Adventist Governing Body Adopts Guidelines for Sexuality Issues
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, April 16, 2014
The executive committee of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination voted last week to adopt a seven-page document intended to provide guidelines for congregations, institutions and other organizations in dealing with current issues related to sexuality. The document emphasizes both the traditional position of the Adventist faith on sexual activity and compassion toward "alternative sexuality," the term used to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex (LGBTI) people while differentiating between behavior and identity.
The primary focus of the guidelines is protecting the rights of Adventist organizations and positioning Adventist public statements and actions related to changing public attitudes and civil law in many nations. The document is entitled "Guidelines for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Responding to Changing Cultural Attitudes Regarding Homosexual and Other Alternative Sexual Practices." Guidelines are not the same thing as "policy" in the denomination's governance process, as Pastor Ted Wilson, GC president, reminded the committee as they considered the document. Guidelines are generally considered to have less authority than "policy," although many times in the past a modified version of guidelines have been voted into the Working Policy book after several years.
The document begins with a theological statement describing the principles undergirding the guidelines. It refers to "the divine ideal for humanity … a core ingredient of stable societies," also intended by God "to provide joy, pleasure, and physical completeness." It states that "while the monogamous union in marriage of a man and a woman is affirmed as the divinely ordained foundation of the family and social life and the only morally appropriate locus of intimate sexual expression, singleness and the friendship of singles are within the divine design as well. Scripture, however, places a distinction between acceptable conduct in friendship relations and sexual conduct in marriage."
The document defines "wrong expressions of sexuality and … destructive sexual behaviors … as fornication, adultery, homosexual intimacies, incest, and polygamy." Bible texts are cited to support this view but without any acknowledgement or explanation of the widespread practice of polygamy among Old Testament patriarchs. The denomination "adheres without reservation to the divine ideal of pure, honorable, and loving sexual relations within heterosexual marriage, believing that any lowering of this high view is detrimental to humanity," the document summarizes its theological foundation.
The document describes five principles that are "counsel to congregations, church organizations and entities," and church administrators regarding the "complex issues surrounding civil governments’ responses to the reality of homosexuality and alternative sexual practices in contemporary society." These are intended to help the denomination be consistent in various contexts around the world in both its Bible teachings and compassion toward people and authorities.
"1. All human governments exist through the provision and allowance of God." The denomination recognizes the authority of civil government in matters such as marriage, sexual behavior and social justice as separate from the church.
"2. Although the authority of human government is derived from the authority of God, the claims and jurisdictions of human governments are never ultimately definitive for either individual believers or the Church. Both individual believers and the Church owe supreme allegiance to God Himself."
"3. Because individual believers and the organized Church enjoy the rights and liberties given them by God and ratified by civil government, they may fully participate in the processes by which societies organize social life, provide for public and electoral order, and structure civil relationships." The denomination will seek protect the religious rights of its members and affiliated organizations.
"4. Because the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes and practices a wholistic understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, its evangelistic, educational, publishing, medical, and other ministry organizations are integral and indivisible expressions of its fulfillment of the commission given by Jesus." The denomination will not agree that its institutions may be treated differently than congregations and conferences by civil law and courts.
"5. In their interface with civil governments and societies, both the Church and individual Seventh-day Adventists must conduct themselves as representatives of the kingdom of Christ, exhibiting His characteristics of love, humility, honesty, reconciliation, and commitment to the truths of the Word of God." Adventists are not to support laws that seek to criminalize certain sexual behaviors even if those laws seek to enforce Bible teachings; they must treat others with fairness and caring even when disagreeing on issues related to sexuality.
A following paragraph addresses specifically the conflict that may appear between the civil rights of LGBTI people and the religious liberty of those who believe differently: "In a growing number of nations, governments enact special legislative or judicial protection to prevent what they consider discriminatory behavior. Those protections sometimes appear to impair the religious-freedom rights of Seventh-day Adventist pastors, leaders, and Church organizations to employ persons, perform weddings, offer employment benefits, publish missional material, make public statements, and provide education or educational housing on the basis of the Seventh-day Adventist teaching about the sinfulness of sexual behaviors prohibited by Scripture."
Another paragraph addresses specifically the efforts to punish LGBTI people under criminal law in some countries: "Conversely, in a number of nations, homosexual or alternative sexual practices result in harsh penalties imposed by law. While Seventh-day Adventist institutions and members may appropriately advocate for preserving the unique and God-given institution of heterosexual marriage in their societies and legal codes, it is the position of the Church to treat those practicing homosexual or alternative sexual behaviors with the redemptive love taught and lived by Jesus."
