A Letter to Dwight Nelson
3 December 2009
A Letter to Dwight Nelson
image:
Dear Dr Nelson,
Firstly, thank you – and praise God – for your ministry. It is a blessing to both my wife and me, but especially my wife as she is often home alone on Sabbath while I’m away preaching at distant country churches. Because her health doesn’t permit much travel, she often depends on Hope Channel for her Sabbath morning service.
Last Sabbath I was away preaching when Elaine watched your sermon on homosexuals in the church. [Sex in the Temple: What’s So Gay about That?] It’s the first time she’s been disappointed by your message. She was saddened by your explanation that homosexual believers must remain celibate in order to be true to their Christian calling. She couldn’t help thinking of the hundreds of thousands of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and intersexed (GLBTI) Adventists you would deny the joy and intimacy of a committed relationship and doom to lonely lives and the statistical likelihood of an early grave. But her response is not simply emotional. This is an issue we have both taken an interest in and looked into.
We have a question for you: Are you absolutely sure that all homosexuality (i.e. the acts) is sin? It’s clear you have done some reading on this topic. I’m sure you have read some of Roy Gane’s material, perhaps his Leviticus-Numbers commentary. You may also have read the Ferguson-Guy-Larson book on gay SDAs. If so, whether or not you are persuaded by the theology of Jones and Guy, you will be aware that a credible challenge to the traditional church position exists, one the church cannot just brush aside.
Last year I reviewed this book. The review and a sympathetic editorial by Nathan Brown were published in the Record. Perhaps not surprisingly, these two items drew a storm of protest from the conservative wing of the church. It was so explosive that the decision was taken not to publish any letters on the topic. No healthy dialogue ensued. The lid was put back on the can of worms, the traditional position was trotted out to placate those that feared the sky was falling in, GLBTI believers were returned to their holes and nobody had their theology or their prejudice properly tested. No doubt some feel their theological position is impregnable and needs no testing. But this type of thinking doesn’t facilitate progress. Rather it tends towards fossilisation.
You must be aware that Scripture is silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. You would know that the KJV does not use the word homosexual. No English language Bible used the word before the middle of the 20th century. The handful of Bible references to same-sex activity appear to refer to abusive or violent acts motivated by lust (Rom 1:27). They say nothing about relationship or gay love.
The Sodom story cries out to be properly understood. It was a planned gang rape of two strangers by all the men of Sodom, “both young and old” (Gen 19:4). They can’t possibly have all been gay. After their big night out, most of them would have returned home to their wives and families. Why would heterosexual men want to rape men? Ask jail inmates why they do it. Ask soldiers why they do it to captured enemy combatants. It’s not uncommon. In fact, it’s common enough that two instances are mentioned in the Old Testament (Gen 19 & Judges 19).
The Benjamite story is instructive. Just as Lot offered the Sodomite mob two young women to assuage their lust, so the Ephraimite and Levite offered the Benjamites two women, the old man’s virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine. In the end the concubine alone was sacrificed. The men treated her so appallingly that she did not survive the ordeal. These men were no more gay than the men of Sodom were. Ezekiel 16 applies as well to this story as it does to the other. In neither case is the primary issue sodomy or homosexuality.
A question: Is it fair to define heterosexuality by the behaviour of rapists? Why, then, would you define homosexuality in terms of “homosexual offenders” (1 Cor 6:9)? In doing so you create a tautology if, in fact, practising homosexuals are by definition sexual offenders. Of course, the word homosexual is not in the original. We both know it was supplied by the translators. A bit more clarity is needed on exactly what Paul meant by “homosexual offenders.” The tautology is removed if you understand him to be referring to pederasty or male prostitution or sodomy as practised by the men of Sodom, or to the bisexual behaviour that was common in the Greco-Roman world (and condemned by Paul in Rom 1). But to see it like this, you may have to abandon the view that 1 Corinthians 6 encompasses all homosexuality.
In the 21st century, we have a better understanding of sexuality. A growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is due to nature, not nurture or choice. The church needs to learn from this research and reconsider the sociological implications. Without question, God requires sexual purity from his people, both straight and gay. This is unarguable, as is the fact that the Edenic model involved a man plus a woman, not two members of the same team.
For me, not being a theologian is both a disadvantage and an advantage – a disadvantage in that I can’t deal with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and make confident pronouncements about the precise meanings of obscure passages, but an advantage in that my perspective is not overwhelmed by theology. I’m interested in what can be learned from a range of sciences. Because of this, I’m no longer convinced by the traditional church teaching on sexuality. Good theology must be informed by good science. Church history shows that this is not the way it’s always worked. Indeed, the church has often impeded the progress of science. But believers have nothing to fear from true science: it provides insight into the handiwork of God. I no longer believe that the Bible condemns all same-sex relations. I have a good conscience before God. By the way, I am neither gay nor bisexual. Rather I am an advocate for a misunderstood minority group in the church. For too long GLBTI believers have been treated as pariahs, as outcasts, given no respect, driven to desperate measures. It’s time personal prejudice was set aside. The heterosexual majority in the church must learn to accept that homosexual orientation and behaviour are just as natural and normal for homosexuals as heterosexuality is for the majority. Our view of them is not gracious and our narrow understanding of Scripture is not necessary.
In our fallen condition we cannot avoid the effects of sin. For example, we cannot avoid ageing, sickness, baldness, left-handedness, birth defects, inherited conditions, mutations, extreme personality traits (e.g. sociopathy). We have no control over these effects of sin. God won’t judge us for them. On one occasion the disciples queried Jesus about such a case, wanting to know whom to blame for a blind man’s affliction. In response Jesus said that neither the man nor his parents were to blame (John 9:3). I believe Jesus would see homosexuality in the same way. It is an outcome that owes its existence to the effects of sin, but is not itself sin. There is no choice involved; it’s a legacy. Yes, we all inherit sinful natures that God wants to begin transforming. And he demands that our sexual behaviour be above reproach. But he doesn’t appear to be in the business of changing people’s sexual orientation – as the church’s painful experience with Colin Cook shows (countless other examples can be cited). I wish Wayne Blakely well, but his relatively recent rebaptism is only the beginning of a long journey. It’s a bit early to be trumpeting him as a truly reformed gay man. The gay people I know are just as incurably gay as I am incurably heterosexual.
Yours sincerely,
David Potter
David Potter is the Coordinator for General Studies at Avondale College.
Search
- Bill Sorensen on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- Bill Sorensen on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- Kenneth James on A Short History of Healthcare
- Maggie on Divining the Voice in My Head
- Elaine Nelson on A Short History of Healthcare
- Elaine Nelson on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- Andre Reis on More cult video debate: Walter Martin vs. William Johnsson
- Herb Douglass on Righteousness—the Fruit of the Spirit
- Andre Reis on Cult video debate: Walter Martin vs. William Johnsson
- Tom Zwemer on Divining the Voice in My Head
Comments
Thank you, David!
Oh yes..thank you so much...
we learn in the bible that David and Jonathan were gay, also Ruth and Naomi were lesbian and since Judas kissed Jesus.. both were gay...
Paul was so homophobic when he wrote Rom 1:26 and 27....
uh...can I now join the PC crowd???
I am already in the suspected SPAM crowd
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I've wanted to make this arguement myself, but could not find the words. Mine most certainly would have been less gracious. You are more eloquent than am I.
I am sure many Spectrum readers will disagree with David Potter, but my hope is that they will still be willing to show respect to a pastor/professor willing to present an unpopular belief, based on open-minded study and knowledge.
Frankly, it is very encouraging to me when anyone is courageous enough to risk reputation and livelihood in standing up for their beliefs. We need to be open to present truth revealed by the Holy Spirit,
Jim Roberts, I didn't see anything in this letter even hinting at your "PC" suggestions.
Jim
Are you certain that your use of sarcasm makes you more persuasive?
Dave
Very well written and clearly stated; thank you!
I can only hope that this post doesn't attract the kind of emotional and hateful responses that I'm afraid some are all too eager to unleash.
Pastor Dwight, I missed this particular sermon (and I will try to view it as soon as possible), but I did hear other personal friends and colleagues at Andrews expressing disappointment after hearing it, as well. Can we expect further comment?
Thank you for publishing this letter. It says very well what I wish I could have. I was so disappointed by this sermon. One of the most disappointing aspects of the sermon to me was the use of an anonymous student letter as an example that even a monogamous, committed same-sex relationship was condemned and unbiblical.
Even though we didn't learn the student's name, he of course knew who he was, and he was being told in front of thousands of television viewers that his deepest hope for companionship and intimacy was perverse. That seems like a complete breach of confidentiality, and I think Pastor Nelson owes that student a public apology. I'm sure he meant well, and I know he has a compassionate heart, but that sermon, and especially that mis-use of a student letter was an example of just how much our church has failed our gay and lesbian youth.
If this were really a letter addressed to Pastor Dwight Nelson, why are people applauding its publication here? Where's the decency and confidentiality expected of private communication?
Maybe its appropriate in a public forum because his views on the subject were publicly aired as well? IOW, it was never a private matter from the get go.
Thanks...
Frank
I am a 60-yr old gay Adventist man. I thank God that I'm loved and accepted unconditionally by an incredible mother (now 91), my adult daughter and son-in-law, and my partner who is also an Adventist. We were both compelled to drop our church membership when our respective churches found out we were gay. Thank God we have church membership again in a Adventist church that loves and affirms us.
This letter is a great comfort. Some of you really have no idea how much it hurts to be misunderstood and repeatedly condemned (even in public and from the pulpit) when you have tried all of your life to walk closely with Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus told us to have courage when we are misunderstood, reviled, and spoken ill of. But it still hurts terribly.
The condemnation which this letter responds to was exceptionally public. Thus I believe the public response here is very appropriate. I'm sorry, Joselito, but I respectfully disagree with you on this.
I believe this letter is yet another evidence that God is calling people around the world to speak out more and more about the homophobia within Adventism. To me, Adventist homophobia is one of the beasts of Revelation [like apartheid, discrimination against women, racial discrimination) that will have to be overcome before God finally declares the cosmic conflict to a close.
Thank you, David Potter, from my heart!
I pray that, for once, the vitriol that has characterized so many letters on the Spectrum blog in recent months can give way to attempts at compassion and prayerful heart searching as a result of this letter.
Thank you David for both writing this letter and publishing it here. You have expressed eloquently the issues involved both from a theoretical and personal level.
We are all here.
Personally . . .
And as a part of some defined corporate entity.
On the continuum of homosexuality that is.
Unaware . . . Recognition . . . Tolerance . . . Acceptance . . . Accommodation . . . Affirmation.
UNAWARE
Up until the last forty years or so, the existence of homosexuality was oblivious to most people. It was "something" that was way, way out there. For practical matters, it had no relevance, it had no identity, it had no presence. Other than the "freak" show reporting that a gay-pride parade would illicit in the press once in awhile. Where and when homosexuality did surface in settings more up close and personal, it was hidden as quickly and as deeply as possible. Homosexuality's very existence was/is deniable reality.
For many gay people, myself included, denial and sequestration was to survive in a hetero culture. The closet is both a place of safety/refuge and a prison.
My religious world totally ignored homosexuality . . . other than once in a while, something would spark a rant on how disgusting and perverted it is.
There is something to be said about ignorance. "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." Saul Bellow And from an unknown source, "All of us are born ignorant, but not all of us overcome it."
RECOGNITION
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
"Something unremarkable happened on June 27, 1969 in New York's Greenwich Village, an event which had occurred a thousand times before across the U.S. over the decades. The police raided a gay bar." Lionel Wright
But this time it was different. And the Stonewall Inn riots ushered in an age of RECOGNITION. Homosexuality was a fact that existed. In the 80's came HIV/AIDS. In the 90's came DOMA, DADT. In the 21st century came same-sex marriage.
On a personal level, the recognition of being gay may come very early. There are the frequently heard testimonies of "always knew" I was gay. "From my grade school and middle school years, I knew I was different." "My mother knew I was gay from a very early age." But no matter when the realization begins or becomes undeniably self-evident, there is a RECOGNITION that I AM gay.
And at some point, our corporate affiliations, by force or whatever, finally RECOGNIZE the fact that homosexuality does in fact exist. For the Seventh-day Adventist church, that happened when SDA Kinship won the right to use the words Seventh-day Adventist in the Kinship organization's name. Whether the SDA church liked it or not, the SDA church was forced to RECOGNIZE it.
TOLERANCE
Even though this is a continuum, there is an epoch distance between RECOGNITION and TOLERANCE.
On the personal level, it is this part of the continuum, between RECOGNITION and ACCEPTANCE where hell on earth resides. The INTOLERANCE to one's self. The self-loathing. The cursing. The fear of eternal damnation. The fear of family. The fear of peers. The fear of the church. The fear of the employer. The fear of the landlord. The fear of society. The fear of personal safety. The fear of self-inflicted death.
But through awareness, through inquiry, through support mechanisms, and for some, through a greater understanding of what a holistic concept of both man and salvation are all about, there comes a TOLERANCE to one's homosexuality. When that does not happen, a real tragedy can result. From inadequate/inappropriate socialization to suicide.
As fire can both soften and harden various substances, this part of the continuum will branch. TOLERANCE vs. INTOLERANCE. And the INTOLERANCE can lead to vitriolic hatred, discrimination, denial of civil rights, and in worse case situations, criminal violence. And this INTOLERANCE can be based on what is perceived as "God's Word" and/or "natural law" or just plain disgust.
The corporate entities: be they the family, the clan, the church, the culture, the government . . . also take on an essence of TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE.
The RECOGNITION is already there. Now what/how will the corporate entity "deal" with this reality? If it is INTOLERANCE . . . then the discrimination, the denial of civil rights, the lack of emphasis on criminal prosecution for gender-related crimes, the selective denial of healthcare, the subtle imposition of a second-class citizen status . . . become the inevitable results. And on the personal level, it is the rejection by family, by friends, by church. It can result in estrangement to actual situations where parents rip up the birth certificate of their child and mail it to them in an envelope with no return address.
But the continuum can also lead to ACCEPTANCE.
On the personal level, to finally, mercifully, ACCEPT one's self as being gay. ACCEPTING the reality of the situation. ACCEPTING either the burden of homosexuality or the gift of homosexuality, and for some, it is both in and of the same.
For the family, the clan, the church, the culture, the government . . . ACCEPTANCE means just that. We ACCEPT homosexuality as a fact of life. It is. Whether we think of it as sin, perverse, aberration, unnatural or whatever, it is IS. And ranting, raving, legislating, preaching sermons or whatever is not going to change what IS.
There comes an implied live and let live.
But the INTOLERANT never even get to this point on the continuum.
And most of the populace, when put to a popular vote, hardly reach this stage.
But some do.
ACCOMMADATION
And some realize that there is a humanistic aspect to the live, let live paradigm. That there truly is room in this world, this society, this church, this clan, this family for what is ACCEPTED. That there can be legitimate ACCOMMADTION for the GLBT community.
The SDA church is barely in the ACCEPTANCE stage. The official church policy is one of "NO ACCOMMADTION." The gay person can come and sit in a pew, throw their coins in the collection plate, but expect NO ACCOMMATION.
In society, in some, but not all communities and jurisdictions, there are some legal protections for GLBT persons with respect to employment, housing, healthcare. There is ACCOMMADATION. There is the live, let live principle. The GLBT community is not looking for "special rights," or anything different or over-and-above what heterosexuals want or have, we simply want equality in the eyes of the law.
And then comes AFFIRMATION.
Perhaps it manifests itself in over-the-top public displays in a gay-pride parade. A truly hyperbolic expression. But in reality, it is the realization and expression that whatever one is, it is an intended gift of nature and one can openly and freely live one's life accordingly. As a full participant in all of society.
It is the church that AFFIRMS the marriage of a same-sex couple. It is the employer that provides full spousal benefits for same-sex couples. It is local and state and the Federal government that makes equal the provisions in all laws for all its citizens dealing with the 1200+ "benefits" of marriage.
It is the AFFIRMATION that allows a man to put his arm around the shoulder of his wife or girl friend or husband or boy friend in the sanctuary.
It is the AFFIRMATION that allows a woman to hold the hand of her husband or her boy friend or her wife or her girl friend on the leaf-littered path in the public parkway.
It is the AFFIRMATION that recognizes the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
It is the AFFIRMATION that seeks justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
It is the AFFIRMATION that seeks the acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth.
It is the AFFIRMATION that fosters the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
It is the AFFIRMATION that works toward progress in peace, liberty, and justice for all . . . within individuals, within families, within clans, within churches, within cultures, within governments.
It is a continuum.
People, families, clans, churches, cultures, governments can and do move on this continuum.
Thank you David Potter, your influence is what is needed to facilitate this movement.
Kenneth James
My heart has been so warmed by this eloquent and persuasive article
Excellent article David, thanks. I just hope that my church can move on to what is really important for people in this world, and drop the age-old church obsession with what adults decide to do in private.
I am definitely not advocating promiscuous sexual behaviour of either orientation. Last I read it, my Bible was somewhat against recklesness of both hetero and homo variety. I am rather periodically annoyed by the rather unhealthy obsession the Church has with sex. (Christianity is by no means the only culprit here, other religions can be just as bad, or worse...)
When will they embrace violence, for example, as a voyeuristic hobby, instead of sex... Wait a minute... they might have done this too in the past, once or twice!
David Potter, Theologian or not, what a deep thinker! I found the thoughts in your letter to be expressed very well. Thank you. I wish there were more like you. Too many GLBTI people turn away from the God who created them and loves them because they have been taught they He can't accept them. If only we had the heart of God to love unconditionally we could ALL be going home.
Dear American brothers and sisters, I am kind of tired of the North American issues. It is not interesting to the rest of the world. Others think differently. Your Adventist community just reflects issues in the wider society. This would be ok if your theologians are a bit more creative but they are not. The issues are copy-pasted from evangelicalism in which there are no Adventist concerns. The implication of this is that American Adventism cannot be seen as a theological flagship of worldwide SDA Church and does not represent anymore. I guess the frequent mentioning of LGBTI topic at Andrews and here signals a preparation for the GC session next year. If that is what this is all abaut than brace yourselves for another major split between American Adventists and the rest of the world. I just hope that God will provide some other centres of thought somewhere else in the world because you became predictable and irrelevant to the rest of Adventism. And I apologize if my analysis and tone offended someone.
Thank you, David Potter, for your grace and eloquence in dealing honestly with such a sensitive subject. As you stated, I am someone who is incurably gay and incurably Adventist and being deprived of serving within my church has been the most painful experience of my life. I long for our church to learn to "love thy neighbor as thyself."
Many thanks, David. I ready your wise words as truly inspired, and they deserve the status believers give to their scriptures. I really mean it. May the SDA church be blessed with more honest and deep thinkers like you.
Jolly, it may interest you to note that the original author is an AUSTRALIAN academic. He's also my Dad and I'm exceptionally proud that he's prepared to stand up and be counted on an issue that causes many, many Adventists enormous silent pain and has driven many out of the church in despair. Such a stand is not without personal risk.
Paul urged the early Christians not to be a barrier between each other and God but I fear our church is doing exactly this by showing so little Christian love and compassion to homosexuals - who are still Children of God and every bit as worthy of His love as any of the rest of us sinners. Who are we to presume to rank sins and ascribe arbitrary levels of sinfulness to one sin over another? We have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and it's probably safe to say that most of us do it daily, despite our best intentions.
In case you're wondering, I'm not gay either but I have a large number of gay friends and it pains me to see what they have to endure at the hands of "well-meaning" Christians who make them feel unworthy to live and move amongst the sacred flock.
Don't forget, Jesus spewed rage at the Pharisees, calling them a 'vipers' yet he ate and drank with tax collectors and prostitutes. If Jesus had come in our day, I'm quite certain he would have been drinking coffee and having barbecues with homosexuals while the Adventist people looked on and tutted about his consumption of caffeine and flesh, failing to see the enormous gift of grace on display.
As Christians, it's not our job to judge - that's playing God. It's our job to be the living manifestation of Christ's love in a dark and unloving world. If anyone is in any doubt about how Jesus would have handled this situation, simply read the New Testament from cover to cover.
But, what stupids arguments...!!!
I think David is homosexual...
