone levels in men falling with age? At a certain age the eros aspect wanes in heterosexual men.
Is it not a possibility that how things looked up until one was 47 might change after that due to many considerations including the ones that effect all males going into that life stage?
A waning drive in older men is understood as normal however is it beyond the realm of possibility that normal cause and effect relationship is experienced differently in a gay man?

Oh, Michael, honestly!

What Carrol?
As someone who has experienced both the emotional and physical symptoms of aging and the accompanying estrogen effects, your saying that there is no way any of it could play ANY part whatsoever to a persons viewpoint at 47+ compared to 17 given the situation stated?
Please Carrol. Dont let your precocieved opinions distract you from the fact that you are not a doctor or a man or that very little research has been done considering it as "a" factor.
There is no definitive answer. John may answer what affect if any that body chemistry played in something that had already gone on for 30 years. It is his opinion I asked.

Well, let's see Michael.

I'll be 61 in a few weeks. My sexual orientation is unchanged from when I was 48.

Yesterday my 91-yr old mother reminded me of the time when I was 8 years old and insisted I had to have a doll. So my grandfather said if I was going to have a doll he was going to buy it for me. Mother says they knew even then what this meant in regard to my sexual orientation. Thus she was not surprised when I came out to her. And testosterone is not even a question about an 8 year old boy.

By the way, I was never abused. My parents were married for 55 years and I grew up in a very loving home.

My sexual orientation was the same when I was 8 as it was when I was 48 as it is now at 61.

Don't confuse sex drive with sexual orientation, Michael. They are completely different.

This is my second and last comment in this thread. The conversation is over with me for this particular blog.

Thank you Jamie and John Young for sharing your compelling stories. I have no doubt that in good faith, you pursued a course which society (especially church) would once have recommended. Sadly we've seen in this discussion that some still recommend it.

In an age of greater accountability and transparency, the ravages of such arrangements have come to light. This has saved me and countless others from entrapping ourselves and unwitting partners in such doomed ventures. I commend you for your fortitude in rectifying your lives according to the dictates of your conscious and that life has given you a second chance!

The same veteran SDA missionary I mentioned before, once suggested to me while Andrews that I should seek a woman to have sex with, convinced that the pleasure I'd get from it would be self evident. I asked her, wouldn't this be adultery/fornication? She said in my case, that didn't matter. It was for a greater good.

Any volunteers to give your daughters in marriage to a ("repentant") homosexual?

Why is there the old saw that that all the bald headed, white haired old men always sit on the front row at the girlie shows? Eye sight?
or gonadal change?

Such a piece of pure speculation, easily disproven with a simple blood test.

Tom

P.S. More simply. A lack of testoterone with prevent an erection--a problem not seen in active male homoesexuals.

The problem in today's society seems to be a congenital one.
Not the type that Paul was addressing in Romans--a life style they picked up from the Greeks.

A little research would have prevented an embarrassment. Tom

Jamie wrote: "How come people who are against homosexuality, when trying to make up some reason outside of religion (yes, make up) that it is wrong, start talking about it being "unnatural" or "against natural law". But when faced with more and more evidence that it is not a choice, or faced with the celibacy question (as above) then say that our natural tendencies are sinful.

Which is it? Natural or unnatural? Can't have it both ways, people."
______________

Which "people" are addressing your statement to? You begin your statement referencing people who present reasoning outside of religion. Then you make reference to the statement above that explicitly pointed to Rom 6 & 7--reasoning inside religion. Then you seem exasperated as to why it's presented "both ways"! That's because the sentiments you're talking about originate from 2 different groups with 2 different lines of reasoning. I don't know about the mindsets of those with reasoning "outside religion" because I don't speak from that perspective. According to the Bible, we ALL have sinful natures--homosexual, heterosexual, young, old, tall, short--and WHATEVER sin we struggle with is against God's "ideal nature" for us.

It's not my intention to be "against homosexuality" in my post. In fact, I welcome a sincere examination of Scripture on its sentiments on the subject (if you do not believe in the authority of Scripture, then, as I noted above, we're starting from two different perspectives and lines of reasoning. Therefore, the rest of this post is not addressed to you).

The church has, at varying points, wrongly represented homosexuality as "the worst or biggest sin"--perhaps not in word, but in tone. The Christian LGBT community has a right to be offended by that. But IF the Bible indeed does say that homosexual activity is sinful, just as it wouldn't be the "worst or biggest sin", the temptation towards homosexual activity wouldn't be the "biggest or most irresistable or most insurmountable temptation". Just as I, a heterosexual sinner, have temptations toward things that are against God's ideal, everyone else does too. It might not be a sexual temptation, but in the life of that person, it's real and painful and difficult to resist. While I sympathize and my heart breaks greatly with the stories of praying to God to "take the temptation away" I'm baffled by the conclusions some people come to: 'if God hasn't changed my temptation or tendancy toward this, then God must be ok with my being this way'. Huh? Replace "homosexuality" with ANY other term people commonly struggle with: "promiscuity", "alcoholism", "pornography", "drug addiction", "lying", "being abusive" etc. How ludicrous would it be for me to say: "I prayed that God would take away my desire for drugs, but God hasn't. So it must be ok."?!