The guidelines also address the topic of LGBTI people who are members of the denomination's local churches. It states that "the Bible’s instructions about human sexuality, are equally applicable to heterosexual and homosexual relationships," and then says, "It is inconsistent with the Church’s understanding of scriptural teaching to admit into or maintain in membership persons practicing sexual behaviors incompatible with biblical teachings. Neither is it acceptable for Adventist pastors or churches to provide wedding services or facilities for same-sex couples."
A number of sources have told Adventist Today they fear that the "maintain in membership" clause may result in widespread tensions in congregations. They are concerned that this is an invitation to some "legalistic" members to launch a "witch hunt" and "pry into personal matters." At least one church administrator has advised caution to pastors.
The guidelines also address employment by the denomination. "Congregational leaders, Church employees, ministry leaders, and institutions are advised to review carefully the Church’s existing policies with regard to membership, employment, and education to ensure that local practices are in harmony with the Church’s expressed teachings about sexual behavior. … The Seventh-day Adventist Church asserts and reserves the right for its entities to employ individuals according to Church teaching about sexual behaviors compatible with the teaching of Scripture as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist Church."
Link to copy of the official document – click here.
Adventist Today invites opinion articles about this document. They should be sent as MS Word document files attached to email addressed to atoday@atoday.org with "Opinion Article on Sex Guidelines" in the subject line of the email.
Now we get to listen to people again voicing their long-standing prejudices as we learn how to minister the redeeming and transforming power of the Gospel to more of the people Jesus died to save.
I'm not sure that's quite fair, William. I don't know exactly what you mean by "long-standing prejudices." But I do know that the moral calculus which leads many to perceive the traditional Adventist position regarding homosexual relationships as long-standing prejudice is of relatively recent origin. Be careful about using the recently discovered, revealed wisdom of "progressive" 21st Century Christianity as a moral jackboot against more traditionally inclined fellow Christians who may not hear or feel the Spirit calling them to your values.
I appreciate humble piety that does not inferentially condemn others, William. But I am disappointed by, and take strong issue with, your inference that firmly held, good-faith convictions are long-standing prejudices, inconsistent with ministering the redeeming and transforming power of the Gospel to more of the people Jesus died to save.
Nathan,
You are correct and some clarification is in order.
We each have prejudices. Few topics in modern society have revealed more of those prejudices than the question of how Christians should relate to gender variance. On one end of the spectrum we have those who believe God is condemning all homosexuals to hell, that they are beyond God's ability to be touched by the Gospel and such people should be avoided as if they were infected with Ebola. On the other end are those who say God loves everyone, doesn't condemn anyone and so whatever a person's gender orientation and practices, that's OK. I don't have to think very hard or long to list several people on opposite ends of that spectrum defend their opinions with equal vigor (and perhaps venom).
I had my "baptism by fire" on the topic a bit over 30 years ago when this conservative boy from a small town in the American South suddenly found himself working with a church ministry in New York City where encounters were fequent with the many and very diverse members of the gender community. At first I was shocked beyond belief. Then I was confronted with the realization that, if God couldn't save them, then He couldn't save me because the sin God wants to save us from is the same sin that infects and corrupts all of us, regardless of the form it takes. It was a converted homosexual who helped me realize that the promise of salvation doesn't ask what sins you are committing, just if you're willing to follow God and let Him clean you up as your relationship with Him grows.
That experience changed me forever. I learned three big lessons from it. First, God's priority is saving sinners, so if we're going to be His hands in ministering salvation to the fallen, we must be willing to lay-aside our particular prejudices and get over being shocked by what we encounter. Second, if we are willing to let Him use us, God will show us ways to reach people whom we may believed were beyond being touched and redeemed. Third, we will be amazed by the results.
In my humble opinion, the biggest thing preventing us from being more effective in ministering redemption to the gender variant is our prejudices; about them, about God's ability and destire to redeem "unto the uttermost" and His ability to use us to minister that redemption. We've got a whole lot of learning to do in those areas.
Well stated, William. I agree with your reformulation of the problem. When I was growing up, we had a very good family friend who was homosexual. He played the piano beautifully and would come over to our home often on Friday evening to play hymns while we gathered around the piano to sing. He walked everywhere in the community always carrying a Bible. He was a Godly man, deeply respected, I think by other church members, and a great source of inspiration to me, as he instilled in me a deep appreciation for classical music. I have known many other homosexuals throughout my life, including having one as a law partner for nine years.