:-)
Peace
Dear Heather, sorry that I excluded Australia. I guess I was too hasty to answer so I overlooked the place where everything began. I also understand the issue of LGBTI in the church, I do sympathize with what they are going through and I never said anything in my post against them. Go back and check what was my point. If I have to elaborate more on this I would say that in the discussion about LGBTI, the supporters are just repeating the arguments of sociologists/psychologists in the West, while their opponents are just repeating the arguments of the evangelical conservatives. Everybody is plagiarizing in this discussion and nobody is coming with the theology of their own. I was embarrassed when I read how the author of the letter was 'filling the gaps' in the Scriptures according to his presumptions, informing us that after a gang-bang in Sodom everybody would surely go home to their wives. Where I come from people take biblical text seriously and are very cautious on what they hang their arguments. If the author of the letter can pass as an academic in Australia than my wish for a new center of Adventist theology and thinking is even stronger.
We are all "sons" of Adam and are born with a sinful nature.
It may not seem fair to some, but if we all got what we deserved, we would be destroyed. Even the most innocent looking baby is born with a inherited sinful nature. We all deserve to die!! Plain and simple. It is the mercy, love and sacrifice of Jesus only and the acceptance of Him in our lives that gives any of us hope.!!
Our walk with Him is our business and no one else's.
What the Holy Spirit convicts our hearts of is what we should strive to do!
Well-written article with eloquent and persuasive arguments, but I can't agree with the conclusions. To say that the Bible is speaking of lustful acts when it condemns homosexuality is to ignore the distinct statements that condemn both lust (whether hetero or homosexual) and same-sex relations. It's a bit duplicitous to say that "the bible doesn't use the word 'homosexual'"; that's like saying "the bible doesn't use the word 'internet'". The Bible very clearly makes its statements about the wrongness of a same-sex union, which is what homosexuality refers to.
I agree that we need frank and honest dialogue in the SDA church about homosexuality, and I agree that we need more of a Christ-like attitude towards gay persons, no matter what lifestyle they've chosen...but I don't think that includes an acceptance of the gay lifestyle, nor does it include abandoning the positions that the Bible clearly states about same-sex relationships. We tread on dangerous ground when we say "God said this, but what He MEANT to say was..."
David Potter, thanks so much for the excellent article.
Jolly, seeing as you're prepared to call us all plagiarists, insult David Potter's academic credentials and state that Australian & US issues are irrelevant to the rest of the world, why don't you at least tell us your real name, where you live, and why the question of homosexuality in Adventism is not an issue in your country?
The most persuasive, elegant argument cannot change the reality of what Scripture teaches on this subject. I applaud Dwight Nelson for the sermon he preached (and I was there to listen to it). And I cringe when I read (or hear) people such as David Potter make excuses for sin.
What this open letter and subsequent posts (letters?) tell me is that it matters not to many here if the presumed addressee, Pastor Nelson, were personally notified or not prior to public posting here. This tactic is typical of advocacy groups who will use some arm twisting, or any means at their disposal, to force a debate and to attack a target. It matters not to them if the methods used foster genuine dialogue or if their approach truly advances our knowledge of the subject. More important than understanding Pastor Nelson's perspective is to debate and persuade readers to agree with them, to stand on their side rather than the opposing view!
Was it wrong for Pastor Nelson to use a former AU student's letter advocating same-sex monogamy, since it highlights an argument typically advanced by those with whom he disagrees? Is it at all possible for a preacher to please everybody whenever she deals with a controversial issue?
It should be noted that there are millions of people with a heterosexual orientation who also live a celibate lifestyle. As a matter of fact, Matthew 19:1-12 requires people who have been divorced for any reason other than sexual immorality to live a celibate lifestyle, and when the disciples uttered their complaint, Jesus bluntly responded that some people make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. See verse 12. Clearly, Jesus did not view sexual intimacy as a universal right belonging to all people. I realize that this is a radical "no" to the obsession many moderns have with sex - to the point that they think they will die without it - but it is the kingdom ethic that Jesus and His apostles taught! It is certainly your right to disagree with Jesus' ethic, but please don't eisegete scripture to make it conform to modern sexual mores.
In one of the groups with which I am affiliated in the Society of Biblical Literature, a couple of well respected colleagues openly declared what some in our ranks have already decided. The declaration in itself was ironic since the group is a part of the Society of Biblical Literature. However, their honesty--though troubling--was commendable. At least they followed their reasoning to it's logical conclusion.
What did they say? Here goes: "Let's get rid of this sexist, classist, racist, homophobic, imperialist, and capitalist book and form our own canon." Judging from the millions of comments on countless websites made by people who have chosen to reject the plain (yes I said plain) teaching of Scripture, it probably won't be difficult to gather the material for this new canon.
May God have mercy on us all. I mean that....
Ditto to Robert Sonter's comment.
Karen Kotoske
In our fallen condition we cannot avoid the effects of sin. For example, we cannot avoid ageing, sickness, baldness, left-handedness, birth defects, inherited conditions, mutations, extreme personality traits (e.g. sociopathy). We have no control over these effects of sin. God won’t judge us for them. On one occasion the disciples queried Jesus about such a case, wanting to know whom to blame for a blind man’s affliction. In response Jesus said that neither the man nor his parents were to blame (John 9:3).
Neither the man nor him parents were to blame, but he was made blind so that he might be healed to reveal the glory of God. I am not sure this fits with the point that is being made, for if we follow this line of thinking those created as homosexuals, are created that God's glory might be seen when they are healed!
I think that a major issue in this argument that is often overlooked is the place of eunuchs (celibates and consecrated virgins) in the church. As a previous poster pointed out, Christ himself says, Matt 19:10-12
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
"The one who can accept [celibacy] should accept it". St Paul talks in similar terms, saying that he wishes all could be like him (celibate) but that it is not wrong to marry. 1 Corinthians 7:7
Why have we lost this call to celibacy? Where are all the people in the church who have chosen to "renounce marriage because of the Kingdom of Heaven"?
Perhaps if there was a better, more general understanding of the blessings of a celibate lifestyle, this would provide a stronger foundation for the discussion of sexuality, and be a real and valid alternative for those people of all sexual orientations who may be called to the celibate lifestyle as Christ teaches.
Clement
Great letter, David. I'd also like these papal Adventists to be confronted with the selective literalism of their theology and be made to comprehensively, honestly, and **plainly** address the genocide and slavery of the Bible, among other aspects of holy writ, if they want to condemn homosexuality. But that's another argument. Nelson, Batchelor, et al are simply theological bullies and cult leaders who thrive on having people follow them and fear their pronouncements. Any pushback is appreciated. If they want to be on TV and be famous and worshiped as a result, make them accountable. Their public positions in general and on issues in particular deserve a correspondingly public response.
On a scientific note: even if it is proved scientifically that a particular genetic make up is responsible for controlling our sexual orientation, that does not make it right per se. Science is morally neutral
Scientists have found that certain genes are responsible for a predisposition for criminal behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior. Do we there fore have to conclude that crime is not sin as it is a product of our genes?
The same may well be true for our sexuality. Certain genetic make ups may mean people are more predisposed to a particular sexual orientation, however, we are not solely a product of our genes (the old Nature, Nurture arguments) and so always have the choice.
Like in the case of criminality, our genes are never a forgone conclusion of our actions, and only define who we are as far as we let them.
I am, as ever, very keen to hear other peoples thoughts on this and my previous post!
Much love to all,
Clement
"If they want to be on TV and be famous and worshiped as a result, make them accountable. Their public positions in general and on issues in particular deserve a correspondingly public response."
Public figures are held to a higher standard that John Q. Public - witness the media frenzy over Tiger Wood. And I totally agree - pastors whose flocks are scattered all over the internet and worldwide have a correspondingly greater responsibility in their teaching and preaching ministry.
I, too, am ashamed and embarrassed by Dwight Nelson's public remarks regarding our gay brothers and sisters. If that is his personal opinion - so be it - he should keep it to himself. But when he teaches celibacy from the pulpit and proclaims it over the airwaves,then it is no longer his personal belief but a reflection on my church.
I applauded you, David Potter, for holding his feet to the fire. And I applauded you for making your letter public so that we could join in the conscious raising of our Brother Dwight.
May the Spirit of peace and brotherhood be with him as he reads and continues to study this issue.
Professor Potter, Thank you for this powerful letter. You have spoken wisely and well on a topic which needs to be exposed to the true light of Christian brotherhood.
In a church where I was previously a member we had an outstanding example of two sets of homosexual partners who were extremely active in all the church activities--including leading out as superintendents and/or song leaders in many of the church services. We all loved those guys. They were so talented, and they were available to everybody--took food to the needy, opened their home for church gatherings, sang at funerals, etc. I would no more have inquired what they did in their bedroom behind closed doors than I would have expected them to ask such things of myself and my husband.
Professor Potter, you have done a thorough study of Scriptural references to sexual matters. Thank you again and again. Your letter should be used as a textbook on this subject from now on. I hope Dwight Nelson refers to your letter in a public sermon very soon.
tuningin
"No healthy dialogue ensued." How do you define "healthy" dialog? Much of what I see in this discussion is "unhealthy" in that there are so many who are willing to bypass a thus saith the Lord for a merely humanistic approach to sin. The practice of aberrant sex by gays is abhorrent and no humanistic approach can change that.
I applaud those few here who see sin in the practice and are willing to stand up for truth. I still wonder why those who are the "owners" of this blog seem to be so obsessed with homosexuality. If it is a prelude to convince the GC Session to condone this practice it's doomed to failure.
Recently there has been an emphasis on the AIDS problem.I listened very briefly to one program and a caller mentioned how the disease could be wiped out in a generation.
Certainly with abstinence and faithfulness to one's spouse of the opposite sex it is a possibility. So many writers here seem not to consider the human toll on health especially by males in their ill advised ventures. Plus the damage to often innocent spouses. Add to this the high cost of medication for those with AIDS. I fully realize there are innocent victims. Right on, Pastor Nelson.
I guess it matters not for many here if Pastor Nelson were the last person to read this open letter. I don't expect him to dignify this personal attack with a response.
To those who are trying to cope with challenging emotions after reading the input from Nelson, Potter or the posts here.
Attitude = Reality/Expectations
Maybe some need a reality check or have unrealistic expectations....happens all of the time.
Regarding my previous post...the >>Reality/Expectations is a fraction.
eg: If one is expecting $1000 and gets $500 they will be unhappy or disappointed.
If they get $5000 instead of $500, they will be very happy...
"I would no more have inquired what they did in their bedroom behind closed doors than I would have expected them to ask such things of myself and my husband."
Fair statement. How many pastors before marrying a heterosexual couple (presumambly that is what they are limited to doing) ask whether they have shared a bed? Or how many married couples are ever asked about their bedroom lives?
Why is it so necessary for only certain individuals to make public their most private lives? Would anyone dare ask a heterosexual couple such questions? Does it really matter to any but the two involved?
Why, then, do we automatically assume when two people of the same sex hold hands, or worse, live together? Surprise: Some married couples are celibate, at least in their senior years. Is it possible that two homosexuals could also be celibate? We know how well chosen celibacy has worked in the Catholic church: read of their horrible abuses in Ireland for half a century with orphans; how much money has been spent on lawsuits brought by "celbate" priests for abusing, mostly young boys? Does anyone think that chosen celibacy is a cure for the sexuality that all humans were given by their Maker? That it will suddenly go away if one prays hard and long? Why are there certain conditions which are called "sins," depending on the times? Leprosy and lameness and blindeness were once labeled sins; left-handedness was once thought of the Devil; twins have been cast out to die because they were an evil omen. Should we today be guided by 3,000-year-old models? If so, we would still believe that the sun revolves around the earth, that the earth is flat, that God orders earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes. Why are we so selective in choosing a pet "sin" based on ancient texts which are simply the beliefs of people who were ignorant on many things, most of which no modern person even pretends to believe.
But when he teaches celibacy from the pulpit and proclaims it over the airwaves,then it is no longer his personal belief but a reflection on my church.
As I noted above, both St Paul and Jesus Himself preached and lived celibacy. Surely preaching celibacy as a valid lifestyle choice (for any one, not just those of a particular sexual orientation) can only reflect well on any church?
Clement
@ Robert Sonter: Am I a suspect now? Why are you ID-ing me? :) Do you need my name so that you could conveniently fill in the gaps and further speculate about my intentions? But I will help you out a bit: I'm white European in the final year of PhD program in theology. Also, I did not insult anyone's credentials. The author speculated about marital status of the mob in Sodom and that is not serious theology because the narrative does not allow any room for speculation.
@ Keith Burton: Actually, they did a pretty good job there. As you said, by examining all the data and interpreting it properly one can only declare that all those issues you mentioned above cannot find support in the Scriptures. Insisting on those values finally ends up in rejection of the Scriptures.
Joselito, you wrote: "I guess it matters not for many here if Pastor Nelson were the last person to read this open letter. I don't expect him to dignify this personal attack with a response."
First, do you know that Pastor Potter did not also send his letter directly to Pastor Nelson, and perhaps in advance? I have no idea, but it seems to me that you are making two assumptions here. First that he did not directly communicate with Dwight Nelson, and second that he should have only communicated directly and privately to Nelson. Both assumptions are suspect, it seems to me. But the first one is a question of fact. And your statement makes an assumption that no private communication took place. Are you sure about this?
Then you label the letter as a personal attack. But to me both tone and content of the letter do not support your allegation. He is objecting - with reasons - to Pastor Nelson's publicly-stated position. This is the antithesis of a personal attack.
Leviticus 20:13 is clear. A man who lies with another man in the manner that he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. What part of that isn't clear?
Being a homosexual is not a sin, but the act of homosexuality is. Just the same as being attracted to your neighbor's wife isn't a sin, but lusting after her or sleeping with her is.
Why do most people want to live life on the extremes when it comes to this issue? On one side you have those who want to shun anyone that is GBLT and on the other, those who declare that as long as they are in monogamous relationships, there is nothing wrong with it. Both views are in conflict with scripture.
A pastor who preaches publicly, as did Dwight Nelson, should not expect a private letter to be sent him. A public pronoucement is properly responded to with a refutation that is also made public. Had Nelson sent a private letter to someone, that would be breaking confidentiality to make it public. Is that what Nelson did when publicizing a private letter in his sermon?
Why do people believe or live strange compared to another's/your viewpoint?
Humans are deceived, LAW trashing, GOD hating rebellious criminals (Jer 17:9/Rom 8:7)
This of course, includes ones in the church. God has a REHAB program and many cut corners, reject HIS program , or just play church and come up with a REHAB program of their own.
So what else is new??
"Leviticus 20:13 is clear."
And as soon as the SDA church and the rest of medieval Christianity faithfully adheres to the entirety of Leviticus their use of this verse can begin to be taken seriously. Until then, they are just proof-texting (and rather badly I might add).
Rape, usually heterosexual, is a tool of war. Listening to the terribly atrocities against women in the Congo and other countries in Africa, is simply a repitition of history since time began. Read the Bible for the rapes committed on entire tribes. It is DOMINATION, and some of the rape victims have also been men.
Most of the homosexual encounters in the Bible were either rape or prostitution, which was both homo and hetero. Were the Israelites condemned for raping women or taking them as slaves? No, in fact they were told by God (according to the writers) to do so!
Using the Bible to "prove" or disprove" practices is an old and tired practice which can be twisted any direction by the preacher in the pulpit to suit his agenda. It occurs too frequently, and usually no one dares to question his authority in theological matters.
He, and all such preachers SHOULD be challenged. The ability to translate the Hebrew or Greek does not infer supreme intelligence in matters of biblical interpretation or exegeis or theology. We should not so meekly accept what these preachers have foisted upon us. Simply listening to the many TV personalities in religious matters does not make them the true authority. We should decide for ourselves, as that is what even the Bible advises, and not to be taken by fables.
Rich,
I'm open to correction, if indeed David Potter had sent Pastor Nelson an advance copy of his open letter. However, as someone who is part of the group in charge of approving the original postings here, for fairness sake, don't you bear some responsibility to ensure that Pastor Nelson received a personal copy and was given the opportunity for simulataneous posting of a rebuttal?
Am I mistaken in thinking that many here seemed unconcerned whether or not Pastor Nelson was contacted by David Potter? The posts speak for themselves, right? I apologize to David Potter that I misjudged his remarks as a personal attack in light of subsequent comments (letters?) that I referenced.
I'm a third generation Adventist and was born as a gay person. I'm certain my life was designed artfully by God and in no way find the Bible to deny me of a loving, committed relationship, my salvation or my civil rights. I thank God each and every day for making me exactly as HE chose and celebrate my uniqueness. Will the church also affirm me in my lifetime?
Robb Crouch
Lincoln, Nebraska
Joselito: It is an open question whether commentary on a publicly-stated position - even in the form of a letter to the individual - necessitates advance notice to the individual. You can see the range of viewpoints expressed in the comments about this.
However, personally, I agree that it is best for an organization, wanting to adhere to openness and Christian courtesy, to operate conservatively - which in this case would mean asking that an advance copy be sent and providing opportunity for public reply.
I do not know if Pastor Potter sent a copy privately. I would hope he did. We have a weekly web team meeting and I will make sure we consider this question then. I can assure you that if Pastor Dwight wishes to respond publicly he is welcome to do so here.
For those advocating the establishment of Levitical Law with respect to things sexual, what the conservative Christianists advocate may yet happen.
Uganda.
Frank Schaeffer is the son of Francis Schaeffer .
Together they were leading advocates for a return to a fundamental theocracy imposed on civil society. They were instrumental in the establishment of the "Religious Right."
Change truly can, and does happen.
Frank Schaeffer now, in his own words.
Frank Schaeffer: Killing the Gays for Jesus [that is his title, not mine]
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7556#more-7556
Kenneth James
Elaine said: Were the Israelites condemned for raping women or taking them as slaves? No, in fact they were told by God (according to the writers) to do so!
Elaine, could you give Biblical texts for your statement above. Thanks.
I am glad that David Potter had the courage to share his perspective. I would agree that the Bible, read in Christ's light, does not proscribe all forms of homosexual affect. No one is excluded from the Kingdom on BIOLOGICAL grounds--on grounds, that is, of genetic make-up.
Should Mr. Potter have run his letter by Pastor Nelson before posting it?
I doubt whether Pastor Nelson--who has one of the best soap boxes in Adventism--alerts everyone he might offend on Sabbath mornings before he speaks his mind. He certainly knew that the particular sermon in question would offend the gay and lesbian (and in some cases, straight)members of his congregation, and of the Andrews University student body. But he went ahead and spoke out.
I'm pretty sure he's big enough to take the heat when someone disagrees, publically, with what he says.
Chuck Scriven
Elaine said: Were the Israelites condemned for raping women or taking them as slaves? No, in fact they were told by God (according to the writers) to do so!
Elaine, would you please give a Biblical reference for your statement.
Does a question repeated twice necessitate two answers?
Deut. 21:10 "When you go to war against your enemies and Yahweh you God delivers them into your power and you take prisoners, if you see a beautiful woman among the prisoners and find her desirable, you may make her your wife." She cannot refuse, can she?
Es. 31:18: "Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves."
In the Hebrew Bible, women had few rights: they had no right to refuse a man who took them for himself. Today, we would call it rape for a man to simply take a woman for himself. But it was not a term used in those times, because a man had the authority to take a woman he chose, and she had no voice in the matter.
The Rules of Sacral War. Deuteronomy 20. (NRSV)
10. When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace.
11. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor.
12. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it;
13. and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword.
14. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all is spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.
What a poignant expression! "You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you."
Kenneth James
Elizabeth,
Elaine may be referring to Numbers 31;
13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
The passage doesn't use the term 'rape' but the phrase 'keep alive for yourselves' in reference those women who had 'known' a man suggests that these women were to be kept alive and taken as wives (whether the women in question wanted this or not).
Very well written article and while I don't believe that homosexuality or left-handedness are caused by sin of humankind, I can just applaud that someone is brave enough to express this so openly.
...and to Jolly, it's not just America or Australia, I am from Europe and I have LGBTI friends around the world, also in Asia, Africa and South America. Some of them have to live a secret life because their SDA church and often their own countries laws are against them. Especially people with non white backgrounds should be more gay friendly because slavery, apartheid or mis-treatment of women and what ever else the Bible has also been used to condemn and justify those.
In my German native language we have a word for people like you "die Ewiggestrigen" meaning something like the "die-hards" which does not really fully express it. Maybe you are one of those...
A few thoughts:
The Old Testament.........
Homosexual Conduct: "A Capital Crime" Under The Law Of Moses
With respect to homosexual relations, Leviticus is clear:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Lev 8:22)
Can it be any clearer? Homosexual conduct is "an abomination" to the Lord. Together with "bestiality" (Lev 18:23), it was one of the sins that justified God in giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites, for the previous occupants were guilty of such sins (Lev 18:24-25).