The Christian walk isn't easy for ANY of us--no one said it would be. Jesus, Himself, was tempted just as every human being is. Some temptations might never be taken away. Granted, there are far fewer safe supportive centers for Christian homosexuals than many other groups, so I acknowlege the church's failure in that regard. However, the fact remains that we ALL fall short of God's glory, and we ALL struggle. Just because resisting something is difficult, doesn't give us a free pass to declare it as a valid option to engage in. The testimonies are moving: people have experienced hard roads. But, we can't ON THAT BASIS declare that homosexuality must be acceptable for Christians. For Christians who believe in the authority of the Bible, it should be on the basis of the Bible that we determine God's will for our lives: regardless of how we may feel about, or struggle with, a particular thing.

As I said before, if those that believe in the Bible are interested in re-exploring or re-examining what Scripture says about homosexuality (perhaps the way conservative Christianity has been viewing the texts HAVE been all wrong), that's a conversation that at least puts the final authority back on the Word.

Homosexuality, as we prefer to define it today, is a congenital anomoly resulting in sexual attraction to the same sex and to indulge that attraction in a various assortment of bondings.
A few find a sexually partner for life. Some of whom live quiet unassumed lifes with pledged fidelity one to the other.

None of the above was God' intention in giving humans procreative power. It had two purposes: To populate the earth and to give the marriage partners some understanding of God's creative power and accompanying love for His creation. Besides the natural bonding and love such power creates throughout life--even beyond the limited range of procreative power.

Therefore, in the fall of man, many anomolies have resulted: an enemy has done this! Never-the-less, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Many churched continue to entertain sinful thought and behaviors. So the church, while condemning all sin, does explicitly deny membership to those who openly engage in sinful practice. Smoking, Drinking,
a promiscous sex life etc. As of this moment, the church includes persistent homosexual activity within that classification. Its only suggestion is refrain from such sexual bonding.
Some homosexuals protest that decision and demand acceptance not only socially but as full members in a church community.

The result has been the tension in the nation and in the church that has exploded into some very unchristian behaviors. The Church is wrong in relaxing its bane on certain behaviors while denying acceptance to others. If it has standards, they should be addressed across the board.

It is that double standard the irks those denied fellowship.
Furthermore, the church has been unsuccessful in making the case that this congenital anomolly is sin any more than a cleft of the lip and palate is sin. Or blindness etc.

I personally believe that the church has the right to form its oun standards. I personally believe that Christians should treat all as ones that Christ died for. Certainly in the civil arena heterosexuals and homosexuals should be civil to each other. Tom

Tom said:
"So the church, while condemning all sin, does explicitly deny membership to those who openly engage in sinful practice."

I would rewrite this to say, the church denies membership only to those certain sinful practices that it deems especially harmful and/or easy to identify. For example greed is probably more harmful to society than smoking but harder to isolate.

That any form of homosexual practices (including committed same sex bonding) is included in this is not because of harm but on perceived harm based on misunderstandings, stereotypes, and prejudices.

The fact that it is quite easy to identify when openly practiced by a same-sex couple, the fact that it makes many straight men very queasy (and men run the church), and the fact that it has become a point of identification for those who consider themselves "true to the Bible" means that it is being singled out way out of proportion to any measure of harm.

I'm glad there is a place where this conference on homosexuality and the pastor of one of the most prominent churches in Adventism can be held accountable. I attended much of the conference as well as the events in the church. I believe that the conference presenters and Pastor Nelson mean well. Nelson was put in a difficult situation. He had to preach on the topic of the big conference, and of course he's expected to reiterate the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach. The fact that he largely spoke through another writer might be telling.

I completely agree that there is a huge double standard when it comes to homosexual and heterosexual purity. When can we expect sermons and conferences to preach that people who divorced and remarried for reasons other than their spouse's infidelity are egregious, flagrant sinners who must repent, divorce, and then live celibate lives as their "cross to bear"? Of course we have adjusted our definition of what is acceptable grounds for divorce based on newer understandings of equality and fulfillment--for example, Jesus didn't say that battered women could divorce their husbands, but who would say otherwise today?

By the way, I was interested to hear that a documentary about gay Adventists is being produced. I understand from an Adventist Today interview that the filmmakers were not allowed to film this conference, and I'm assuming this sermon, which is very disappointing. It seems that if people (especially straight males) are going to say things about gays, then they should be willing to do so on the record.