I have never been in a situation where I have felt it necessary to pass judgment on them, and I never felt, until I encountered vociferous hostility and judgment on the AToday website, that I was morally deficient because I refuse to endorse Homosexual sexual behavior as perfectly acceptable.
"Alternative sexuality" seems to be a new term coined by Adventists in their search not only for answers but solutions to a non-problem. None of the LBGT group are asking for solutions, it is the church who has only recently "discovered" that there are such people among its saints and they must be given guidelines for their conduct.
When have heterosexuals been asked questions about their most intimate lives and practices as it relates to Adventist membership? This is a new method of stratifying groups of people who have had no need to be categorized by their private lives to determine their fitness to be part of the Adventist community? In their effort to protect the saints from contact with such "deviants" what group may be next? Those flesh-eating and coffee and wine drinking members? Those who attend movies or the theater?
If this was ever part of Christ's Gospel message, it was not recorded in the Bible, but He specifically said to let the tares and wheat grow together and the God of all will be their judge. Does the church tend now to offer help in God's judging? Isn't that a direct contradiction to the many times we have been told that we are not to judge?
This is your tithe money at work. How much did the entire conference cost, including air travel and hotel accomodations for this very important meeting?
Elaine,
You wrote "…solutions to a non-problem. None of the LBGT group are asking for solutions…"
I am thankful that God sought us and opened a way for us to be saved before we ever knew we needed to be saved!
Let me tell you about a friend I'll call Teresa. My experience working with the gender-variant community in New York City taught me to spot the telltale signs of a male-to-female transgendered person who had "gone stealth" meaning they had fully transitioned and were living as normal a female life as possible without making an issue of their past. I sensed a great loneliness in her and my wife and I went out of our way to befriend her. We made no effort to hide the role our faith in God plays in our lives. Neither did we push it on her or confront her on anything because she made it obvious really quick just how defensive she was about anything obviously spiritual. Still, God has used our friendship to touch her heart with His love. I remember one day when she was telling us about a particular stress she was feeling and then observed that we seemed to be at peace about it. We didn't give her a Bible study. My wife just looked at her and said, "Oh, it's a God thing." Later she confessed that she'd asked God to help her with the issue and had felt relieved. I can't say she's become a believer yet, but God is playing a growing role in her life. I've also noticed her old defensiveness about spiritual topics is shrinking.
The personal connections we make to be intimate and understanding speak more of Christ than trying to contextualize and subvert the Gospel into our statement of other people's lives. Life counts for the love and peace we can bring to other lives. Living to make statement to others doesn't make the impact that living to die to self so others can find greater meaning/freedom behind the universal sadness and strife of being a human being.
Yes! Elaine, the church has the real perverse need to alert Christianity into an us versus them- when that is the last thing Christianity should ever mean to anyone.
The real deviants are those who believe tradition and vilification will mask their sins, rather than scar their sense of invaluable spirituality even more.
As for our tithe money, interesting how the same people that cry against politicizing issues, money spent to "liberalize" the church- have no problem w/ authorities arrogantly judging over the victimless behavior of members and to advocate a conservative agenda.
There is no agenda to soul-winning. Christ's love tells us to get rid of the agenda talk, self-motivation and political battling and begin the path to selflessness. That includes everyone "Saints Need Not Apply"
Hi, Lynn. I must disagree with you that "the church" (Adventist or otherwise) is at fault for having an "us versus them" mentality. After all, the Bible teaches us that this is simply the way it is and clearly illustrates two fundamentally opposed factions: the righteous and the unrighteous, the narrow path and the wide path, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the chaff, good and evil. Christ Himself tells us that families will be divided as some members choose to ally themselves with Him while other members choose to ally themselves with Satan: "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” Luke 12:51-53 Christ came to reconcile those who love God to Him, and to begin the countdown to the end of Earth's history by dividing/separating the lovers of God from those who hate Him.
Furthermore, Christians are warned to guard ourselves against bad company and unsound counsel lest we ourselves fall prey to unrighteous behaviors and beliefs. There is clearly a line drawn in the sand by our God that we Christians aren't to cross. Does that mean we're not to love the guy standing on the other side of the line? No. But neither does it mean that we should so closely associate with him that our thoughts and behaviors are influenced by his unrighteousness. And while we should be watchful for and cautious about deeply involving ourselves with unrighteous individuals, we must not judge them, for that alone is God's domain. Still, we must use common sense and sound judgement when it comes to dealing with someone who stands on the side of unrighteousness.