Also, the Israelites were warned that if they engaged in the same kind of sins, they too would be "vomited out" of the land (Lev 18:26-30).
Leviticus adds more later…
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:13)
The New Testament And Homosexual Conduct
Paul wrote to the church of God at Corinth:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
In this passage, Paul uses two terms that are translated above as "homosexuals" and "sodomites." The first term, translated "homosexuals" ("effeminate" in the KJV) is "malakos", and is defined as: “effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness" (THAYER). The word translated as "sodomites" ("abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV) is arsenokoitai, and is defined as: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite" (THAYER)
Some Theologians would argue that Paul was only condemning male prostitution. They are right to the extent that the first word, malakos, indeed does speak of a male prostitute. But the second word, arsenokoitai, describes any sort of homosexual conduct. Despite such efforts to misconstrue the Scriptures and deceive many, the Word of God is clear: continue to engage in homosexuality you will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Paul also uses the word "arsenokoitai" (a generic term for homosexual conduct) as an example of that which is:
"...contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust." (1 Ti 1:10-11)
The "sound doctrine" of the gospel of Christ condemns even sexual relations between unmarried heterosexuals; therefore, it should not be hard to extrapolate to sex between unmarried homosexuals: this is wrong also. As for "married" homosexuals, the institution of marriage, begun and defined by God, only allows for sex between a man and a woman (cf. Gen 2:24; Mt 19:4-6).
The "classic" passage which deals with the sin of homosexual conduct is that of Ro 1:18-28. In this passage, Paul discusses the wrath of God that is directed toward those who do not honour God:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
"because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
"because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools,
"and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things."
(Ro 1:18-23)
God’s righteous indignation is directed toward those who reject the clear evidence of God's existence and power as revealed in nature; and, if religious at all, they re-construct God into an image of their own choosing.
How does God express His righteous indignation, short of bringing about the Judgment Day? Paul continues:
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Ro 1:24-25)
Rather than bringing about the Judgment Day, or striking them down with a bolt out of the sky, God has expressed His righteous indignation by "giving them up" to moral uncleanness. In other words, those who are not willing to honour God as God are simply allowed to degenerate into moral decay. To illustrate, Paul continues...
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature." (Ro 1:26)
Here lies a strong allusion to lesbianism, where women cease to appreciate that their bodies are naturally designed physically for intercourse with men and for procreation, and who think of "our bodies, ourselves" solely as instruments of "vile passions" for one another.
In regards to men whom God has "given up" to uncleanness, Paul writes:
"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Ro 1:27)
In similar fashion, many of those men who have been "given up" by God to uncleanness eventually leave the "natural use of the woman" and turn to other men to fulfil their lustful desires. Paul reiterates in the next verse:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;" (Ro 1:28)
We find the expression three times: "God gave them up (over)" (Ro 1:24,26,28). The point is this: people who choose to reject God, or to recreate Him in their own image, God "gives them up" to "go their own way." Unrestrained by God, they start to push the envelope of acceptable morality further and further. This may be heterosexual immorality (such as pre-marital sex or adultery) or homosexual and lesbianism.
And what of the consequences of such behaviour? The apostle Paul referred to such people as:
"...receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Ro 1:27)
Thanks for your clear biblical post....."Posted by: Deepak (not verified) | 04 December 2009 at 7:42
I think it is obvious that liberals and gays along with the women's lib movement could really care less what the bible has to say on the subject.
None the less, you have stated clearly the biblical position.
I doubt you will change anyone's mind. But it does affirm to those who believe the bible how clear the bible is on this subject.
Have a nice Sabbath
Bill Sorensen
The argument that Potter should have privately communicated with Nelson is erroneous. The very act of preaching a sermon, publishing a book or article(on line or in print) is an invitation to public reaction. There is zero obligation for private communication with a preacher before one publicly addresses the content of a sermon. (I say this as a preacher, writer and sometime internet activist.)
Part of what makes the Bible superior to the Koran is the multiplicity of voices and perspectives in contains. The internal contrasts and contradictions of the Bible invite us to pursue wisdom rather than fundamentalism.
A "literal" reading of the Bible will tie you in knots. Is pork unclean or are all foods clean (Mark 7:19). Why would Jesus counsel his disciples to buy swords if they are forbidden to resist evil (Luke 22:36;Matt 5:39)? Do we kill adulterers or withhold condemnation (Lev. 20:10; John 8)? Shall we agree with Jesus in calling adulterous ALL marriage subsequent to divorce (Mark 10:12 and Luke 16:18)?
The Bible as a door to wisdom is unparalleled. The leading opponents of slavery in the US were formed through interaction with the Bible. Reading the Bible goaded them into agitating for the abolition of slavery even though the "literal Bible" explicitly allowed for slavery.
The "literal Bible" is unlivable. It leads to inhumane behavior (like the husband in my wife's OB unit recently who insisted his wife receive no pain medication because the Bible declares women are to experience pain in child birth!)
The Bible is a tool. It can be used for the cultivation of holiness and wholeness. It can be used to harm and destroy.
I unabashedly argue for the former. And thank you to David Potter for doing so as well.
I have viewed with interest the response to Dwight Nelson and the response in the comments. Without a doubt I am compelled to share just one thing.
I am not sure when we began to interpret the Bible to our specific cultural needs, but when we do so, we open a door that God never intended for us to walk through. What I appreciate about God is this; there is no fuzzy area, He makes it clear in His Word what is right.
Whatever the subject matter, be it the issue of homosexuality, jewelry, alcohol or any other hot-button issue, there is a clear delineation of what God desires of those who reflect His character.
Blessings to all.
Pastor Dean Waterman
www.deanfb.con
Dean,
Responses like yours also compel me...
I don't understand how you can make such a statement and really believe it.
If things were really that clear, where is the evidence to support it? Why so many denominations and so many differences of opinion within them?
Can it really be that you know the truth and everyone else is simply obstinate in their sins? Can it be that there are people that desire to love, serve, and obey God that come to completely different conclusions?
Where did you get the idea that the Bible isn't reflective of the culture of it's time? Or that it's teachings can somehow be followed in EVERY culture without interpretation?
There is NO way to read the Bible without interpreting it in the light of our own culture. It is simply impossible.
It's very clear that Spectrum has joined hands with the Main Stream Media, posting mainly attacks on Pastor Dwight Nelson who clearly is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. All I can say is it looks like Witchcraft and Sorcery has finally exposed it's ugly head. I see that the real Harry Potter is still alive and well roaring like a lion whom he may devour.
Ferdi Weber
After all the discussion about whether David Potter's letter was sent first to Dwight Nelson, let me say that the copy I saw said it was emailed to him on November 30.
And I am thankful for and agree with John McLarty's and Tim de la Torre's comments on biblical interpretation.
I haven't heard Dwight's sermon but I probably would find myself in agreement with him. The Bible is what it is and it's not what some of you try to distort it to be!!
@ Roy Ratzer: There you go - as soon as someone gives some details, the label comes straight away. 'Die Ewiggestriger'? What did I say to deserve that? And how can you put a label on someone you don't know with such an ease? But let's talk about what I actually wrote. I only said that in other parts of the world people are not interested in these issues. You said it yourself when you wrote that gay people have to live secret life which implies that they do not come up in public with that issue in other parts of the world including Europe. This further implies that people do not bother with that problem. It is American/Australian problem, but their theologians are presenting this issue as something that should be discussed on a global level. Well... I don't think so. And THAT was my whole point. Notice that I was not going into details, pros and cons, never said a word about my opinion on the matter. The only judgment I dared to pass was about how the author chose to argue his position. Anyone who knows about the text and exegesis would just dismiss his speculations as ridiculous, as the kind of argument that gives theologians a bad name.
Oh yes, and one more thing. The label you've put on me also means 'the person who lives in past'. Well, the Scriptures IS about the past and the values promoted there have to do with that past. The times/philosophy/values have changed in the past fifty years, I agree, but that fact alone does not say anything about the values from the Scriptures. If you say that the Scriptures is passe, than you have to find another basis to support your faith because you cannot isolate what is written there from the times in which it was written. Who says that your friends have to be Christians? It is not compulsory. I am sure there are other systems of belief/thought/value that would perfectly fit their lifestyle. In Christianity they will always have a problem, at least that's what I think.
There is no such thing as a "conservative" wing of the SDA Church. The entire doctrine of the SDA Church is conservative inasmuch as it upholds the word of God as written. The Bible is too clear about homosexuality for any arguments to be made that it is acceptable to God.
To my homosexual brethren, I would say that homosexuality is a sin. Period. But God can overcome all sins if you are willing to submit to His will.
The SDA Church cannot change to adopt homosexuality, anymore than it can change to adopt bestiality, adultery, covetousness, Sabbath breaking, drinking, smoking, etc.
I love everyone, but I cannot condone sin - including those that I commit and ask forgiveness for on a daily basis.
God bless and have a Happy Sabbath!
"We are all "sons" of Adam and are born with a sinful nature.
It may not seem fair to some, but if we all got what we deserved, we would be destroyed. Even the most innocent looking baby is born with a inherited sinful nature. We all deserve to die!!"
This theology makes me sick. Even the most innocent looking baby deserves to die?! Without a mind twisted by fundamentalist religion, nobody would believe that we are worthy of death just by virtue of our existence.
I'm not perfect. I've done some wrong things, but nothing that warrants death by any sane logical person's judgement. It's this kind of theology that makes me think we are like abused children, bashed in the face, reaching our arms out to our abuser (religion/church) to comfort us.
David,
I'm sad that my alma mater (ie. other mother) has been involved in this discussion in this way. I never imagined that any faculty member at Avondale would so boldly 'come out' in open denial of the Adventist Church's compassionate stance on homosexuality.
Perhaps your Letter to Dwight Nelson should have been labelled "An Open Letter To Dwight Nelson."
I am interested in this topic. So interested that I listened to Dwight Nelson's Sermon twice and got the whole series of CD's from the conference on Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church. These are available from American Christian Ministries.
David, just a few day's after the Conference ended, Papa Benedictus issued his Canon Law that was designed very effectively to poach Anglicans and whole congregations from the Anglican communion and bring them into the Roman fold. This issue is having huge consequences for Christian Churches everywhere.
Robert Gagnon's presentation at the Conference was especially useful in helping me reaffirm my belief in what you, David acknowledge as the traditional teaching of the Christian church for millennia. His website has similar quality materials.
David, why shouldn't Dwight Nelson speak his mind on this subject, at the risk of falling out of favor with some, for not being PC. I'm sure he spoke every word advisedly, and with a prayer for the Spirit's guidance. I was tremendously blessed and greatly challenged by this sermon. I'm sure there are thousands like me.
Adventist sermons should have power to rebuke our sin. We are to follow in the way of John the Baptist who suffered 'loss of face' because of his rebuke to Herod for sexual sin.
Jolly,
I don't suspect you of anything, and am not interested in speculating as to your intentions. I asked for your real name because I don't think a comment is worth a dime unless you're prepared to publicly stand behind the comment. If you expect readers to take your comments seriously, you should be prepared to state your name.
As for insulting David Potter's academic credentials, my comment was in reference to your statement "If the author of the letter can pass as an academic in Australia than my wish for a new center of Adventist theology and thinking is even stronger." I'm not sure how I could read that statement without detecting an implied insult to David Potter, Australia, or both.
Dear Reader,
It seems more than ever that Adventism is going the way of evangelicalism. That is, it is dividing according to one's hermaneutics ie. are we committed to maintaining the principle of interpretation according to sola scriptura or according to the principle of sola cultura.(as David F. Wells has recently pointed out).
Perhaps we shouldn't expect to be able to talk to each other across this divide.
In fact, the Conference on Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church was very up front about declaring it's principles of sola scriptura and distinctly rejecting the principles of interpretation by sola cultura.
Some of you interpret the Bible as an unassailable No to any kind of homosexual intimacy.
Just remember:
You can't find in Scripture any key texts against the institution of slavery, not even in the NT.
You can't find any keys texts in Scripture that would justify SCIENTIFIC, or EVIDENCE-BASED, medicine.
You can't find any key texts in Scripture that would uphold democratic political institutions.
What you can find is:
Full embrace of the value of restored health.
Full embrace of the intrinsic worth of the individual.
Full embrace of suspicion of power, and especially of tyrannical power.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the Bible sheds light just when it is read as a STORY leading to a GRAND IDEAL? And why is is so hard to acknowledge that the grand ideal is the WILL AND THE WAY OF CHRIST? (Before you dismiss this, read, and refute, Hebrew 1:1-4)
In Christ's light, we see many things differently from the way we might if we just cited key texts. And if we are really to love the Other as we love ourselves, we will surely figure out how to affirm the other in his or her BIOLOGICAL condition. As I want to be respected despite my straight hair and medium height and middling ability (especially at my age) to jump, so the Other who is homosexual wants, and deserves, to be respected by me.
The Other who is homosexual wants, and deserves, intimacy. In Christ's light, respecting this fact seems surely to be justified, even though key texts may raise doubts about it.
Of course having acknowledged this point, we'd still have lots of thinking to do about sexual ethics, and about the abuse of God's gifts to us.
But there is no worse abuse than the invocation of God to dehumanize another person.
Chuck Scriven
But there is no worse abuse than the invocation of God to dehumanize another person.
Chuck Scriven
Posted by: Chuck Scriven | 05 December 2009 at 12:12
Except the misguided pride of Corinthian self aggrandizement.
Paul spent more ink on the pride in how they reacted to it, than on the one engaged with his step mother.
1 Corinthians 5 (New Living Translation)
1 Corinthians 5
Paul Condemns Spiritual Pride
1 I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you—something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.[a] 2 You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.
3 Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit.[b] And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church.[c] I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. 5 Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed[d] and he himself[e] will be saved on the day the Lord[f] returns.
6 Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough?
Being homosexual is not normal and not natural. I worked as a counselor for 10 years and met new gay folks each week - but in each case - 100% - they told me that something happened in their lives to change their sexual behavior. Nobody was born 'gay.' Being 'gay' is not an orientation - it is still a perversion. The Bible says in Revelation 22:14&15 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs (homosexuals) and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters."
Thanks for a great letter, David (and for your daughter's too). In your defense, I hardly find the tone of your letter is attacking Pastor Nelson in any way or that Spectrum has joined hands with the "media", as some have suggested. From my perspective, I found the tone and substance of what Pastor Nelson et. al. presented based on ignorance of science and on a "cherry picking" hermeneutic as well. Pastor Nelson made a great show of pointing to Romans 1:26-27. Too bad he left out Romans 2:1-4 which is in the same context as Romans 1. And as far as the PC and left wing media accusations goes, I found the whole weekend in line with the Fox News and AM talk radio media. When we as a church find ourselves in line, both in tone and substance, with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, etc, maybe its time for us to engage in a little introspection.
Finally, I find it interesting (and a poor choice) that Pastor Nelson and the others concerned chose to ally the AU seminary with fundamentalist (the other non-Adventist presenters) on this topic when we believe that this same group will be chasing Sabbatarians through the woods, swamps, and mountains during the "time of trouble." Perhaps the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Regarding the issue that Joselito raised repeatedly. . .
To repeat what Carrol wrote. . .
In fact, this letter was sent electronically to Dwight Nelson on Nov. 30.
Of course, it is not a personal attack. (Reading through the comments, I see the concern for that only seems to go one way.)
This letter raises Biblical questions and provides hermeneutically facts in a very kind manner, which is why I asked David Potter if Spectrum could post it.
It is my prayer that those who disagree with him will show basic Christian courtesy and respond to his letter in the same Spirit and clear rational discourse in which he wrote it.
Well said, Charles:
Frank, in my case, at least, you are wrong. Nothing happened to me to change my sexual orientation. I'm just gay. Sorry to throw a wrench in your neat and tidy little way of looking at life.
Anymore out here like me? Just so Frank knows I'm not the only one who didn't choose this?
Jesus "sermons" / talks never condemned any group of people with the exception of those who clung to the letter of the law and condemned others. Jesus was full of compassion for the marginalized and those perceived to be sinners. What would Jesus do? I cannot see how Dwight Nelson's sermon was the kind of sermon Jesus would have preached. I just can't.
I wonder if that sermon discouraged more people than it edified / helped.
So many of you are quick to quote Paul or the Letivical laws. But I don't see you [same people] addressing Jesus' example in the Gospels.
Leviticus 18:22 NLT - "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin".
Romans 1:18-32 NLT - These texts state that "God will judge those who practice homosexual behavior".
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT - These texts state that "Homosexual behavior has no place among Christians".
Those who practice homosexuality are living a lifestyle contrary to God's will. They need to confess their sin and accept Jesus as their personal Savior. They need to forsake this deadly sin and live a life that is in tune with God's will for them. The Bible is clear on this issue. Let's pray that homosexuals will realise that it's time to be ready for Christ's soon return. Eternal life is more important than the sins that come between us and God.
Helen, it helped way more people than it discouraged. It only discouraged gay people and their supporters, which are a minority in the church. It helped (but not 'edified') all of those who want to cling to their precious beliefs at the expense of actual people...it gave them the justification they need to keep on discriminating.
For Winston Bent:
We can all quote texts that would justify genocide. What is your objection to Hebrews 1:1-4?
Chuck Scriven
Chuck,
You say, "You can't find in Scripture any key texts against the institution of slavery, not even in the NT...
You can't find any keys texts in Scripture that would justify SCIENTIFIC, or EVIDENCE-BASED, medicine...
But there is no worse abuse than the invocation of God to dehumanize another person."
Surely you can recognize the difference between what is explicitly forbidden "behavior" in the OT and NT, than what the NT scripture is silent upon. Must it deal upon every issue for validity...the list is endless. The NT is silent upon the necessity of sabbath observance for gentiles and many other activities. Where it speaks, however, we must listen.
No one should dehumanize anyone. The "behavior" of the homosexual or adulterer is what is at issue. God's word IS love.
regards,
pat
"Frank, in my case, at least, you are wrong. Nothing happened to me to change my sexual orientation. I'm just gay. Sorry to throw a wrench in your neat and tidy little way of looking at life.
Anymore out here like me? Just so Frank knows I'm not the only one who didn't choose this?
Posted by: Jamie (not verified) | 05 December 2009 at 1:22"
Yes, Jamie, and you were "born a liar, thief, and murderer."
So I guess that would justify any and all of us who are born in sin to continue in it since we were "born that way".
sentences deleted. Bill, moderate your tone or risk being banned from posting. - website editor
Bill Sorensen
For Chuck Scriven:
What is your point? Hebrews 1:2 Says that God made the universe and everything in it, however, he certainly did not make homosexuality. Homosexuality is a deviant and learned behavior. Homosexuals need to focus on Christ and ask him for help in unlearning this behavior. Hebrews 1:3 State that Jesus died to cleanse us from the stain of sin. This cleansing will take place only if one acknowledges his or her sin, is penitent and asks forgiveness. There is no grey area.
"But I will help you out a bit: I'm white European in the final year of PhD program in theology."
Posted by: jolly (not verified) | 04 December 2009 at 5:02
So Jolly, would you be from Jolly Old England?
From another post you wrote: "nobody is coming with the theology of their own. I was embarrassed when I read how the author of the letter was 'filling the gaps' in the Scriptures according to his presumptions, informing us that after a gang-bang in Sodom everybody would surely go home to their wives. Where I come from people take biblical text seriously and are very cautious on what they hang their arguments."
Would you like to share with us your "theology of their [your]own" about the "gang-bang in Sodom"? Also since you are part of a culture or heritage of people who take the biblical text seriously, surely you could share with us who this super-group is, and what is the real meaning of these texts.
Bill, maybe you were born a murderer...I couldn't say one way or another. I, however, was not. Even if I was, the fact that this stuff causes suffering to other people differentiates it from homosexuality between consenting adults COMPLETELY.
Pastor David Potter, Pastor Scriven, and the others on this thread who not only sense the value and dignity of every person, but are willing to express it in an openly hostile environment . . . Thank you. Thank you again.
We are seeing what Christianity, in its most horrible manifestations, is about to do. In Uganda.
Pastor Potter, Pastor Scriven, if you were in Uganda instead of Australia or the US, besides the point of being dis-fellowshipped from your church, you would be convicted of sympathizing with homosexuals and therefore subject to incarceration for up to 3 years.
That is about to become the law in Uganda. A law sponsored by Christian fundamentalists from the US, those who advocate a theocracy based on OT law, those who are in power in the United States. Those who are affiliated with "The Family," the Douglas Coe "C Street" organization. To include Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church.