It's clear that this isn't the end of this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Pastor Nelson decides to preach a "sequel."

"You begin your statement referencing people who present reasoning outside of religion. Then you make reference to the statement above that explicitly pointed to Rom 6 & 7--reasoning inside religion."

C., I guess the people who frustrate me are the religious people who, when faced with the fact that there is no reason outside of religion for denying people equal rights, use the 'unnatural' argument as a way (weak though it is) of saying there reasons for wanting to discriminate are secular. Those are the people who want it both ways, and I realize that the doesn't apply to all religious people. In fact, I see a few people posting here who are very clear that their religious beliefs are that homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time realize that their religious beliefs and the laws of the land are two very different things. I respect that.

Out of a part we gain our knowledge and out of a part we prophesy : That is I Cor 1[3]:9 (literaly translated).
Posted by: gerhard svrcek-seiler | 06 November 2009 at 7:19

Gerhard, that is so true, that in our present life much of the reasoning and theorizing that goes on is based on partial information. [εκ μερους γαρ γινωσκομεν και εκ μερους προφητευομεν]

I'm glad you agree we need a joint, bipartisan consultation composed of professional counselors, pastors, pastors-in-training, and laypeople.

Beth

Thank you. I agree but greed is not necessarily visible except in the acquiring "things" possibly in "taking"things.

I was called away and neglected to add that civility in the world certainly should be extended into the Church community.

We already have our Cliff. One is enough for the world field.
Tom

Tom, we may never know how many Cliff has influenced to sever relationship with the SDA church because of his vitriolic pronouncements: "My way or the highway." That he still is an official spokesman for the church should be a disgrace for civil and courteous demeanor. His attitude is more like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

Just wanted to add to "Seminary Student's" comment about the Seventh-Gay Adventists documentary. It's true that we were not allowed to film any of the actual conference presentations or proceedings, which greatly disappointed me. I feel that if the church is going to have these conversations, we should have them out in the open. However, Pastor Nelson is allowing us to use some sermon clips (although at this time he has declined to be interviewed).

As I said in the Adventist Today interview, I really want this to be a film both about and for Adventists, but in order for that to happen, the church has to be willing to participate. I would really love for a subtext of the film to be that even when we have disagreements about something as sensitive and complex as homosexuality, we are willing to engage each other in respectful conversation. I would love to be able to brag about that.

Daneen Akers
Producer, Seventh-Gay Adventists
http://www.sgamovie.com

I believe that the General Conference Session in Atlanta is going to change the face of Adventism greatly. I think that the North American Division will lose considerable clout.

I believe the outcome will be highly conseervative and strongly international.

College Educated North American Anglo Saxsons will be dying off and/or voting with their feet.

Academies will continue to close, Colleges and University Boards will be strongly tempted to become independant. First Loma Linda. Next? Tom

In the beginning God made A man and A woman. He told them to be fruitful and multiply. He did not make two men nor two women and tell them to be fruitful and multiply because it would be an impossibility from the beginning!
If there is doubt in your soul search the Scriptures, John5:39, careful study will show you to not listen to man and his teachings but to God your Creator. May God bless you and guide you with the Spirit of truth.... Jackie

I haven't listened to the sermon, but by reading the article, comments, and the title of the sermon i realize that the topic is on homosexuality, and more specifically, monogamy in a homosexual relationship. If you are a follewer of Christ, know the word its obvious that any sexual act that takes place outside of marriage is a sin. It's clear in both the OT and the NT. Rape, heavy-petting, pornography, orgies, prostitution, incest, beastiality, adultetry, homosexuality etc. its considered sin. 1 Corinthians 5; 6:15-7:4, the church had a case where some one was messing around with their father's wife (that church had ALOT of issues) and Paul (being an apostle) rebuked the behavior. He called it by its right name...SIN!!! John the Baptist rebuked King Herod for taking his (Herod) brother's wife in Matthew 14:3-5. Was Paul preaching a message of hate? Was John preaching a message of hate and injustice? NOOOO! Sin is the reason why GOD sent Jesus...save US FROM SIN! As far as marriage and homosexuality is concerned, look how Christ defined marriage in Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:2-9. Even though He answering a question about divorce, it was still on the topic of marriage and Jesus Christ the LORD and Savior of mankind defined marriage as a relationship between 1 man and 1 female.
But the good news (gospel) is as 1John 2:1-2 puts it (paraphrasing) we have the Bible to tell us right from wrong, if we mess up we have Jesus, but He is not just for me but for any one, even the whole world. Warning: be careful and don't get caught up in "worldly" philosphies bro and sis. Be careful and don't write people off as being impossible to reach. Be careful and work out YOUR OWN salvation with fear and trembling. Peace and Blessings to all.