The day is quickly approaching, Lynn, wherein the division Christ speaks of in Luke must clearly manifest itself. In the end we will stand on one side of the divide (with Christ and salvation) or on the other (with Satan and destruction). Soon there will be no middle ground remaining and no more fence-sitting allowed. To me, then, it's best to figure out now which side I'm on and to be careful about the people and things I allow to influence me. And so I heed Him Who speaks with authority: “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:14-16 Amen!
This is the Legal Result of placing the denomination into the hands of Babylon/Governments of the world. It first stated in the United states on January 18, 1886 in Battlecreek Michigan. They sent Ellen White to Europe to get her out of the way. On January 06, 1950 the GC joined the Internue Revenue Services Dept. of The U.S. Treasury. In other words by getting the governments tax exempt that joined the IMAGE OF THE BEAST! Revelation 13:15 the law the Government Passes gives it a mouth to speak! Here are your new commandment for those who stay in the GCSDA Corporation:
Please go to http://www.eeoc.gov. look for TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION, and there you will have your new commandments. The gays and homosexuals are covered under GENETIC INFORMATION.
The unbiblical females in pastorial positions are covered under SEX. All member of the GCSDA Corporation it is far past time to succeed from the sins of the GC. Pastor Will P.S. This is exactly why I do not have a government tax exempt for my ministry.
Gabriel,
As we watch and see the pillars of the SDA organization being slowly removed we know what will happen. Some seem to be looking forward to it. Prophecy predicts there will be problems that cause the church to nearly fall. We are not told what they will be.
This issue has split many organizations.What surprises me is our USA government seems to strongly support this issue as those who claim to be "gay" are welcomed with open arms.I'm not sure why this is? Perhaps it's a way to slow down population growth so it's encouraged.
Sin must be called by it's right name. All can and should be allowed to worship freely the God who created us. I do not however think we should put them in leadership positions. As some have said here they have put some in leadership positions who do not flaunt their way of life. I'm still thinking about that. Seems to me those placed in leadership should be living as close to Biblical standards as humanly possible.
Many are watching to see how this all plays out.
The alternative sex members in our congregations are each of us. i see that 50 years from now this will not be as hot an issue as now, as the prejudices will be far less than currently. We have been living with homosexuals in our congregations always, and perhaps by most, being unaware. i know by experience, in a church of over 1200 members, the Elders knew of a few that were homosexual. More than one, very good adult SS teachers. We had no noted problems at any time, over the years i was in attendence. i seriously doubt there would ever be embarrasing open expressive sexual actions observed by each of us, of alternative sex orientations. Only those who look for it, and imagine it is happening.Those going to church to participate in worship of God aren't about flaunting their sexual orientations; If one did that would be grounds for disfellowship. The Elders could handle it. We have always had "in the closet", practicing homosexuals, that were and are our Pastors, Elders, Deacons, and Laypeople. Have you been abused by one?? Every sin is registered in our congregations, of which each of us is a participating contributor.
You don't advertise your sins openly. Neither will homosexuals. So accept the reality, that religious houses of worship are for worshipping our God in "spirit", and TRUTH.
It has often been noted that some "solutions" to certain social or even theological problems which are so important to one generation of individuals will occur only when the members of that generations die off. Deep seated hostility to ethnic groups, and, in this case, types of sexual practices are the types of problems whose "solution" is in extinction of the generational cohort individuals holding the hostile views. My grandchildren view the debate over homosexuality as a hangup of a generation of individuals who just don't "get it." The quicker we die off the quicker the problem will be solved.
Why should we have to die off before anyone learns how to minister redemption in ways reaching outside the conceptual box we use to define "evangelism?" Isn't God willing and able to teach us those ways today if we are only willing to let Him teach us? Stepping outside my "spiritual boxes" has been giving me adventures in ministry the likes of which I could never have dreamed!
My best male friend, Jon, was gay. And he wasn't one of those flamboyant, flag-waving, bed-hopping, I'm queer and I'm here and I'm in your face type gays. Rather, he was reserved to the point of being shy, was monogamous with his partner of ten-plus years, and struggled painfully and daily to reconcile his sexuality with his love for God. Yet he was a pariah in his Dutch reformed community, and the church Jon literally grew up in turned its back on him when he "came out" as an adult. He wrestled constantly with what his church had taught him to believe: that despite the fact that he was sincerely a decent human being, his inborn sexual orientation rendered him beyond salvation. Finally, after decades of internal turmoil and angst over being born "damned", he hung himself.