And that Ugandan anti-homosexual legislation is also supported by at least one Seventh-day Adventist minister in Uganda.
If I were in Uganda, I would be convicted to life imprisonment. My 84 year old mother would incarcerated for up to 3 years as well, because she would not "turn me in."
All because I am what I am.
Jamie, you are not alone.
Don't worry about Bill Sorenson.
There is this horrible manifestation of fundamental/literal religion . . . the demonization of the other. Its imposed intolerance to the other. It has been a fact of life, of horrible life, for millennia.
To the casual observer, one would conclude the message and life of Jesus was a most dismal failure. To look at his fundamentalist followers as an exemplar, one has every reason to recoil with horror.
They're frantic fomenting of texts depicting misunderstood cultural situations are enough to terrorize anybody.
But there are a few, even in fundamental religions, who can and do sense a truly gospel message of inclusiveness, of affirmation, of the worth and dignity of all peoples . . . as people, in our human condition. And that salvation is just that . . . salvation.
Again, I am thankful that David Potter and Chuck Scriven are not in Uganda. How many on this site would visit those in prison? And not beat them over the head again with their Bible.
I am thankful the Potters and the Scrivens are a voice of reason and compassion in this hostile religion. Perhaps it is the folks like them that are the remnant.
Thank you. Thank you.
Kenneth James
It is amazing that a SDA pastor and scholar would read the bible differently and trust human thought than God's, in terms of sin of homosexuality.
Dr. Nelson, keep preaching the Bible, the Bible alone. The silent majority is always with you. I am sure that the good Load is always with you.
Cheers
KH
I'm sorry, but doesn't the Adventist church have an official stance on homosexuality (as a sin or not)?
Just for the sake of clarity: Dad initially wrote this letter as a general response to the issues raised in Dwight Nelson's sermon. As an academic, he frequently produces material like this for a variety of purposes, including his own personal reflection - as thinking individuals are wont to do.
He did not seek to have the letter published but after forwarding it to someone who had a personal interest in the issue, he received a request for his permission to post it here. This, he freely gave, in addition to sending it to its intended recipient.
Any suggestion that the letter is an attack on Dwight Nelson is simply incorrect. I can respectfully assure you that my Dad is a decent upstanding man and a committed Christian who holds deep concerns that our denomination's treatment of homosexuals is not only unChristlike, it may also be theologically unsustainable.
Dwight Nelson invited discussion on the issue when he spoke publicly before an international audience about it. It is therefore entirely appropriate that any response is also public. I wonder if Dwight Nelson was so kind as to give advance notice to the student mentioned in his sermon that he was about to use a private letter in a public forum?
People of God have nothing to fear in seeking the truth. Ellen White urged the early Adventist church to be cautious about assuming we have the whole truth and to be open to new revelations from the Holy Spirit. Open discussion is certainly one method of ensuring that we do not perpetrate great harm as a result of ignorance.
There is no doubt that truth continues to be revealed to us. The injustices committed against Des Ford are just one example of where we as a church have erred in the past through general smugness about how 'right' we are.
Jesus himself said that of all the commandments, the greatest is 'love God', followed by 'love one another'. It is our Christian responsibility to first show compassion. This can be equated to the medical practitioner's call to 'first do no harm'. If we as a church act in a manner that causes great harm - whether to individuals or entire groups - then we are failing in our first duty as Christians to our fellow man.
Anyone found any planks recently? ... just curious...
Matt 7:3-6
First and foremost, I despair at the poliferation of attitudes I'm reading that clearly have missed the point of David's article. It is not a politically motivated swipe, it is not a far left wing rant, it is a rational and balanced response to a sermon that should be provoking intellectual discussion.
It is truly disheartening to read the seething anger behind a lot of the comments on here. Clearly and unfortunately, the focus of so many believers is not on compassion, love and acceptance of the individual, as Jesus himself both instructs and demonstrates, but instead is a considered Pharisaical assault on the individual based on their actions or words (and who among us does NOT sin with their actions or words?)
On what possible basis can this combative behaviour be aligned to the doctrine of Jesus? Is it not up to GOD AND GOD ALONE to provide the ultimate judgement of character and spirit? Have we all somehow managed to remove the logs in our own eyes?
How much emotional and spiritual effort is wasted in condemnation and dogmatic indulgence, when the need for brotherly love has never been so important?
We are all made in the image of God but with a fallen nature, therefore are sinful at birth. If Christ had not died, none would be saved, whether newborn or elderly. While still a teenager, I developed an unhealthy appitite for sex outside marriage. The Bible called it fornication, so when I came to Christ He gave me the power to overcome it and live a life of celebacy. The urges remain, but are overcome, through Christ. Homosexual behaviour is condemed in the Bible. It must be overcomed. If we say we cant overcome it, we call God a liar.
Jamie wrote..
Bill, maybe you were born a murderer...I couldn't say one way or another. I, however, was not. Even if I was, the fact that this stuff causes suffering to other people differentiates it from homosexuality between consenting adults COMPLETELY.
This is taking Gods rules and reasoning them DOWN to a human level - and it is totally wrong. Sin is transgression of GOD'S LAW. Whether the act is against God or man.
Sin is sin and all sin is against God. Thats why David would lament 'Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight', after he had committed adultry and murder. Lets get this right folks. Our 'opinions' do not count - ultimatly, what the Lord requires is a broken and contrite heart - this He will not despise.
We all have to overcome and those with homosexual tendancies are no different to the rest of us.
@ Mike MacLennan: The text itself does not allow speculation about what was the marital status of the mob, as the author of the letter suggested. The narrator gives a moral description of ALL people in Sodom (apart from Lot) as the most vicious and the only statement about their sinfulness is from the gang-bang episode. Baring in mind that later on in Pentateuch homosexual acts were put in the category of capital offences it becomes clear why the city was destroyed. This particular narrative is not a very complicated one from the ethical point of view, as it is the narrative of tower of Babel where it is not clear what was the sin of the tower builders. The speculation about their marital status is not serious reading of the text since all we have is the text we have - nothing more and nothing less.
What bothers me in this whole thing is that because of the critical mass of homosexuals in the US we are now forced to listen to these 'arguments'. Brothers and sisters in the US are pragmatical which means that they would give advantage to practice rather than theory as they often do. Here we have the situation that because of their practice we have now to discuss how to bend the theory so that it can fit their behavior. So, because where I live we don't have a critical mass of homosexuals IN THE CHURCH - the topic is not relevant for me or for others who are in the same situation. And because of the way the Scriptures functioned through history, the theory definitely precedes over the practice. It guides the practice, builds up a community and sets a moral standard. Here we have a reverse situation - because of the practice people want to inform the Scriptures that it does not mean what it means. This clearly comes from the culture that exists in the US and because I am not a part of that culture it renders the topic irrelevant for me. The idea of moving a center of Adventist thought from the US is a reasonable one because Adventists over there do not reflect the Scriptures anymore, but rather their own culture.
You don't have to be a part of a supergroup to decide to take the Scriptures seriously, but I guess you have to be super brave to EMBRACE its countercultural nature. The Scriptures has always been odd to the rest of the world, pronouncing an 'upside-down Kingdom' which never ever agreed with worldviews of nations surrounding the people of God. Today, the point of friction between the 'upside-down Kingdom' and the secular worldview is the issue of homosexuality, but there are many problems for those who want to follow the secular values and remain in the church. I definitely do not want people close to me to be stretched between these two worlds so I would like for our brothers and sisters in US/Australia to find a solution for that among themselves and not to impose their issues to Adventists from the other parts of the world.
Very good read, Jolly. Thanks for sharing!
God bless.
The rise - Watch what is happening in this world...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3udI1ltCZ4s&feature=related
How many times are we going to ridiculously quote verses from Leviticus against homosexuality?
Would someone satisfactorily explain to me why we don't stone to death defiant children, adulterers, and neighbors who eat pork? And why I cannot sell my daughter into slavery if I happen to run into financial trouble? Then and only then may you be entitled to quote Leviticus and other such texts in favor or against whatever ridiculous position you want to support from there.
It's not like things like those "ordered by the Lord" in Leviticus don't happen in the world today. Maybe The Lord is the one telling the people of Somalia to kill they daughters if they run away with someone of a different faith, or if they "get defiled" by a group of soldiers. Why aren't we ok with that? Why don't we practice this ourselves if we are so bent on quoting Scripture for illogical, intellectually insulting arguments? We'd at least be consistent. Stupid, but consistent.
This whole argument with quoting Scripture against homosexuality would be really funny, if some of the attitudes and values expressed and practices would not directly affect the lives of real people living today. People for which we, Christ's church, have the sacred responsibility of practically revealing some of His grace.
I recongnize I am not very gracious in my diatribe, myself... The thing is it is getting on my nerves:
- the whole "conservative" argument is so abhorrent and illogical, it is not worth engaging with seriously for me, no matter how much I may care about the people presenting it...
- the whole "liberal" response to it becomes really tedious after a while, whether it comes from the theological, social-psychological, church-political, or ethical perspective (or whatever)... Why being so nice in the face of the rubbish presented by the conservatives? Ah, I forget, they are the majority. Well, I have to accept others have a lot more patience than me. I admire you. Annoying but true.
I am increasingly wondering if any argument, no matter how eloquently presented (not my case...), will change anyone's attitude on this matter. I am starting to believe this will not happen. So why am I joining this debate at this stage? Is it simply to "vent" my frustration with the way this (and other matters...) are handled by my church? Perhaps.
Dear Daniel - just know that you are not alone in your frustration. Those who cling to a "thus saith the Lord - case closed" on the subject of homosexuality are not going to be persuaded by logic, reason, or good biblical scholarship. You are right their minds are made up. And as you mention - they are in the majority.
But this is MY CHURCH also and I refuse to let people who think in the fashion have the last say. It is my obligation to keep rattling the gates. Our only hope is in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth and freedom. He can melt hearts and teach in a moment what we can not accomplish in a life time. This is my hope and my prayer.
It's is absolutely hobbling to refuse to read Scripture as a story tending toward God's ultimate self-revelation through Christ.
Winston Bent doesn't get my point about Hebrews 1:1-4. These verses say that whereas God did speak through the prophets of old, the Son is the one EXACT IMPRINT of the divine being. This is the point God makes (Romans 1:1-4) through the resurrection.
THAT is why we cannot use the authority of the Bibile to stone adulterous women or rebellious young people. THAT is why we can't use the authority of the Bible to justify racism, slavery and genocide.
Who can possibly refute this point, without excising Hebrews 1:1-4 from the canon?
God is calling this church--every church, all people--to compassion. That doesn't no rules; it doesn't mean gay and lesbian people get to be promiscous; it doesn't mean a slackening of standards. It means the HIGHER STANDARD of DISCIPLESHIP.
Anything less makes a mockery of the Incarnation.
Chuck Scriven.
Who can possibly refute this point, without excising Hebrews 1:1-4 from the canon?
Chuck, if you want to talk about hobbling and making a mockery of the Incarnation....
Ellen White didn't exactly excise Hebrews 1:1-4 from the canon. She simply wrote herself into it.
Hebrews 1:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Ellen White:
In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit"
--Testimonies, Vol. 4, p. 148; Vol. 5., p. 661
I guess we should be grateful that EGW didn't single out homosexuality in her writings, being more focused on masturbation and marital excess.
Thank you Rich, Carrol, Alex and Heather for a satisfactory explanation regarding the e-delivery of this letter to the intended original recipient prior to posting on this site. I want to assure those who believe that Pastor Nelson's sermon should be openly debated and critiqued that I'm in complete agreement with them.
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/10/31/sabbath_sermon_dwight_ne...
A couple of suggestions though. First, a change of title/heading from "A Letter..." to "A Response to Dwight Nelson". Second, an additional pic to the one that has been selected by the Spectrum blog team to portray Pastor Nelson. How about requesting his daughters, who may not be old enough to comprehend what's going here, for a favorite family portrait (worth a thousand words) of their choice for posting as well?
Have a glorious and wonderful Sabbath to all of you!
EG White didn't deal with Jihad terrorists, marijuana, or crack either.
Maybe because it was not as prevalent as masurbation and infidelity
With all that is posted here...is it surprising at all that only 8 got on the ark??
Daniel Ionita said: Would someone satisfactorily explain to me why we don't stone to death defiant children, adulterers, and neighbors who eat pork?
Here is my understanding of why Christians should not implement the penalties of breaking God's law from the Old Testament.
The Israelites, from the time of their deliverance till their first king, had a unique form of government -- a theocracy. God was recognized as the nations supreme moral and civil ruler. They were reminded every day of God's presence by the cloud by day and fiery pillar by night.
I suggest that because the Israelites were under a theocracy the penalty for breaking most, if not all, the commandments was death. This can be demonstrated by the numerous injunctions for stoning.
For example, the seventh commandment says, "You shall not commit adultery" (NIV).
Leviticus 20:10 says, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (NIV).
Is adultery any less of a sin today? I don't think so, and I believe we don't continue with the same penalty because we're under a different government. Ultimately, the wages of sin is death, whether God defers the punishment or implements it quickly does not matter. If we do not ask for God's forgiveness for our sins, we will receive the natural results of sin -- death.
Based on this I think there is good reason to believe that the theocratic elements of the Old Testament no longer apply, and stopped when Israel asked to be ruled by a human king.
Then of course all the ceremonial laws and anything having to do with them were abolished when Christ died on the Christ.
Daniel, what are your thoughts on why we shouldn't be following the OT penalties for sinning?
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
"sentences deleted. Bill, moderate your tone or risk being banned from posting. - website editor"
Delete another sentence, and you won't have to worry about banning me. I don't intend to waste my time "patronzing" your condecending forum unless it is open for any and all viable comments and discussion.
Bill Sorensen
To all those debating the issue of Pastor Nelson's sermon: Please quote a text that God designed sex as simply a self-satisfying experience! The litany of other Biblically based alleged self-satisfying experiences besides.
We are all sinners in need of Grace. Denying sin is simply also denying Grace. Of course, Pastor Nelson has taken a losing side as far as Spectrumites are concerned. isn't it wonderful they have no standing in the seat of Judgment or in the Council of Grace.
We stand before God individually, not collectively. Institutional acknowledgment has no standing in the final Court of Judgment. If Pastor Nelson elects to outline an institutional position, he is a brave but but not necessarily a prudent man.
The bottom-line is that regardless of who wins this bebate, it has no bearing on the heavenly courts. Each soul must come to terms with their own humanity and their need for Grace in all aspects of their lives.
What a blessing are the fruits of the union of a man and woman in marriage denied same sex unions.
So take it from one who has recently celebrated sixty years of marraige with three great grand children--I highly recommend it. Tom
Shane said:
"Daniel, what are your thoughts on why we shouldn't be following the OT penalties for sinning?"
I'm not Daniel but I have to say your reply to him sent chills down my spine Shane. No where do I see any mention that maybe stoning people to death for these sorts of sins is immoral. Stoning people for breaking the Sabbath? Stoning mouthy children?
I swear it is thinking like this that makes me want to run as fast as I can from religion and never look back. I can see Christians who think this way lining up to be the first to cast the stones if they think God is asking it without once even considering whether maybe it is just barbaric. There is no moral thought given beyond what they think God is saying - it is a virtue to hurt others in the name of righteousness if God wants it.
There are some Islamic countries currently under a theocracy and some people living there stone for adultery. Are they correct? Lord have mercy.
Jolly quote:"Dear American brothers and sisters, I am kind of tired of the North American issues. It is not interesting to the rest of the world. Others think differently"
Hi Jolly,
I am neither "North American Adventist", nor "Australian" one. Rather, of "East-westish European" brew...And yet, unlike you, I believe this subject of relating to people, who are supposedly different from us 'the straight ones', is one of the most relevant issues Adventist should and must deal with. I think Jesus was quite direct, unambiguous and to the point when clarifying the muddled water of 'true churchhood' and defining who is to be His true disciple. We just seem to love to ignore his words about "if you love your neighbor....etc...etc..you are my disciple" in favor of doctrinal hairsplitting marking us as chosen ones.
By the way, David, I immensely enjoyed reading your letter. Wish the guys in the administration had guts to be open and frank as you were.
"Ultimately, the wages of sin is death, whether God defers the punishment or implements it quickly does not matter. If we do not ask for God's forgiveness for our sins, we will receive the natural results of sin -- death."
Posted by: Shane (not verified) | 05 December 2009 at 6:09
The second sentence effectively contradicts the first. It does matter, and makes a huge difference, whether the penalty is implemented quickly or not, because if it's implemented quickly there is no opportunity for repentance.
"Then of course all the ceremonial laws and anything having to do with them were abolished when Christ died on the Christ." (also from Shane's post)
Shane, can you demonstrate from the Bible that it was only the ceremonial laws that were abolished when Christ died on the cross? I believe the correct interpretation is that the entire Mosaic law came to an end with the death of Christ. Paul outlines this truth extensively, in Romans (chap 7), Galatians (chap 4, v 21 onwards) and Colossians (chap 2, v 13 onwards). (I could also say Hebrews (esp chap 8, v 6 & 7), though some question Paul's authorship of Hebrews).
To all those debating the issue of Pastor Nelson's sermon: Please quote a text that God designed sex as simply a self-satisfying experience!
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 05 December 2009 at 6:42
Tom, with the greatest respect, I don't think its fair to ask us to biblically demonstrate that God designed sex as "simply" a "self-satisfying" experience. Any sex between two people should, as a requirement, be "mutually satisfying". As for the "simply", there is a wealth of biblically sound evidence to suggest that sex doesn't need to be procreative - that it can as a primary purpose, be physically, emotionally and spiritually satifying to the two partners engaging in it.
You asked for a text - I can give you practically an entire book: Song of Songs (aka Song of Solomon). This whole book is a celebration of the physical and emotional love of two people - I don't think offspring are even mentioned. Some of the choice snippets from the book are:
4:16 "Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits."
5:4-6 "My lover thrust his hand through the latch opening; my heart began to pound for him. I arose to open for my lover, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh on the handles of the lock. I opened for my lover, but my lover had left; he was gone."
6:2-3 "My lover has gone down to his garden, to the bed of spices, to browse in the gardens and to gather lilies. I am my lover's and my lover is mine;"
8:14 "Come away, my lover, and be like a gazelle or like a young stag on the spice-laden mountains."
The inclusion of this book in the Bible canon must have been intended to counter the notion that sex is primarily for procreation.
Friends
I would encourage you to read the chapter 31 in Selected Messages volume 1 entitled "The Law in Galatians". One of the central questions in the 1888 conference was WHICH law was done away with at the cross? (misunderstanding of the law) EGW wrote Letter 96, 1896 from Australia after she was shown in vision that the reference to the LAW in Galatians was refering "especially of the moral law" (not the ceremonial law as the GC President of that time thought). She specifically instructed the GC President that the light shown to her in vision was to be published for the entire church to see. That never happened and may never have happened even in the limited degree it is printed in SM vol 1 except that it was discovered by a man who was doing his doctoral research and found this letter and brought it up to the great dismay of the church leadership. After much discussion this letter was partially printed in the late 50's in Selected Messages but is rarely mentioned in the discussions of 1888.
Also of interest is EGW statements regarding the "spirit" present at those meetings. Specifically that Jesus would have been treated the same by many of those in attendance had He appeared in person!! (i.e. put to death)
Just some food for thought regarding the use of law.
Christ's definitive statement on law was that the cornerstone of all law is "LOVE". If we are not following that principle in our heart we "do not obey the law". Luckily the last time I checked God alone can read our "heart" and make judgements based on that motive!!
I think we should all look inward before we do too much talking about judging others. As someone above mentioned we will all stand alone before God ultimately.
God bless each one of us on that journey!!
Fred Eastman
Fred,
You state, "Christ's definitive statement on law was that the cornerstone of all law is "LOVE"."
The unfortunate part Fred is that none of us are "perfectly loving" as the law requires. Only Jesus has lived the perfect life "in truth and spirit."
His law is love and His gospel is peace...our only hope for salvation and guidance.
EGW after at first claiming "the law" in Galatians was only the ceremonial law later changed. "Some" SDA's suggest she changed back but I do not know the source of their claims. I suggest it is "the whole law" in Galatians that can not justify.
Consider however that neither the "law or love" can justify us...because we are "neither perfectly obedient nor perfectly loving." Love and law are not mutually exclusive "to us" but one in the same in God's view...although His love led Him to be merciful and send His Son to die for our sins.
regards.
pat
Pat,
I always appreciate your thoughts! I certainly agree with you regarding the law or love not justifying us but without love our obedience to law counts for naught. That was what I was trying to refer to when I referenced "misunderstanding the law".
I know of no evidence that she changed her views re: the moral law of 10 commandments and her strong reference to this specifically being the Law referred to in Galatians.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Fred
Fred,
Thanks.
"without love our obedience to law counts for naught"...agreed.
Would you also agree that "love" that does not consider obedience is not Love.
I feel that "tension" in "our experience" must never be lost.
regards,
pat
This discussion shows the attitude of conservative fundamentalist to just about anything.
They always know better. They know the answers to all the questions, and they know what "The Bible" has to say about anything even before the open it to read.
They claim that the Bible is "clear" on issues such as discussed here. They must be reading only the so-called "Clear Word" and not the real Bible, which if far from clear on many issues.
When you argue with fundamentalists they will always ask you to prove your point with the Bible. Like Elizabeth, they will repeat their question at nauseam. Yet, when Elaine graciously answered her, Elizabeth just pretended she never asked...
It seems there is no point debating conservatives. They will not listen to any arguments differing from theirs. You can't change their mind, whether with the Bible, science or common sense. Bishop John Spong recently announced that he was no longer going to get involved in any debates regarding homosexuality. All the evidence is out there, available to those who want to know. Those who prefer to keep their eyes covered will not want to see it anyway.
Luckily, conservatives are a dying breed. Let's just wait until the process is complete. If they were to dominate the world once again, no doubt there would be a weekly burning at the stake to entertain the faithful, and as commanded by the Lord, they would be raping the liberals' women (only those who have never had sex, of course - the others would be floating down the river drowned as witches).
Pat,
God's laws are given with "love" to us because if followed we will be the happiest people. When understood correctly they will bring happiness to us in this life as well as the next. An arbitrary "obedience" breeds rebellion. We will someday with God's saving grace and healing "do right because it is right". That is true obedience!! Only with God's healing will we have that "change of heart" that David and God's true friends speak so eloquently (yet simply) of. Love is not a free pass or get out of jail card but a way of understanding/thinking that will change peoples hearts and represent our God to a hurting/sin damaged world !! I believe we are on the same page but expressing it slightly differently. Thanks for your thoughts.
Fred
"Is adultery any less of a sin today? I don't think so, and I believe we don't continue with the same penalty because we're under a different government. Ultimately, the wages of sin is death, whether God defers the punishment or implements it quickly does not matter."
In other words, many governments in Western civilization are actually more merciful and compassionate than God, since they wouldn't think of putting someone to death for committing adultery.
The more I discuss things here, the more I think that a fundamentalist reading of the bible actually causes mental illness. Horrors that wouldn't make a shred of sense otherwise sound perfectly reasonable to those infected with fundamentalism.
"I wish Wayne Blakely well, but his relatively recent rebaptism is only the beginning of a long journey. It’s a bit early to be trumpeting him as a truly reformed gay man." David Potter
"Don't forget, Jesus spewed rage at the Pharisees, calling them a 'vipers' yet he ate and drank with tax collectors and prostitutes." Heather Potter
Thank you for your excellent thoughts. I was helping a new Adventist who had been into drugs and prostitution, was baptized and later she went back into her old ways, but then she came back to the church again with a revived interest in attending a Bible and prayer study group during the week and attending the Sabbath services at the church. One Sabbath morning we saw her name projected on a screen as being in a list of SDA Apostates. Apparently this particular SDA church was following the church manual to the letter. 99% on that list probably hadn't been near an Adventist church for years, but to apply that to someone who had returned and had "a hunger and a thirst" for spiritual feeding resulted in her leaving that church and the SDA church for good. When I confronted one of the members about why they had put her name on the list, the member defended it as applying what the church manual states. That church certainly was not "a hospital for the spiritually ill", but "a museum for the saints."
Beth said:
"No where do I see any mention that maybe stoning people to death for these sorts of sins is immoral. Stoning people for breaking the Sabbath? Stoning mouthy children?"
Of course murder is a sin (Ex. 20:13). The Bible is very clear about this, and I see absolutely no evidence from God's Word that he expects us to continue these punishments.
"There are some Islamic countries currently under a theocracy and some people living there stone for adultery. Are they correct? Lord have mercy."
Absolutely not!
Robert Sonter said:
"The second sentence effectively contradicts the first. It does matter, and makes a huge difference, whether the penalty is implemented quickly or not, because if it's implemented quickly there is no opportunity for repentance."
My thoughts were probably running together while I was writing this. Just because someone was punished for their sins by death doesn't mean they lost their salvation. Being forgiven does not mean we forgo the consequences of our sin. Thus we should not judge the salvation of those who were punished.
"Shane, can you demonstrate from the Bible that it was only the ceremonial laws that were abolished when Christ died on the cross?"
Yes, I think I was a little narrow when I only mentioned the ceremonial laws. The Bible makes it quite clear the civil and ceremonial laws are not in effect today. However, I believe there are some principles that were included in the Law of Moses that still hold true today. For example, tithing, unclean foods, and many of the moral laws such as not having sex with family members, etc.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Shane,
What's your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3 vis-a-vis your last comment about the Law of Moses remaining?
Matt Burdette
Constructing Adventist Theology
Matt:
I didn't say anything about the Law of Moses remaining. I said I believe there are some principles that were included in it. In other words, these principles were in existence before the implementation of the old covenant. They were also supported by Jesus and the apostles. I don't think we have a disagreement about 2 Cor. 3.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Shane,
I wasn't at all suggesting that you didn't agree with the text. I just wanted to know what you thought of it. I was not trying to infer anything by my question.
Matt Burdette
Constructing Adventist Theology
Matt,
I'd be happy to share my thoughts, but would you mind pointing out something specific in the chapter? There is a lot packed into those 18 verses, so if you had something specifically in mind, it would be helpful.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Shane,
To be "educating the truth", one has to be interested in it, not just merely convinced one posesses it. Truth is not property, it cannot be possessed.
Would you be able to "prove", without some weird mental gymnastics, that Christians should tithe? Did the early church tithe? Has Jesus been reported to tithe? Has Paul - or any other NT writer for that matter - taught about it? Do you realise that even in the OT tithe was supposed to be paid in kind, not in money (it was possible to pay in money instead, but you were penalised, as it was not what YHWH wanted)? Were all OT Israelites requested to tithe?
I can also ask similar questions about "unclean" foods, but I guess the above paragraph will cause you enough difficulty, so I will be merciful.
Jamie,
Thank you for your thoughtful words. Jesus was said to associate with outcasts of the Judaism of his time. Not just prostitutes, but women in general. Tax collectors. The infirm. Those from the verge of the religious society. Fundamentalist Christianity has its outcasts too. Women are still there, and so are gays, amongst others. I don't think that Jesus, if he lived today, would recognise dr Nelson as one of his own. After all, Jesus did not teach bibliolatry either.
Jag said:
"Would you be able to "prove", without some weird mental gymnastics, that Christians should tithe?"
I do think there is strong evidence from the Bible that Christians should return a portion of their income to God.
Proverbs 3:9, TLB. "Honor the Lord by giving Him the first part of all your income."
Leviticus 27:30, TLB. "A tenth of the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, is the Lord's, and is holy."
Christ endorsed tithing.
Matthew 23:23, NIV. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spicesmint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the lawjustice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former."
I think the premise for tithing is summed up in this verse: Psalm 24:1, TLB. "The earth belongs to God! Everything in all the world is His!"
Our wealth comes from God: Deuteronomy 8:18, NIV. "But remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth."
God considers it robbery if we don't give him our tithes and offerings: Malachi 3:8, NIV. "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob Me. But you ask, 'How do we rob You?' In tithes and offerings."
Paul says we are to give willingly: II Corinthians 9:7, NIV. "Each man should give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
So yes, I believe God asks Christians to give a portion of their income (today it tends to be money) to him. Since everything is his already anyway, I see no reason not to give. Christians have been tithing since the very beginning in response to their understanding of what God has asked them to do. Granted, their are probably some Christians today and perhaps then who do not think God wants them to give a tithe.
You don't believe God has asked us to give a portion of our income to him? Giving is a wonderful thing. God has blessed me with so much, the least I can do is give him back a small portion of what he has blessed me with.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Thanks, Shane. You are right - you believe in tithe. You can only believe in it, regardless what the Bible really says about it. I have no problem with that, however you in no way proved that all Christians (or even Adventists) should pay tithe, and that even in the OT it was required in cash.
As I expected, You are quoting OT teachings. Are we then apply all the legal regulations contained in Leviticus? You quote Lev 27:30: "A tenth of the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, is the Lord's, and is holy". Sorry, I do not produce grain or fruit, I work at an office. Any quotes (even from Leviticus) that people not working in agriculture should pay, and in cash, as the SDA church fraudulently teaches?
Your quote from Mattew is also a miss. Jesus is there portrayed speaking to Pharisees, who were supposed to pay according to the Jewish law. But note one thing - no cash mentioned there! It's hardly an endorsement of tithe for Christians. However, many fundamentalists are spiritual heirs of the Pharisees, so I can see why you are associating the two.
And what makes you suspect that Paul had tithe in mind and not goodwill offerings?
Believe what you will; please just don't expect everyone to agree with you. The Bible speaks in many voices. Read it without preconceived notions, it will set you free.
And one more thing, Shane. I do not believe that God is a "He". I believe that the books of the Bible are culturally conditioned and therefore God is not a male. It was only that at the time almost all lords, kings, emperors, priests and the like were male, so it would have been inconceivable not to imagine God as a male. However, when feminists speak, I listen, the way I listen to all marginalised minorities. Refering to God with male pronouns in the 21st century in my opinion distorts the truth. I call it interpreting the Bible through common sense. However, I do not intend to convert everyone to this idea and force them to believe what I believe.
Thank you David,
You raise questions that are not answered by many faith practices, not just Christianity. I am a gay Christian, and finally made my peace with God when pushed to the limits of suicide. I prayed and read, and waited, and took girlfriends, but could not change. I've met and friended many who are later in life and been pushed down the road of shock treatment, medications, ex-Gay programs even exorcisms. None of whom were "cured" and eventually found themselves in turmoil in the marriages that they were also coerced into.
The church does need to re-think. They stand in the way of committed relationships for gay people because they say that it will destroy the institution of marriage (which is an argument I cannot understand, considering only straight couples can marry and statistics show that more than 50% end in divorce). Commitment at least in a civil way, is an issue of equality and discrimination, not even a religious issue. I wish people would see that. Strengthen and endorse commitment not take that right away.
Secondly, the Bible is unsearchable in the sense that we really have to let it reveal it's truth. How scholars understood it hundreds of years ago, should not be how we understand it today. Why do we choose the old scholars over the new? Current scholars from Harvard suggest that the Hebrew word for "abomination" in Leviticus, actually means 'not according to our custom', which in the context of Leviticus, the story of God's nation trying to grow, makes total sense. It doesn't take a scientist to work out that no children come naturally from gay relationships, so in the purpose of growing God's people, God set many guidelines to ensure that the nation would grow. To take this scripture on it's own out of the hundreds of lines about customs, only Orthodox Jews try to keep today, why do Christians choose this one to support their fear and hatred of homosexuality.
Homosexuals are not taking over the world, or trying to influence people to be gay, we are just being more visible than in the past. We have always been in your plays and theater groups, in your militaries, in your hospitals (looking after you), in your ministries, and sadly in your homes playing the role of husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We cannot convince anyone to be gay, as much as straight people can convince us to be straight. It's a sexual orientation, long time feared by Christians, because it has not been understood.
Instead of trying to change gay people, listen to their stories, come to understand the struggle, the identity crisis in a Church or community that is intolerant and prejudice, in families that don't want anything to do with us, or will not accept our long term partnerships the way they accept the relationships of your siblings. Then ask yourself again, if being gay is a choice. If it were, right back at the beginning, when I was being punched by my peers in school, or kicked of the soccer team, I would have said "no", before I grew up to accept myself, only to learn I had to keep it a secret in order to keep my job (only to have the secret spread in rumor across the SDA community I lived in), and then to not have my contract renewed at that school, where I was making a difference.
Being gay is not a choice, and God loves us as we are, he has worked just as powerfully through me in my various imperfections, and I am gay, and always have been. Even while I was yet gay, be worked through me, even though I did not accept myself. God can show his love to all people, and I accept his Son as my Lord and Savior. I believe he has the power to change me, but I don't believe he wants to, or needs to. This is not an obstacle in my faith, and it can actually bring him Glory as others see His good deeds and give him adoration.
Shane,
I have read your comments elsewhere on homosexuality. Of course, any comments you make are presumed to be Truth, as you are an educator who knows and proclaims Truth. Among the many arguments you have employed to support your view of intolerance of homosexuality, you indicated that homosexual relationships are more prone to violence. I don't recall seeing the evidence presented for this, but I found it interesting, as it prompts two questions I would love to see answered (with evidence, if possible):
1) Are women more prone to violence in a lesbian or heterosexual relationship?
2) After a heterosexual relationship resulting in children ends, are the children of a woman safer when she engages a new relationship with another man (one who is not the biological father of her children) or with another woman?
Three of my four children are daughters, and I've wondered from time to time what my advice should be if I ever was told by one of them that they no longer trusted men and wanted to explore a relationship with a woman. Surely her safety and that of her children is a God-given responsibility.
Phil, thank you for sharing your story. May the grace of God be with you.
Jag said:
"...however you in no way proved that all Christians (or even Adventists) should pay tithe, and that even in the OT it was required in cash."
So God has not asked us to him a tithe? Part of your reasoning is because the Bible doesn't mention giving God cash? Will you tell me why you think you God did not ask us to give him a tithe of our income? Is this something you can demonstrate from the Bible?
"As I expected, You are quoting OT teachings. Are we then apply all the legal regulations contained in Leviticus?"
Are you implying that the OT teachings don't apply to us today? The Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, yes; however, tithe preceded the Law of Moses. In Genesis 14, after Abram had rescued Lot, Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of "God Most High," met Abram an pronounced a blessing on him. After which, Abram "gave him a tenth of everything" (verse 20).
Another example is after Jacob has his dream at Bethal he makes a vow to the Lord: "...of all that you give me I will give you a tenth" (Genesis 28:22).
Tithing was definitely being practiced by God's people prior to Moses Law, and they continued doing so.
You did not address Proverbs 3:9 directly: "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase" (KJV). "Substance" merely means wealth, and "first fruits" doesn't just apply to your agricultural gains. It also means "first", "best", or "choice part."
In Malachi 3, God calls for his people to return to him, and the question is asked, "How are we to return?" Then God says, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me." God's people were robbing Him by refusing to give him their tithes and offerings (verse 8).
Now, according to you, as soon as we turn the pages to the book of Matthew everything changes. God no longer considers it robbery to with hold our tithes and offerings? Can you demonstrate that from the Bible please?
You dismiss Jesus' affirmation of tithe paying as not applicable because 1) it was Jewish law and 2) he wasn't talking about cash. Wouldn't you agree agricultural gains were the primary source of wealth for God's people at that time? So it only seems reasonable that they would pay a tithe in the things they gain. Today, our primary source of gain is monetary. I think to reason that we must not pay tithe because it doesn't explicitly cash is both naive and bordering legalism. Since God did not say to ONLY tithe on non-monetary gains, I think its safe to understand tithe as an injunction that applies to our source of income, whatever that may be.
And what makes you suspect that Paul had tithe in mind and not goodwill offerings?
I think from the context of the chapter he's speaking of freewill offerings, but the attitude that he speaks of is applicable to tithe giving.
So in the end the only reason you've given me to demonstrate that God does not require tithe is because 1) its not explicitly mentioned in the NT and 2) there is not explicit mention of giving your monetary increase.
You would have to show me where in the Bible God changed his mind about withholding tithe and offering being robbery.
Like you said, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but you have not demonstrated that what you believe is founded on the Bible; however, I'm open to new understandings.
If you can show me from the Bible where God said that he no longer desires our tithe and that He doesn't consider it robbery to withhold it, then I think you'll have a much stronger argument than mine.
As for me, I have not seen one verse that abolishes tithe.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Reading these discussions on Spectrum is always an emotional roller coaster ride for me. As I read the thoughtful, loving perspectives of many, I am filled with hope and encouragement. Then I read the hate filled rigid intolerant beliefs of others, and am plunged into despair that there is no room in our church family for my son.
For those who believe that this is an isolated issue for only certain countries (Jolly) I say that you are sadly mistaken if you think there are no gays in your community. Just because a society has not yet made it safe for someone to come out of the closet does not mean that you do not have gay brothers, sisters, friends, church members. It is barely safe here in America, and greatly depends on the community in which you find yourself. It certainly is not safe in the SDA church at large.
As I prayed over the years for God to please spare my son the rough road of homosexuality, I saw little evidence that God was going to answer this prayer. When my son decided to come out at 15, I asked God what his purpose was for us. My answer was that we could make a small difference in the community that we live in. That God wanted us to break down some barriers, and maybe build some tolerance for the social pariahs of our time, just as Jesus did when he walked here on earth. It isn't always easy - but my son is brave, and I have no other choice.
As I read the comments here, I despair of changing minds. It is very clear to me, as it is to many of you, that there is no changing the minds of those who spout intolerance. But as I relayed this despair to my husband, he reassured me that though those who write on this page from a rigid conviction are not open to discussion or new revelations, that there are others who read these comments who are perhaps more open to new insights. I remain hopeful.
Professor Kent said:
"Of course, any comments you make are presumed to be Truth, as you are an educator who knows and proclaims Truth."
Side note: the title of the website, Educate Truth, is in reference to educating the SDA membership about the truth of what is going on at LSU and also as a call for LSU to uphold what the church's position.
The truth of what the church's position is not rocket science. Anyone who has decent reading comprehension skills can discern this.
You're obviously welcome to twist the name into whatever meaning you wish. I've never claimed what you presume above though.
"Among the many arguments you have employed to support your view of intolerance of homosexuality, you indicated that homosexual relationships are more prone to violence."
I thought I made that comment in reference to male sodomy. Off the top of my head I don't recall reading any studies that indicated lesbian relationships were violent. I'm about to leave, so I'll post the studies on male homosexual relationships being prone to more violence.
In answer to your second question. I'd say they are physically just as safe in either situation, but assuming the lesbian partner or male partner are both decent nice people who are quite loving. I'd have to say it's more beneficial for the kids to have a mother and a father as opposed to two fathers or two mothers. Obviously, there are male/female marriages that are awful situations for the kids. However, the solution is not placing them in a homosexual home.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
>>> You would have to show me where in the Bible God changed his mind about withholding tithe and offering being robbery
Curiously, once I began to study the matter many years ago, I discovered the opposite.
I could not find any texts that required God's people to give an organisation 1/10 of their income
All I could find were
(a) Abraham and Melchizadec
(b) Israelites used a tithe of their own stuff for their own religious ceremonies
(c) Israelites gave the Levites stuff, because the Levites had given up their portion of the land
(d) Funding Hezekiah's rebuild
But, in the NT, where the Levites no longer exist, no mention at all of funding some organization this way.
The truth is that the early SDA took two Israelite practises, decided something similar was worth doing, and agreed amongst themselves to do it, and then OVER THE YEARS have somehow managed to persuade themselves that the activity was more than just a good idea, but was required. The two practises are
(a) tithe, and
(b) unclean foods
It is NOT ROBBERY to withhold tithe from the current SDA organisational structure and the SDA church leadership knows it. That is why tithe paying is NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR MEMBERSHIP.
/Bevin
Shane, there is ample evidence that the vast majority of domestic violence is at the hand of men and directed toward women. There is also ample evidence that children are at substantially greater risk in a home with a nonbiological male parent compared to a biological male parent. Of course, those who understand natural selection, and sexual selection theory in particular, would recognize why this is so (we're not so different from animals as we might like to believe). So, you can make the case that males in a homosexual relationship are at greater risk of physical harm than those in a heterosexual relationship, but when you use "safety" as an argument for prioritizing (or defending the morality of) heterosexual relationships, you then make the case for women (and, following divorce, their children) actually benefiting from a lesbian relationship.
By the way, Shane, why is it you continue to block my posts at Educate Truth? You allow dissenting views there from others; why not from me?
Professor Kent:
"The study also confirms previous reports that intimate partner violence is more prevalent among gay male couples than heterosexual couples. However, it contradicts reports that intimate partner violence is more prevalent among lesbian couples than heterosexual couples. Overall study findings suggest that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against same-sex or opposite-sex partners."
1. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1999/00000014/0000000...
Since men tend to be more violent, it only makes sense that if there are two men in the relationship it could be potentially more violent. I fail to see the point you're trying to make here. The morality of sodomy doesn't rise or fall on this. It's merely an indicator. Just because we've messed up God's intended plan for relationships doesn't entitle us to something else.
In regard, to your second post the answer is because the issue that is being discussed is an internal church affair.
Bevin said:
"It is NOT ROBBERY to withhold tithe from the current SDA organisational structure and the SDA church leadership knows it."
Agreed, but if we withhold our money from what God has asked us to do with it, then we are robbing him.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Why do people act surprised when Nelson, an Adventist theologian, presents the traditional Adventist perspective, which is unlikely to change. Gay SDAs should just get out and find a different community that accepts them for who they are.
"Why do people act surprised when Nelson, an Adventist theologian, presents the traditional Adventist perspective, which is unlikely to change." Posted by: jesse Byron King
Jesse Byron King:
I guess you could have said the same thing about women's ordination, women wearing slacks, allowing women to wear ear-rings. But the church has changed, is in the process of changing and it will continue to change. Change is inevitable.
By the way, your idea for the gays to just get out denies the concept of the church being a hospital for the spiritually ill.
Shane,
So now you are trying to turn the table... Thing is, you claim that we should pay tithe (which I do not find anywhere in the NT - the Christian Bible), and in cash (which I do not find anywhere in the Bible at all, even though money was not unknown to the ancient Israelites). Even Jesus in the gospel story only mentions tithe paid in kind. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove your claim? I just say that your claims are biblically unsupportable. However, I have no problem with you paying tithe, as long as you don't expect everyone to be like you.
My reasoning is that in the OT YHWH is specifically depicted as rejecting cash tithe, and only agricultural produce was to be provided. This is simply what the Bible says, and there is no amendment saying that YHWH changes his mind and from a certain date only requires cash. I do grow dill and coriander on my balcony (2 pots) - should I be bringing some to church as tithe? Remember, there were artisans and tradespeople in the OT too. As they did not produce food, they were not required to tithe - though they were required to bring offerings.
Yes, I am saying that Leviticus laws do not apply to Christians. I wear my garments made from 2 different kinds of cloth without any guilt. How about you?
As for the Abraham/Melchizedech tithe - was it paid on income? Last time I read the Bible, it was about the spoils of war. It was also a one-time event, not a regular exercise. It appears to have nothing to do with the Leviticus tithe.
Tithe of some kind may well have been practised by many people of different religions. However, so was polygamy. The fact that Genesis depicts Jacob tithing is hardly a requirement for others. It's just a particular person's story.
Your text from Proverbs clearly refers to agricultural produce only.
Tithes in ancient Israel were in fact a kind of a temple tax. As Christians do not have a temple to upkeep, on what basis should they pay tithe?
Shane, unlike you, I do not claim to know what God said. But I know what the Bible says, and it is that tithe is paid from agricultural produce ONLY. If your church wants to request its members to tithe, they have a right to do so. But to claim that this is what God says is preposterous. I will say it again - Jesus was never depicted as paying tithe. Nor were his disciples. Nor were the first Christians. I have no doubt that Jerusalem Christians continued to tithe, but to the temple, and not to their own sect. And when the temple was no more, tithe had to cease too.
Thank you for admiting (finally) that Paul did not have tithe in mind for his converts either. His attitude may be applicable to paying taxes too, but it still does not mean that that is what he was discussing.
The quote about withholding tithe and offering being robbery is from a Jewish prophet talking long before the Christian era.
Jag said:
"Shane, unlike you, I do not claim to know what God said. But I know what the Bible says, and it is that tithe is paid from agricultural produce ONLY."
I find your statement a bit contradictory, but I think that is because I believe the Bible is the Word of God. You don't claim to know what God said, but you know what the Bible says. No need to belabor this point though. I just found it a tad confusing.
My claim is that God has called on us to give a tenth of increase, whatever that may be, back to him to use for the spread of the gospel.
Your contentions are:
1. The Bible does not say anywhere that tithe is to be paid in cash.
2. All the instances of people paying tithe are casual and can hardly be considered a requirement.
3. The direct admonition to pay tithe in Leviticus does not apply to Christians today. I assume that is because you believe every single law that was included in the Levitical Law was abolished at the cross or something like that.
4. The NT gives no direct admonition to give a tithes.
I'll try to address each of these in more detail.
1. Like you said, Abram paid a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek. Spoils would have been an addition to his wealth. He was returning a tenth of the increase in his wealth. Now it doesn't say whether this was in agriculture goods, silver, gold, precious stones, clothes, armor, food, etc. It merely says he gave a tenth of his increase from the spoils to Melchizedek.
Jacob vows to give a tenth of all that God gives him back to God. Once again we're not told what he would be giving back to God: gold, silver, animals, produce, etc.
Now, in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy God tells the Israelites to tithe on seed, herds, corn, wine, oil (Lev. 27:30, 32; Num. 18:26; Deu. 12:17; 14:22, 23, 28). These were all commodities for the Israelites. True, there is no mention of God asking that the Israelites give money.
I think there is good reason for this. Their culture revolved around agriculture as did the Egyptians. The Egyptians were on the barter system predominately.
I think you dismissed Proverbs too quickly. It says honor God with your wealth and first fruits.
God never told the Israelites that they were to only give a tithe on their agricultural produce. The principle was to give a tithe on your increase of goods. For the Israelites that was their seed, herds, corn, wine, and oil. Today, we're no longer on a barter system and we exchange wealth through a monetary system. So our primary source of wealth would be the gains we incur through money. What difference does it make what system you use to represent your wealth? They were paying tithe on the increase of their goods. Our "goods" would be currency.
The absence of any command from God to pay tithe specifically in currency is hardly an argument for not paying tithe today in light of the fact that God was not necessarily concerned about what they tithed on, but with what percentage of their increased wealth should be given back to him.
Let's say that Jesus made an explicit command in the NT that all his followers were to give a tenth of their gold or silver to the spreading of the gospel. We don't deal in gold or silver, so by your line of reasoning you wouldn't feel compelled to heed Jesus' command because he didn't specify what you used today. I think you might be too focused on the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.
I'll address the other three tomorrow. I need to get some sleep.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Jesse, Your statement about "just get out" makes me wonder if you have read the Bible. Yes. Jesus was very clear about not judging. Jesus was very clear that He would sift the tares from the wheat Himself. You seem presumptuous to me.
Actually, though. Most gay Adventists have already done what you recommend - get out. Do you want to share in responsibility for that?
However, the Adventist church often spiritually injures its gay children. I, for one, will not remain silent about that. Jesus call was to minister to "the least of these". Are gays worse than "the least of these"?
Consider the great commandment. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. And they neighbor as thyself. Does "just get out" sound like an obedient response to that commandment?
In the story of the prodigal son, who would you rather be? The accusatory, jealous brother. Or the unconditionally loving father?
Be challenge you to be *truly* Biblical,Jesse! I challenge you to think carefully about what you say.
Helen
Shane, and this has what to do with a letter to Dwight Nelson?
Kenneth James
Kenneth:
Nothing! You should be asking Jag that question since he's the one who brought it up. I was discussing the Levitical Law (which I think has a lot to do with the topic Pastor Nelson preached on) with another person and I casually mentioned that tithe was still something to be practiced by Christians.
Jag felt he needed to address this, and I have been obliging him. This is completely off topic.
Jag: We can continue this by email if you wish. You can email me at shane at educatetruth dot com.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Dear David,
I want to thank you and others on here for your willingness to be led by the Spirit.
It is so refreshing to see the doors of our beloved church pushed open, if only so little.
Yes it is hard to see how the hardened ones who say they want to shake the gates of the church, could ever go to heaven.
But God knows the inside and we only see the outer.
The scary thing is God Loves us all, the hater, murder, the wife beater, the divorced even the the very person who put his only son to death, cloaked in humanity.
The letter is a story in its self of ones who are compassionate and have had enough hardship in their lives, to know life is not only lived by bread alone.
Yes Jamie I was born this way from the beginning.
I do not know, like others on this thread of how the Deity work.
The Bible is a guide in life to led us to the light.
Let this be our only guide and not men's hardened hearts.
Thanks David Potter and all the David Potters in this world.
Noel
www.sdakinshipaustralia.org
I found this letter very interesting, and it has certainly given me something to think about! So thank you to David Potter for being bold enough to write it! And i really appreciate those of you who have spoken out about your experience of being homosexual within the church. It has given me insight into this subject that i never had before, and i thank you all.
...The comment i have to make is not particularly important compared to what everyone else here is discussing, but i would just like to know how left-handedness came to be lumped in with other undesirable affects of sin, such as ageing, sickness, inherited illnesses and extreme personality traits!!?
The inference here is that right-handedness is the ideal and God-ordained way to function, since God obviously did not intend for us to suffer sickness or grow old, or experience the other conditions which were mentioned in the same sentence.
I'm VERY interested in the reasoning behind this, since i am left-handed myself and have never suffered any ill effects from being so. I have gone through my life so far without knowing that anyone considered it wrong or bad or 'sinful' in any way to be left-handed.
If anyone has any insight, i'd like to understand where David Potter might have been coming from here?
Thanks!
Shane, I asked why you block me from posting at Educate Truth. Your reply was this: "In regard, to your second post the answer is because the issue that is being discussed is an internal church affair."
I find your reply quite interesting for two reasons.
First, I'm a baptized Seventh-day Adventist young-earth creationsist sympathizer (like it or not), and I should think my opinions count as much as those of others, particularly when I can cite real science to show how so many of your pals spout biological nonsense. Your website, content-wise, is a biological desert--and I've studied and published enough about xerophytic ecosystems to recognize one when I encounter it. I'm reminded of an old saying, credited to the 5th century BC Greek dramatist and playwright, Aeschylus: "In war, truth is the first casualty" (hey, now there is a good phrase to use for your continued onslaught of LSU leadership!).
Second, it never occurred to me that the Press Enterprise and other secular outlets were a normal form of communication about an "internal church affair." How many times have you eagerly shared your views with the secular media, even posting comments at their sites after they quoted you in their stories, and then gloating at your website about the sensational coverage? I'm really quite amazed--and quite amused as well--by your reasoning here. Of course, I can understand why any and all media would be used in an effort to publicly shame individuals, an institution, and a denomination into capitulating to your point of view. Put simply, it works. It's the same motivation, no doubt, that drives some to "educate" us about the "internal affair(s)" of Tiger Woods.
Helen and Mike, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not making those comments as an Adventist. I am a gay ex-Adventist who decided that a Church that couldn't accept me as I am was not worth my time.
The Adventist church is not a healthy place for homosexuals, so I encourage them to "Get out" and find another community, just as I did. Life is too short to remain in a community that considers your genuine love immoral and spiritually ill.
Professor Kent,
Your revelation is indeed a surprise. I have a few questions for you, but this thread isn't exactly the place to be discussing this. You should have my email address(shane at educatetruth dot com). I've emailed you at least three or four times in the past with no response.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
Jesse, like you, I got out too. But keep in mind some of us don't have the capacity to get out, or get out early at any rate. For me, I was taught about right and wrong before I could think, and because of this didn't have the mental capacity to question arbitrary 'sins' such as theatre attendance, jewellery wearing or being gay. As a teen, when the feelings started to surface in an undeniable sexual way, I still thought of this as a sin that had to be overcome. And, believing what I heard from the pulpit, I knew God could, and would eventually help me overcome that sin. Knowing that, then I went about my life, and got married while still thinking God would change me. By the time I had children, I knew I was in trouble...God wasn't changing me...but now I had kids, so I was stuck.
It's only after I was able to break the shackles of religiously-impaired thought processes that I was able to get out like you have done. And there are many more like me. I think the reason we still would like to see the church change is because we don't want to see any more like us being made to feel unworthy all the time as they figure things out. I agree, the church as it is now is no place for gays. I have other reasons for leaving the church too, but even if I didn't, the fact that I am so obviously unwanted there (as I am) is enough to keep me away.
Allow me to share my own thoughts, not as a stand-in for Pastor Dwight, in response to David Potter's letter.
Potter wrote: "Are you absolutely sure that all homosexuality (i.e. the acts) is sin?... whether or not you are persuaded by the theology of Jones and Guy, you will be aware that a credible challenge to the traditional church position exists, one the church cannot just brush aside."
I've only read the essay by John R. Jones. If I'm not mistaken, he enjoins faithfulness to Scriptures at the same time that he invites us to contemplate where the Spirit may be leading us further still? What might that be?
Potter: "You must be aware that Scripture is silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. You would know that the KJV does not use the word homosexual. No English language Bible used the word before the middle of the 20th century. The handful of Bible references to same-sex activity appear to refer to abusive or violent acts motivated by lust (Rom 1:27). They say nothing about relationship or gay love."
It is true the western homosexual-heterosexual binary is a modern invention. What defines homosexual orientation? Or, bisexual identity? transgender?
This will be all for now. I'll let David Potter and others to answer and comment further so we can advance the conversation.
“She couldn’t help thinking of the hundreds of thousands of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and intersexed (GLBTI) Adventists you would deny the joy and intimacy of a committed relationship.” - written by David Potter
As a heterosexual, I’ve been voicing this for the better part of 20 years. The idea was not always met with great enthusiasm by my SDA brothers and sisters. To say the least.
David, this is a good work. Thank you.
Ariel or anybody,
In the interest of advancing this conversation, will you please describe or define for us what a "committed" bisexual relationship may be like?
Jamie, Jesse . . . there is a solace. Of sorts.
Lamentations.
In my quest of reading the Bible through, again, for the first time, this time, with the aid of an awesome commentary, I read the book of Lamentations this morning. Lamentations is an eloquent expression of grief that helped survivors come to terms with the historical calamity they had experienced. Appeals for repentance, however, are frequently interspersed with appeals for God's mercy and compassion on the penitent survivors. A cautious note of hope is sounded in the center of the book, where the poet gives expression to the belief that, although God's wrath is limited, divine mercy and compassion are limitless. This message has continued to reverberate through subsequent ages and calamities to the present day. A queer reading of Lamentations is palpably poignant.
The commentary is "The Queer Bible Commentary," edited by Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache. SCM Press. 2006. http://www.scm-canterburypress.co.uk/ ISBN: 9780334040217
[I obtained my copy on Amazon.com in the US]
Hopefully I don't infringe on the copy right restrictions of the book too badly, but I feel it necessary to share these two paragraphs. From the chapter commenting on Lamentations, authored by Deryn Guest.
"Herein lies the reason why this text [The Book of Lamentations] may be such a vital resource for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered Jews and Christians [and by implication, SDAs]. These laments bewail the way a people have been betrayed by their religious leaders, abandoned by their deity to a miserable existence where they are subject to the gloating derision of onlookers, bereft of the one structure that gave them not only pride and stability but a means of access to God -- the temple. Oppression of LGBT/Q-identified Jews or Christians has often been legitimated by reference to the very scriptures to which one gives allegiance, and by reference to one's own deity who is invoked as prosecutor. The temple -- be it church or synagogue -- may as well be deemed lost insofar as certain branches of those religions have closed their doors to (openly practicing) lesbian, gay, bisexual and trasgendered-identified members. The legacy of this is a sense of radical dissonance. The dissonance is so strong that it threatens to force individuals down two equally distressing paths; either stay with one's religious faith, live a life of secrecy or celibacy and bear the consequences, or abandon one's faith, losing the religious community that goes with it.
"Certainly, abandoning, one's faith could be seen as a liberative option. Turning one's back on an oppressive god, scriptures and a condemnatory community could be applauded as an affirming, positive action. However, such a drastic action can also leave its scars, and insofar as such a decision may lead a person to abandon the idea of faith and religious life in toto it impoverishes individuals further, forcing them to choose from a very young age, 'between the integration of their self and sexuality and the god presented to them by church, family, culture. Put quite simply, either God goes or the person goes. This huge conflict creates a spiritual lacuna' (Lynch, Bernard, 1996,'Regligous and spiritual conflicts', in Dominic Davies and Charles Neal (eds), Pink Therapy: A Guide for Counsellors and Therapists Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients, Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open Univeristy Press, pp. 199-208.), Guest, Deryn, "Lamentations" in The Queer Bible Commentary, pages 401 and 402.
This quest that I, and a wonderful friend in Belgrade, Serbia are sharing together, the reading of the Bible again, (which we both have done several times), but this time with a new look and the help of this commentary, has revealed one epiphany after another for each of us.
And today, for me, it is understanding the Book of Lamentations in a queer light.
It is the poetic story of apparent "natural" consequences of doing the "unnatural" when not living to the rules of a theocracy.
That choir, singing by the waters of Babylon, singing The Lament, at least they did not sing of a submissive Woman/Zion who concedes defeat and runs back to her 'husband.' On the contrary, her resilient challenges to God, her strident insistence that god should answer to the brutal treatment of her and her people, means that the deity is not let off the hook. Women/Zion register the complaint. And wait. SDA GLBTs register the complaint. And wait. Like the psalmist's 'stubborn resolve' (Psalm 88), he addresses an 'empty sky and indifferent throne.' Israel knows that this prayer is the meeting ground where life occurs and will wait there for a response from Yahweh, if need be, until hell freezes over.
Jesse, Jamie . . . you/we, I have been told to get out! Just get out! Take your misery with you/me. Don't soil us this chosen life-style of debauchery. Just haul yourself off to exile. Maybe, with luck, you'll find a flower on the bank of a river in Babylon.
Lamentations tells us what happened. But leaves us, and ancient Israel hanging.
Unlike some great oratories that end with a triumphal climax, this choir singing Lamentations ends this song with faded uncertainty . . . "Restore us to yourself, O LORD, that we may be restored; renew our days as of old --- unless you have utterly rejected us, and are angry with us beyond measure." Lamentations 5:21-22.
Therapist literature indicates how survivors need to choose whether or not, or on what renewed terms, they will remain in relationship with the people/organizations who committed the assault, or were witnesses to it and did little to help .
The Book of Lamentations does not take us into that healing period. It leaves us in the period of dislocation and dissonance, standing beneath the received judgment and registering protest.
If there can be healing.
Let healing begin.
Kenneth James
“Ariel or anybody,
In the interest of advancing this conversation, will you please describe or define for us what a "committed" bisexual relationship may be like?” - written by Joselito
There is a difference between a bisexual in relationship and a bisexual relationship. Although a bisexual has a sexual polarity with both genders, he or she may choose to be in sexual relationship with only one gender.
So, a bisexual is in a committed relationship just like a heterosexual is in a committed relationship.
Is that helpful?
Ariel, probably only helpful enough for some of these people to say, "SEE? So a homosexual can CHOOSE to be in a committed heterosexual relationship just like a bisexual can".
And they are right. We could. It wouldn't be healthy for us, and it would be HORRIBLY unfair to our spouses...but we could choose to commit to someone of the opposite sex, even though we have to fake it throughout the marriage.
What heterosexual person would choose to marry a homosexual to "cure" or prove that homosexualty can be "cured" by a heterosexual marriage? It's been tried before, and we have too many sad stories of how those worked out.
Lacking true honesty is a terrible way to begin a marriage.
"Ariel, probably only helpful enough for some of these people to say, "SEE? So a homosexual can CHOOSE to be in a committed heterosexual relationship just like a bisexual can". - written by Jamie
That's an interesting response, Jamie. I was speaking to bisexuality - not homosexuality. And certainly not suggesting that homosexuals can choose to change their orientation.
Believe me it has been done!!
Colin Cook has done it and oh what a trail of misery for both parties.
But the church demands this of our Pastors to be married.
So we can get married! To prove we are hetero. Not for love but for cover. How sad for all concerned.
I as a Gay person do not understand Bisexual people, but I can love them as a person and accept.
Ariel, I know what you were actually getting at. I just suspect that those whose questions you were answering would twist your answer to mean what I said. I know what you meant, though.
Elaine, you are absolutely right, lacking true honesty is a horrible way to begin a marriage. That's how I began mine. I didn't do it for cover, though. I didn't think marriage would cure me, but I thought GOD would and that everything would be okay. To this day my poor ex-wife is still suffering because of that.
"I didn't think marriage would cure me, but I thought GOD would and that everything would be okay. To this day my poor ex-wife is still suffering because of that." - written by Jamie
Let's be clear about accountability. You trusted people in positions of power and influence, and they told you God could "make everything okay." So they are accountable, but their accountability is partially mitigated because their poor action most likely stemmed from ignorance, not ill intent.
You are accountable because you chose to pursue the course of action. But your accountability is partially mitigated (to say the least) because of the conditions surrounding your choice.
Your ex-wife is accountable for her own life. If she is still suffering "because of that," it's her choice to suffer. You are not accountable for her happiness or lack of.
Our most beautiful forward movement is made more likely when we fully accept everything that has happened, completely forgive everyone involved (including ourselves), do our best to mitigate any harm we have caused, and then move on with ease. For many, more easily said than done!
Blessings.
Ariel, I do realize looking back that I made the best decisions I was capable of at the time. Moving on with ease gets difficult, though, when the mother of your children feels it her Christian duty to remind you every so often of how selfish you are and how much you are going against God's will. I am trying to learn to let that kind of talk slide off my back or insist that it stop before it gets started, though. Still, it takes awhile to learn!
I appreciate the insights of your posts, by the way.
Jamie, I'm moved by your experience but don't have the words to express adequately my sorrow. Instead, I'll just offer my prayers--for you, your ex-wife, your children...and your friends and enemies who no doubt give you very mixed messages.
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee(Titus 2:11-15)." God Loves the murder, but God hates Murder! God Loves the Liar, but God hates Lying! God Loves The Homosexual, but God hates Homosexual behavior! " God set the example in the Garden of Eden for Marraige and relationships. As we move closer to the end of time Sin's hold becomes stronger and the power to resist decreases. Sins can be inherited and cultivated. As we move closer to the coming of Christ men will become almost compelled to do evil because sin has manipulated our genes! Conversion is a miracle from God and he will give the homosexual power to overcome! "I can do all things through Christ which gives me strenth!" Though one may be prone to homosexual behavior it is a sin to act upon it! It is a worldy not heaven lust that can be overcome! Jesus will help you through! Read Hebrews 11 the faith chapter!
David,
While I can't say that I agree with your conclusions, I certainly admire your courage to speak up for what you believe and admire your ability to state it eloquently.
More than anything, I wish the church would leave the job of conviction up to the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, He is not in need of assistance.
More than anything, I wish we would use worship time for WORSHIP. And worship is one thing: putting our focus on God and who He is. It's not about our views on any moral or cultural issue. It's about God. Period. Or it's not worship.
And more than anything, I wish Christians (straight, gay, and otherwise) would learn to cry out for their "rights" the way Jesus did when He was falsely arrested, accused, tried, convicted, and executed.
Jesus proved that the only "right" I should champion for myself is "my right to serve others." In His time, He will take care of every other one.
Kelley
God created one Adam and one Eve, not two Adam's and two Eve's.
End of discussion.
Shut this web-site off.
Thank You.
Kelley, it sounds like you are on the right track. I admire people who can disagree, but leave the judgement up to God.
However, if people didn't cry out for their rights, sometimes, then women would still be considered the property of men, and balcks would still have to give up their seats to whites on the bus. I think there is a place for crying out for rights, and it seems to me that Jesus cried out for the rights of the marginalized in a very effective way.
Continuing,
David Potter wrote:
'Is it fair to define heterosexuality by the behaviour of rapists? Why, then, would you define homosexuality in terms of “homosexual offenders” (1 Cor 6:9)?... Of course, the word homosexual is not in the original... A bit more clarity is needed on exactly what Paul meant by “homosexual offenders.” The tautology is removed if you understand him to be referring to pederasty or male prostitution or sodomy as practised by the men of Sodom, or to the bisexual behaviour that was common in the Greco-Roman world (and condemned by Paul in Rom 1)...
'In the 21st century, we have a better understanding of sexuality. A growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is due to nature, not nurture or choice.'
I agreed that homosexuality is a western concept unknown to the ancients. However, I'm just wondering about the difference between the bisexual behaviour that Paul condemned and our modern understanding of the same. What do you think?
Ariel and others,
A relationship between self-identified bisexual men or bisexual women to heterosexuals would be of the mixed-orientation instead of same-orientation kind, right?
If you're interested, you may check out what I found thru PubMed, as far back as 1985 and follow the link to the latest studies up to 1990.
J Homosex. 1985 Spring;11(1-2):51-62.
Psycho-social issues related to counseling bisexuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&Te...
J Sex Marital Ther. 1990 Winter;16(4):230-50.
Marital satisfaction during recovery from self-identified sexual addiction among bisexual men and their wives.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&Te...
I empathize with Jamie because I too was married and yes, have had children. Back in the 70's, I was very much afraid of being classified as a same sex orientated person. I was afraid of the church rejecting me, losing my job as I worked for the church, afraid of my family's reaction as they were very ultra conservative. I thought that by getting married it would solve the problems and that everything will be great. I'm sorry to disappoint you, it wasn't the answer, it caused unhappiness and distress. Rather then live the lie, in the end, I had to come out. Further on down the track, we separated but now, I'm a widower.
I don't believe God puts labels on folks. Instead, I am a child of God and that is all that matters.
"Conversion is a miracle from God and he will give the homosexual power to overcome! "I can do all things through Christ which gives me strength!" Though one may be prone to homosexual behavior it is a sin to act upon it! It is a worldly not heaven(ly) lust that can be overcome! Jesus will help you through! Read Hebrews 11 the faith chapter!"
No truer words have been spoken in this discussion. Thanks for that. All the humanistic casuistry will never change God's design for human beings nor His condemnation of overt sin which destroys the soul. I'm still a child of God when I sin but under His guidance and the power of the Holy Spirit it is my object to resist that sin and be made whole. Otherwise I have no place with Him in His kingdom -- it is as simple as that.
One can only wonder why Spectrumites are so taken up with sinful homosexual practice and seek to justify aberrant behavior.
""Conversion is a miracle from God and he will give the homosexual power to overcome!"
Simple platitudes are meaningless unless specific examples can be given.
Unless you can show that there have been at least 10 homosexuals from their earliest memory who have been "cured" and become heterosexual, any such statement is simplistic and shows ignorance about the condition. Are you a psychologist, or physician specializing in the treatment of homosexuals? Then such simple-minded statements are extremely childish.
In the interest of sobriety and rationality, there seems to be a need to pause in this jungle and make some distinctions clear. Clearly, it is one thing to acknowledge that the issue of homosexuality is a relevant topic for serious theological and moral reflection in whatever society one happens to live. It certainly is.
Clearly, too, it is another thing for those of us who believe in Jesus Christ as the clearest revelation of God in and to humanity to be unambiguous and emphatic in our regard and respect for persons with the homosexual disposition, as I'm sure Jesus would do. We should. If we follow his teaching and example we would hardly have to think twice before accepting them as children of God to be loved as we love ourselves and to be included, like the rest of us, in the family of God's broken children on earth.
However, it is quite another thing to suggest or imply, let alone assert with categorical certitude, that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament endorsed homosexuality and homosexual behaviors as either inconsequential or morally normative in any way. Only, it seems to me at this point, as one indulges in theological speculations based on flimsy evidence, biblical eisegis, and/or personal feelings, can one come to the kind of emphatic conclusion seen in much of this conversation.
Jesus' mission was not to condemn humanity - even notorious swindlers and prostitutes; it was to reconcile it from its alienation and save it from its brokenness. If some of us don't think we need such salvation, that in fact we are already whole, then that is a matter each person will have to deal with for himself/herself.
I myself cannot see what great good is achieved by this intemperate, unending and seemingly self-righteous babbling around in "crossfire" fashion on this important issue. Perhaps it it a necessary part of growth, but I see it as only a method for polarizing and entrenching people, fostering a culture of combativeness and division in order to "win" whatever. Could Spectrum not encourage serious and balanced studies of both sides of the issue, and of all aspects of it, so that all can become sufficiently informed and be in a position to become 'fully persuaded" in their own minds.
Hendrick, you are right that we all seem to become more entrenched. However, I think the serious and balanced studies have already been done, and I think they have left the traditional fundamentalist view behind. It's not that the studies are all positive toward homosexuals, but I think people have to be willfully ignorant these days to believe that homosexuality is inherently deviant or perverse.
In the past week I’ve read the open letter to Pastor Dwight. I’ve read the comments in this thread. I actually went back and listened to Pastor Dwight’s sermon and each day I’ve read the comments that continue to be posted. I’ve gone back and forth about whether I wanted to leave a comment, whether I even cared. I’ve been angry and I’ve been extremely sad. After reading one too many angry hateful comments I decided I needed to post a comment. Not for those who, whether intended or unintended, feel it necessary to be so hateful in what they say but for those who have come to this discussion wanting to openly and honestly discuss a subject that obviously stirs many different emotions in people.
I am gay and am an ex-Adventist. I grew up in Berrien Springs in a very conservative family environment. I went to Adventist Schools through my junior year at Andrews Academy and I attended Adventist churches until I basically stopped going my senior year in high school. For anyone who has struggled with their sexuality, it is a very lonely, scary place for any child to be, especially when that struggle is taking place in an environment that is less than kind when dealing with this issue specifically. That which rings loudest in a child’s head is equivalent to some of the hateful, less than compassionate statements which precede this comment in this thread. Unless you have personally struggled with this issue, you can not possibly have any idea what it is like for a child.
I prayed for as long as I can remember that God would please make me different. For those who doubt my sincerity in praying as a child, you suck. It was done with all the might and strength a child can muster when not fully understanding why he is different. I so badly just wanted to be like everyone else around me, struggling with the typical things a kid struggles with, not something so insanely deep and incomprehendable. After years of prayer with NO response, I decided that either God didn’t exist or he was so evil for not listening that I wanted nothing to do with him. This is not a place I would wish on my worst enemy. What followed was complete chaos for years.
In my late twenties I started a different, very sincere spiritual quest which continues to this day and just becomes more fulfilling by the moment. I realized there is something more to life and it has meant more to me than any of my years entwined in the Adventist community. I know that I am exactly who I’m suppose to be, where I’m suppose to be and have found a peace that I truly do wish for not only my friends but the worst of my enemies (although I don’t think I really have any enemies).
I know there are many that will disagree with me and think that I’m evil and doomed to hell. I completely understand people holding that belief and I’m okay with that. All that I ask is that you take your stance with love and compassion for those who differ from you and truly struggle with this issue. Your words often have unintended consequences which often are quite negative. I believe we are all responsible for that which we chose to spew from our mouths, type or write. While Jesus never talked directly on the issue of homosexuality I do believe he speaks about loving unconditionally. For those who are struggling with this, know that you can find peace and God can be found inside and outside of the Adventist faith. God is greater than any religion.
Peace.
"It's not that the studies are all positive toward homosexuals, but I think people have to be willfully ignorant these days to believe that homosexuality is inherently deviant or perverse." Jamie
Homosexual practices, which have caused disease and much suffering globally, is the issue. And there must be a continent full of people who are ignorant since so many do see the "practice" as deviant which it truly is. Why is it that hardly anyone is willing to acknowledge the suffering that homosexual practices have brought upon mankind mainly in the form of AIDS?
Todd, thank you for your moving story. It is tough reading these threads and realizing that there are people out there that think if we would just read Hebrews 11 then God would change us. I, too, have left the church. I know there is no place for me there. I am also trying to find some kind of faith, and it doesn't come easy.
I do believe that if there is a loving God out there, that He's got my back, and I have nothing to fear.
“Why is it that hardly anyone is willing to acknowledge the suffering that homosexual practices have brought upon mankind mainly in the form of AIDS?” - wrote Your Friend
HIV spreads on Africa primarily through heterosexual activity. This is also true other places in the world.
Most of those researching the origin of HIV suggest it was transmitted from chimpanzees to humans. This is because of the similarity of HIV to the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in chimpanzees.
The "homosexual behavior is unnatural" stance is interesting, since it seems that only "the natural" could stem from nature. It's also an interesting stance since we see homosexual behaviors in many mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects.
Your Friend, would you also conclude that Christians are sinners because they spread disease to the indigenous population in the Americas, resulting in mass death?
It was the Christians who brought smallpox and other diseases to the native populations of the Americas and those who did not die from disease were largely wiped out by the sword.
Syphilis from sailors also wrought havoc on European nations during and after the Middle Ages--a time when everyone was "Christian" by virtue of being baptized in infancy.
Disease spreads through the increasing mobility of people and the only possibly way to prevent that spread is for people to stay in one place all their lives--which would also increase the chance that an entire village could be wiped out--as happened in past times.
Blaming disease on human behavior is a fact, but focusing on one part of the population as responsible is to ignore the responsibility we all have.
“In my late twenties I started a different, very sincere spiritual quest which continues to this day and just becomes more fulfilling by the moment.” - wrote Todd
This is one of the gifts of going through such a difficult experience – it often causes deep introspection at an early age, and a strong desire for a spiritual quest. Said more simply, it's hard to “just drift along” as a gay Adventist.
“I know that I am exactly who I’m suppose to be, where I’m suppose to be and have found a peace” - wrote Todd
Be thankful that you know this. Many people – heterosexual or homosexual – do not attain this insight, even over a lifetime.
Todd, thanks for sharing.
David Potter wrote: "In the 21st century, we have a better understanding of sexuality. A growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is due to nature, not nurture or choice… The heterosexual majority in the church must learn to accept that homosexual orientation and behaviour are just as natural and normal for homosexuals as heterosexuality is for the majority… I no longer believe that the Bible condemns all same-sex relations."
Truth of the matter is, David, a biological basis for sexual orientation is presupposed, presumably according to nature, but a specific natural cause has yet to be found.
'Contrary to these simplifications, the relationship between homosexuality and biology, if any, is certainly very complex. "Biology" as a causative agent can mean different things to different people: sex hormone levels in the adult; the hormones or other factors during early brain development of a fetus in utero or soon after birth; or the genes for some factor affecting the brain that's involved with gender identity. A behavior pattern as complex and variable as homosexuality cannot possibly be due to a single altered gene or even several genes alone. Many women have lived happy heterosexual lives for a number of years before changing to a lesbian orientation. This is clearly non-deterministic, in contrast to the genetic factors that cause, say, cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease or Down syndrome. On the other hand, homosexuality as a way of life is so compelling to so many gay people, including myself, that it seems unlikely to this biologist that it can be due wholly to social factors completely divorced from biology.'
- Genes, hormones, and sexuality by Neena B. Schwartz
Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, The, Jan-Feb, 2008
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3491/is_1_15/ai_n29401771/?tag=c...
Absolutely. Consequently, instead of nature vs nurture, the debate has been reframed in terms of essentialist doctrine (biological determinism) vs social constructionism
Essentialist approaches to research on sexual orientation--whether they be evolutionary approaches or approaches that rely on hormones, genetics, or brain factors--rest on assumptions that (a) there are underlying true essences (homosexuality and heterosexuality), (b) there is a discontinuity between forms (homosexuality and heterosexuality are two distinct, separate categories, rather than points on a continuum), and (c) there is constancy of these true essences over time and across cultures (homosexuality and heterosexuality have the same form today in American culture as they have had for centuries and as they have in other cultures today). Modern essentialism is usually equated with biological determinism, although a strain of cultural essentialism also exists. In contrast, social constructionists argue that there are no true essences, but rather that reality is socially constructed, and therefore that phenomena such as homosexuality are social constructions, the product of a particular culture, its language, and institutions.
- Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality - The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1998 by John D. DeLamater, Janet Shibley Hyde
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746720
Finally and in addition,
It makes no sense for evolutionists to talk about sexual orientation--a social construct specific to this culture and time--when referring to sexuality in the ancient past. Categories of sexual orientation gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual--are not evolved traits. That is not to say that some sexual attractions are not biologically based, not inherited, or not functional. While a human sexual nature and sexual attractions are universal, the concept of sexual orientation is not. (p. 381)
- Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. Edited by Michael Kauth. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2006
Cited in Chimps do it, homo erectus did it, we do it; and in a rich variety of ways!
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2008 by Alastair P.C. Davies, Todd K. Shackelford
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_45/ai_n24383386
As a Gay person who left the church in the eighties because of hate, I am pleased to see that there are thinkers who see things different to those who choose to hate.
"Hate" is a strong word and if you look up the meaning in the dictionary it has some meanings like this,"transitive verb to dislike somebody or something intensely, often in a way that evokes feelings of anger, hostility, or animosity."
I don't think this is Christ like in nature.
I also see here on this subject more hate than Love.
You choose your feelings because God gave you free will to choose.
I did not choose my sexuality nor did you. That is a fact.
Yes we all choose how we act and behave and that is a fact.
Most of what I see on this subject is chosen thought, out of fear or wrong teaching.
(I do eat scrambled eggs the same way you do and some people have trouble understanding that out of fear.)Analogy.
Bible based fear is what most churches subscribe to. Fear to control. Putting it plainly, it is dogma.
My salvation is not depending on the church one choosers.
Once we realise this, we see things in a clearer form.
Hate is inbuilt because we are born in sin, and that is a fact.
David's letter is one of compassion for those who are outcasts.
A group that professes to be inclusive while excluding is not the model JESUS preached about.
It seems that I have little choice but to stop attending a church that
seems to be so full of hate and is so unaccepting. Yet, I’m hesitating to
do so because I do believe that the church is a bulwark and a beacon of
light that shines it’s message that God loves me. To absent myself is to
give in to the whims and wishes of the conservative right wingers who
insist that their norms and values are the right way to live. To be absent
is to prove that they have the right to sweep out those who are different
and classified as “sinner” written in black and white. I refuse to accept
that. I’m reminded that Christ Himself was opposed by the conservatives yet
He attended church each Sabbath as was His custom. It is sad, so sad to see
my fellow brothers and sisters feeling that they have no alternative but to
leave.
If I left, it would only make me feel so much more isolated and lonely.
Should I just stay at home each Sabbath and just read my Bible, pray and
watch a sermon (gospel oriented sermons) on the Hope channel? Or wander
into a park and enjoy the peaceful environs? I don’t think that I could
attend another church and become a Sunday keeper because of my strong
belief on the Sabbath, the soon coming of Jesus and the state of the
dead.
On the other hand, I’m assured that the church is supposed to be a place
where it welcomes all, is a caring place and offers hope, love and
acceptance to all. Or does that come with strings attached? Or should
one have to continue putting up with the bullying tactics of “bible
bashers” who simply ignore others who are different? A hospital for
sinners? Or a place for inflicting more bruises and hurtful remarks?
Sometimes to me the church is much like a bus and I refuse to give up my
seat for some unloving person, or sit down the back away from decent
folks.
I guess my remarks don’t really cause others to comment but at least I’m
not silent on the issue. If we were all silent and slip out, we’re
really giving in to the opposition.
Rabek: I will comment. Hang in there and don't be silent. You are absolutely right that the only way to see Christ-affirming change in the church is to be around to speak up for it.
"It seems that I have little choice but to stop attending a church that seems to be so full of hate and is so unaccepting." - said Rebek
I understand. But by staying, and speaking, you can help our community move into a future where others are not wounded in the way you were.
"Or does that come with strings attached? Or should one have to continue putting up with the bullying tactics of “bible bashers” who simply ignore others who are different?" - said Rebek
Remember, these "Bible bashers" are also our brothers and sisters. They behave badly because they are in fear - not because they wish to cause harm.
I think our dear old Dwight Nelson has been living in Berrien Springs to long. How hurtful to hear this sermon. It sets love for those who fully need to be loved and accepted back hundreds of years. My apology to those who have been hurt by this slick rant from the pulpit of PMC. The uncaring attitude in a congregation that must have had individuals attending of a different orientation must have been another expected blow to those sitting in the audience.
Of course when you do not live in the real world, one can say just about anything from the middle of no where.
Let me understand, Jesus accepts everyone, but our church does not. Oh, I get it.
How absolutely sad.
Tony...
We've shared variations of this conversation before. I hear your frustration!
Frank
Pastor Romeo,
I note you signed your comment with a prefix of 'pastor', but I can only assume you are not a pastor of the SDA church. If you are a SDA pastor, I find your comments odd and not congruent with Adventist teachings.
I also do not understand why your think Pastor Nelson is not living in the real world. I am fascinated on what you think the real world is and would be interested in what you define that to be.
For background, I do not and have never lived in Berrien Springs. I live in Chicago, have travelled and lived in many countries and cities and believe I have exposed to enough of the world to last a lifetime. Specifically, I personally know and am related to a number of homosexuals.
As Pastor Nelson is in a prominent pastoral position, I would imagine he is very much living in the 'real' world, including being exposed to homosexuality.
Do I want homosexuals to attend our church - absolutely. Am I afraid to validate that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin - certainly not! If you find Pastor Nelsons tone or approach offensive, I can live with that. But I would not be able to reconcile why you would consider Pastor Nelsons position to be incorrect. I maybe well off base, but your comments imply that.
So is Blair, Dwight Nelson?
One can only assume that someone is speaking on his behalf, maybe.
Being honest about ones self is the greatest thing one can do.
One can follow the party line, because ones money comes from that line. How sad.
Christ expects honesty above all else I think.
It is a shame that people have to go around on tip toes because of party lines.
Does the Bible really say homosexuality is a sin?
So what do we do with all other sin in the Bible?
Being argent and boastful is also a sin.
Yes I SEE more clear now, ones sins are classed, just like in the temple that Jesus took a whip to.
Oh how sad.
This is of course one of the most sensitive issues to confront the church and society in recent times (as many on this blog have noted). It seems to me there are really only two questions at here: 1) Is homosexual practice a sin and 2) How are we (the church / individuals) to treat sinners?
Let me address the second question. Christ's love and grace precedes anything that we as individuals can do. He came to us while we were still sinners, both literally when He came to earth as one of us at a particular time in history, and spiritually, today when he meets us where we are in grace and love. We see Christ's love of sinners emanating from every page of the gospel. He accepts all who come to him, he turns no one away. And neither should we!
However, this love, grace and acceptance demands a response. Christ says to the adulterer about to be stoned, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. " He says to the rich young man, whom he looked on and loved , "One thing you lack, go sell everything you have, and come follow me"
So, God accepts all of us, as we are, but he also wants us to grow in His grace and love. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" This is an impossible task, without the love and grace of God, but "all things are possible with God."
"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". We are all called to sanctity (holiness) to be set apart for God, that we might "present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God". We must all turn from (repent of) our sins and "sin no more", we must all be prepared to give up our most prized possessions, our own will, even our own lives for the sake of Christ and His Gospel and follow Him.
This is the gospel we proclaim, this is the Way, the Truth and the Life, this is Jesus Christ, who said: "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me". Are we ready to take Him at His word?
As to the first question, that is not for me to decide, but for the Church, led by the Holy Spirit in its interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. But whether homosexual practice is a sin or not, our attitude to same sex attracted people must always be one of love.
No biblical writer--and I believe no pagan writer--had at their disposal the idea of a sexual ORIENTATION.
We now do. We know that as children mature, some have heterosexual and some homosexual erotic dreams. And we know they don't decide before sleep on which kind of dream to have.
The Mennonite John Howard Yoder remarked that the work of the Holy Spirit is to help us see the meaning of the Jesus story under ever-changing conditions. Now that, in the respect I just mentioned, conditions have changed, it is time think of homosexuality, and of God's attitude toward it, in a new way.
There is a sexual ethic for homosexuals. But we cannot, as lovers of Jesus, single them out for lives without intimacy.
Lots of good stuff in this conversation. Thanks to all.
Chuck
Well said. New wine needs new wine skins.
The story of the woman who was going to be stoned, is a interesting one.
We seem to use the last part of Jesus's words and forget the first part,"Neither do I condemn you".
I have heard many sermons on this very text. The question is was Jesus speaking in a way that was more understood at that time.
I have also read that the last part was put there to control and was taken from other writings.
Control is at the very root of dogma.
Ones interpretation of that text in the Bible is left open for one to uses on others.
Jesus in the temple story is used in a different way by the Adventist organisation. Buying and selling in Gods holy place and on the Sabbath, is one.
Look a little further and see what they were buying and selling in. Ones sins and women and children's sins were worth more and then it becomes a den of thieves and a whip was used.
So are my sins worth more than yours?
Jesus says not.
We are in sin till the day we dye and that is because of sin.
Only Christs death saved me from my sins.
The Bible is used like a sword, wheeled to cut people open. That was never intended.
I wish to apologize for labelling some folks Bible Bashers. I believe that we're all searching for truth and above all things, seeking how to love the Lord Jesus and how to reflect His love to others. From the bottom of my heart, I forgive those who do say negative things about folks with different orientation. Have a pleasant Sabbath!
I struggle with pornography. I was not born this way but cultivated in this manner from being kissed and molested at the age of 6. At age 10 I molested another boy out of curiousity and at the age of 15 I molested a 13 year old girl. I was exposed to porn at the age 12 and masturbated around the same age. I in no shape or form consider myself a homosexual but sexually over exposed recovering sex addict who was abandoned by his father around six. I say recovering sex addict because what I'm learning about porn and sexuality is that when you fail to form an intimate relationship with jesus and with others and kill your evil nature through prayer everyday because of the business of life then I find myself reverting back to the old man. sex addicts struggle with real emotional intimacy and having close intimate relationships with Jesus and friends, family and love ones then the need to seek it dies. We live in an oversexed society where commercials to online ads are saturated with sexuality so I must guard the avenue of my soul.
Now I shared this with you because I don't want to be a sex addict. I did not choose to be molested or overexposed. I refuse to state that it is my nature and to accept it because my nature is evil and weak. Homosexuality has taken the strongest argument by stating that it is nature and not nurture but yet as I've read the post by Joselito Coo I realize that it is still undecided in the scientific realm whether or not it is in fact nature and even if it maybe the article stated by this pastor is flawed as imprints his own opinion as some scholar would say be an eisegesis (excuse me if it is spelled incorrectly).
What I do look forward too is the second coming of Jesus when sin and my sinful nature with its cultivated sex addiction propensities will be no more and death has being destroyed. I do not fear God's judgement as long as everyday I depend on him and put to death my evil nature.
My question for all those who have embraced your homosexuality with no real scientific evidence. I ask you were you ever molested or overly sexually exposed? Did you suffer any childhood abandonment from mom or dad? Who plays the dominate role in your family your mom, your dad or both? I'm not asking to judge you but am asking to understand the nature of this sin (yes I call it a sin because it doesn't follow the edenic model) even though I myself can easily proclaim to be gay myself but to understand for the purpose of overcoming and remaining in that state until Jesus returns. We must repent but repenting does not mean that our nature is obliterated not until Jesus destroys sin and death and we put on the incorruptible body.
Please kindly share your thoughts. God bless.
If everything is sinful that does not follow the "Edenic model" God help us all! Who lives a life totally by the "Edenic model," especially when the Bible is so very sparse about life lived there?
Just think: no children were born in Eden, so how would a parent's model conform? There is no record of sexual intimacy in Eden, although they were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply."
Which Edenic story is referred to: the first or second one?
Yes we have sinful natures. Romans 7 & 8 outlines this very well about the battles of the flesh and the spirit and how often we end up doing the very thing we desire not to do. victory to this internal battle is Jesus himself when Paul asks"Who can save me from this body of death?". Everything about us is sinful and demands a savior.
Jesus made reference to the edenic model when he spoke on the issues of divorce. He made reference to that model because it outlined God's intentions during creation and he also spoke in regards to the exception of divorce because of the hardness of man's heart. The effects of sin did not allow men and women to easily forgive. An addition all things are being restored as to how it was in the beginning without us being given into marriage because marriage in of itself is a shadow of the reality Jesus the groom being married to the bride(the church) which will be fulfilled upon his return. It is a shame when man have to twist bible verses to support their views throughout history rather than accepting the balance views hence making void the commandments of God. Pharisees, sadducees, esenes,arians,gnostics,feminism,Nazis,black panther and etc would often read their own social and political agendas into scripture to support their views. How is this any different? The argument of this pastor only hinges on science and science has not yet come to a concrete conclusion.
I must admit I would never claim that I molested a child or an recovered sex addict because I no longer wish to be and without God such propensity would reign supreme. homosexuals in claiming such a position are in fact embracing their sinful nature which would be just as valid for a pedophile to do along with those who commit bestiality. What are you in fact doing is calling something sinful good and references made to animals is a slap in the face to the creator because we were meant to resemble him and not animals. Something went wrong when I got molested and started doing likewise and something went wrong when you too found yourself attracted sexually to the same sex. Instead of trying to change and bend the standard why not deny self through the power of the holy spirit and patiently wait for the coming of Jesus when sin (sinful cultivated and uncultivated propensities) will be destroyed.
I'm also waiting on an answer regarding the childhood experiences of those who claim homosexuality.
You would need someone who studies the mind to figure out why you do what you do.
The mind is not like a DVD or CD where you can rewrite it.
Once printed it can not be erased.
No one on this thread can answer your question I think.
Some people follow this thread because they have family members who are Gay and wish to get more info on the subject.
As to asking one if you had some childhood abuse, I am sure most of us as humans have had some form or another.
None of us come out unscarred because of sin.
You have to get on with it, deal with it and put this to the back.
We all live very complicated lives in this world and yes we do need a Savior to end it.
My thoughts on this.
The one thing I see on Spectrum and at the Andrews conference, is people saying they were molested as a child and that has made them Gay or do other things.
Want an excuse for being this way and explain it away by using this, how sad.
Seek help is my advice and not from the church or Bible.
My thoughts on the matter.
Noel Thorpe what the church needs is to be more loving and accepting of homosexuals and those who may have gone through these sexual experiences as a life of isolation and a sense of abandonment is what maybe keeping them in such places. The church lacks love plain and simple and new studies are showing does with sex addiction are trying to substitute sex for real emotional intimacy. An addition pastors are struggling with pornography and etc. This maybe what PornVsHomosexuality maybe referring too. Most psychologist would argue that sex addiction is either incurable or hard to treat which is the argument of the homosexual movement. The truth is we all may need to experience God's true intimate unconditional love both as a church, as the molested and as the homosexual and not just have an intellectual christianity. God bless and may your experience his unconditional love!!!
I understand the church to hide its failure in protecting the very young.
The SDA church is no different in its dealings with this as is the Catholic church.
I can tell you from my position, being the contact for Kinship in Australia that it does happen and it is put under the carpet.
As to getting help you have to look outside the church for that.
There are groups for Adults to seek help in this case.
Dealing with the hard stuff the church has not been to good at that.
It is just learning on how to deal with marriage breakups little-lone the rape issue.
Yes the church needs to Love everyone not only the Gay person.
And with that love you must have real bread, because it is not just Love Christ was talking about.
The church fails to feed its flock and its failure is not just Gay people.
Yes it is a struggle for all concerned.
PornVsHomosexuality, to answer your question, I was never molested or abused as a child. I grew up in a two parent home, with parents who adored each other as well as us, their children.
When I first came out, I went to my pastor. He sent me for sex addiction counselling. I went because I figured I had to give it a try for the sake of my marriage. It was the best thing I ever did! However, while their I learned one thing: I'm not a sex addict, I'm just gay. This idea that homosexuality is just a form of sex addiction doesn't fly. Yes, GLBT people can be sex addicts, as can straight people Doesn't mean everyone is, though.
In reading this excellent article by David Potter, I have imagined the kinds of signs that some SDA churches might have: "All Welcome except GLBTs". I would like to see the church take a more neutral stance about this issue: if the "Wayne Blakley"'s managed to stay straight, Praise God! But surely the church can be big enough to accept all the different variety of people with their different orientations.
The SDA church is not exactly the same church in different countries: for example where I am in the Dominican Republic a great emphasis is put on the men wearing a tie in this hot and humid paradise. Some of the churches here have the preacher at the furthest point away from the congregation. A few years ago I visited Australia and it was refreshing to see the church Pastor preach without a tie right down with the congregation. There was a relaxed atmosphere of everybody being welcome, including the guy I happened to sit next to who was dressed in shorts. Many of the women that I hadn't seen for many years were now wearing ear-rings, but our focus wasn't on those minor issues. But in respect to "Jolly", what might be a minor issue in one country could possibly be a major issue in another. So we do need some cultural tact when presenting these issues.
Will the SDA church cope with this issue any better than the Episcopal/Anglican church which has led to break away movements being formed? (The Roman Catholic church already printed a document how those members could be "crossed-over" to their church.)
Mike ,
The only sign I've seen is, all welcome at most churches.
All welcome except, is when you get in doors and people ask questions. Being nosey is very much an SDA thing.
There are always going to breakaways when people follow certain paths, likes within the church body.
People look up to Pastors as if those people will get you to heaven.
Younger people are not so hooked on Pastors. Older people look up to older Pastors as if their words are Gospel.
Des Ford followers have waited for his return to Aus for a long time and Des did return.
Those who left the SDA church when Des was defrocked have gone to other churches, or no longer go. Different stokes for different people.
I am sure the roof will not fall in when the church does accept us as not closeted, and open GLBTI people.
That is my one prayer to God every day.
I want the Doors open to all. The church is for all sinners and as we all come under that banner.
Yes the SDA church is different in lots of places and culture does play a big part on this.
PornvsHomosexuality: To answer your question. I was not molested as a child. I grew up with two loving parents who are still married today, 41 years. Growing up I wasn't extremely close to either of my parents but I believe we had a good parent child relationship. As an adult I am very close to my parents. I would even say they have become two of my best friends, now that we are all adults. My parents accept me and love me for who I am. Nothing is perfect but I would venture to say that I was one of the lucky ones who hit the parent/family lottery.
PornVsHomosexuality, I am a transexual and I can assure you that I was not molested, neither was I exposed to porn at an early age. I first realized this when I was in second grade. I exposed to Dt 22:5 in the 5th grade. It was a life changing experience and not a positive one. I have been celebate for my entire life, 40+ years now. I think bringing up Bestiality and pedophilia is a low blow.
I have also chosen to remain in the closet to manage my social networks. It seemed like the best thing at the time I started it and it has be difficult to stop. I think it often put me in grave danger of discouragement that could have kept me from getting to know God. How does one go about saying: "I know you can't picture this but do you mind if I wear a dress next sabbath?"
So far I have made it work somewhat, but I think that hiding part of myself comes at a great cost. One, which despite all that I have invested in it, may not be worth continuing. I have no idea how to come out but if given the right opportunity I certain would take the risk.
So let me be clear to all. I definately would never, never, explicitly advise someone to stay in the closet. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the church and most conservatives in particular are doing.
One more thing, when hiding in the closet it is often difficult to identify ones true motivation. Am I acting because of love or fear. If we act out of fear then we are probably doing the wrong thing. And if we promote fear, (you will go to hell; you are an abomination to God; etc.) then we are actively promoting evil.
Kunigunde
Kunigunde, I'm sorry to hear how hard this is for you. I know how difficult it was for me to come out as a gay man, and how much fear and love intermingled to keep me in the closet. I feared rejection, but I also knew my coming out would hurt those I love. And that's the problem with the closet in the first place. If I never had to be in it, it wouldn't have hurt people so much (especially my ex-wife) when I came out.
I hope you figure out a way that you can have an integrated life, but I know how difficult the church makes it to live as a whole person (holy?). Many of us, and not just GLBT people, feel that we need to compartmentalize our lives if we are to be a part of the church. For me, I ended up leaving, but there were other reasons for that also.
Hang in there Kunigunde. I hope you can also find some supportive friends who can love you for who you are.
Kunigunde, I hope that you will find so much relief and peace in coming out, and so many friends who accept you for who you are, that any who don't won't matter.
I just came across this thread, and read David Potter's remarkable letter, and almost every contribution. (I admit to skipping through some of the conservative stuff--it becomes so repetitive and closed-minded that I might become convinced Adventism is a madhouse and flee for my life!) I am an active Adventist who struggled through the gay issue and eventually realized that God was not going to answer my prayers to be changed. This was of course not because He could not change me, but because He was happy with the way He had made me. I wish I had realized that years earlier!
The main reason for writing right now is to make it clear that not all gays and lesbians leave the church. I have to confirm that those of us who stay do so in spite of the fact that it can be really tough to stay. Unfortunately Adventism has a tendency to attract or create people who are sure that they are correct in everything, and who then utter judgments against anyone who is different from them and their personal understandings. Some Adventist LGBTI people find the situations they are in, in their particular congregations, so toxic that it is indeed best for them to exit. But meanwhile our growing church produces more and more gay children, who are going to be harmed as earlier generations of gay members were harmed, and so the travesty continues in the name of Christianity.
How can the church find justice if more of us do not remain in it? One thing is sure, the key lies especially with people like David Potter--with those who realize that love and acceptance are at the core of Christianity, and work to change Adventism from the inside. Indeed, this is slowly happening--the Spirit is at work. But too often we bottle up the Spirit, and cast negative judgments on its working. I am still here because I found a loving congregation, so those of you who help create accepting, non-judgmental congregations are really doing good work. Thank you.
"The Spirit is at work."
Yes it is working amongst people who have hardened their heads.
It is very hard to stay in a place where others are not welcoming. Words are like a two edge sword the Bible says.
David Potter has had a lot of flack for his openness and willingness to be lead by the spirit. Not all are accepting of David and it behoves us to be thankful for people like David, who stand up for Love and acceptance.
People do not like change in general and some minsters do pander to fossilisation.
That means the spirit has a much harder job.
does the Ted Haggard experience tell us anything?
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/search/label/Ted%20Haggard
since the Bible seems clear.....
..."If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"... Leviticus 20:13
Since it is so clearly written in the Bible, Bible believers have only three choices:
1) kill Pastor Ted (assuming he had sex with a male prostitute),
2) remove Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible, or
3) reject/ignore the Bible entirely. at least much of the old Test.
Let me ask a question, that may gross even Alex Carpenter out, but here goes.
Let's say I had a disability, one that limited my socialization but I had a "service dog". These are usually allowed in public places.
What if the faculty or students saw an attraction between man and animal becoming too intimate, would the bestiality be accepted by LSU, or would they take a stand against it. After all, this human found comfort in the act, isn't that the standard, Alex???
HOMOSEXUALITY is an OLD subject guys... move on or go schedule an appointment with your therapist.
IT'S clinically proven and a social norm that those struggling with a fear of homosexuality, ARE struggling with the act of homosexuality themselves. TRULY straight people do not fear or tremble at the the presence or existence of gay people because they themselves are not gay and have no fear of becoming gay. Personally I don't have a fear of gays because what they do is disgusting to me.
STRAIGHT people have no need to kill or abolish gays or people who joke about it, experiment with it, etc. Because to straight people its looked on as an act less enticing than straight sex, somewhere between self pleasuring and straight sex.
FOR these people who are "straight" and want to go on marches and sign paperwork to abolish "gays", its freaking hilarious. You couldn't say you were more gay and more in the closet than by doing such acts.
It's less than ideal, let them do what they may. It's been here since the beginning of time, just like everything else.
Recognize your fears for what they are, and deal with it on your own. What you do with yourself and whoever, should be between just them and you. Anyone who wants to stick their noses into other peoples sexual encounters, is just narcissistic or is a freaking loser who isn't getting any themselves.
What did Jesus say? "As you have done unto the least of these, you have also done unto me..."
Homosexuality should have never been invented by modern Christianity and the False Church. It's a petty sin and nothing more. To elevate it beyond that is a lie perpetrated by Lucifer, the False Church, and the Republic Party. The least of these would believe anything they were told by the False Church/Republican Party. "You're gay" "Oh really, oh ok" It's the stupidest thing Americans have done to themselves. Foreign countries that have existed for thousand of years do not have such a classification as gay or straight. If a guy fucks a guy, its not because he's "gay" its because there was no girl around. duhhhhh!
As we know the Catholics and the Republican party are working together on many issues that they have invented over recent times to get Americans conditioned to losing their ground on separation of church and state and get us used to legalizing morality, in a series of steps toward enforcing a Sunday Law. It's the foundation of the US for which we have forgotten. It's the foundation of the Adventist church for which many are forgetting.
If we are truly apart of the saved, "Adventist" or not, we will stand up against these false inventions, including the condition of homosexuality which does not exist, even though the Republican party would love you to think it does. Homosexuality is an act only.
With the invention of the politically driven condition of homosexuality, it has divided people into 2 or more camps on the issue and has lead people who may or may not have ever committed the act to "be homosexual" and to "stand up for homosexuals". If Lucifer, the False Church, and the Republican Party had never created such a thing, there wouldn't be a problem on a political level. But as we know, Lucifer creates problems in order to solve them to accomplish his goals. Why is it that 9 out of 10 "homosexuals" have a history with the Catholic Church? Interesting huh? If you ever travel outside the US, you'll realize how stupid this whole "I was born a homosexual, will always be a homosexual, and can't change" idea is.
By the way, Dr. Dobson, is an unclassified "christian" because he is really a Roman Catholic, was educated by Roman Catholic institutions, and regularly meets with Roman Catholics at the Papacy.
Read your Bible, understand the smoke screens, or don't call yourself a loving Christian because you're a detriment to His calling and His not yet saved.
Post new comment