That was six years ago, and to this day I desperately miss Jon and feel the deep ache of having lost my best friend in such a tragic (and preventable!) way. He was a selfless and loyal friend, and when he died this world lost somebody very special. The church that had turned its back on him recognized its error too late, and during Jon's funeral service, the church's pastor admitted that they should have treated Jon with love and compassion, rather than with condemnation and thinly veiled hostility. Had they instead demonstrated God's unconditional love and extended Christ's grace to Jon, perhaps his suicide might have been averted.
Prior to having met Jon, as a college freshman I met two gay men who were partners and as sophomores shared a dorm room together. They were intelligent, cultured and talented (one was a master pianist, the other an incredible violinist from North Korea), and we spent countless hours discussing the things about which idealistic college kids think. It is no wonder, then, that between loving my gay college friends and my gay best friend I adopted an opinion that sin had altered them on a cellular level, and therefore God understood their "condition" and permitted same-sex partnerships until the time when He creates a new earth and restores all creation to its former glory. After all, it was God Himself Who recognized that Adam needed a life partner ("It is not good for man to be alone…") and created Eve for Adam. Each of us (with the exception of the rare few who are geared toward singleness) is born with the divinely created need to love and be loved intimately and physically by a significant other. How cruel it would be of Him, then, to allow someone to be born gay, but then say, "You cannot enjoy an intimate physical relationship, regardless of the fact that I created you to love and be loved by a significant other, because same-sex sexual relationships are an abomination."
But the unadulterated truth, no matter how cruel or unfair it may seem, is that same-sex relationships are indeed considered abominable by God (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) if we are to believe that everything written in the Bible was inspired by Him (which I believe it was). And because God is unchanging, what was wrong at the time those words were penned remains just as wrong today. So after twenty-plus years of vehemently defending same-sex partnerships and religiously "justifying" such partnerships based upon my own opinions, experiences and emotions, the Spirit convicted me otherwise: physical homosexual relationships are not condoned by God, and in fact are so at odds with His divine design that He identifies such relationships as "abominable". So what is a Christian, Adventist or otherwise, to do when it comes to "dealing with" Christian homosexuals? (Note: I am discussing in particular Christian homosexuals, because in my experience, non-Christian homosexuals don't share the same struggle simply because they don't believe that their sexual orientations or lifestyles are wrong. And in today's cultural climate wherein almost anything goes, homosexuals don't face the open hostility they did thirty years ago. The issue now is not whether or not it's OK to be gay; rather, it's OK to be gay so let's discuss gay rights.)
When it comes to the Christian homosexual, we must first follow Christ's example and practice love. No matter how uncomfortable we feel with what goes on in their bedrooms, it is the Christian's responsibility to embrace homosexuals. Second, we are to take God at His word and not try to "justify" an actively homosexual lifestyle because it seems cruel or unfair to deny them an intimate physical partnership. Living an actively homosexual lifestyle is wrong simply because God said so. Period. Third, we need to recognize that, despite their sexual orientation, they are just like us: sinners in desperate need of Christ's grace and God's forgiveness.
And perhaps the most meaningful thing we can do is to empathize with their particular struggle, because it goes deeper than mere choices or behaviors: it is how they were born and is a defining aspect of their identity. A gay individual can no more "learn" how to be a heterosexual than I can "learn" how to be a man. Furthermore, homosexuals are created with the divine need to love and be loved, just as you and I are created with the same need. Imagine someone telling you that you can't be with your husband or wife because it's sinful and wrong! I crave my husband's companionship and friendship, and our husband-wife bond is reaffirmed and further solidified every time we make love, even after almost seventeen years of marriage. I can't fathom a life with him wherein our sexual relationship would be disallowed. For gays, choosing not to have a significant other is not as simple as choosing not to eat unclean foods or to not consume alcoholic beverages. And it's not as simple as saying to them, "You can have a significant other and do everything heterosexual couples do together – go on trips, buy a home, go to the movies, raise a dog, etc. – but you may not engage in a sexual relationship with one another." Rather, it is an acutely painful struggle that is embedded in the very root of their identities. If we heterosexual Christians can imagine that the shoe is on the other foot – that is, that our sexual partnerships, no matter how fulfilling, satisfying and solidifying they may be are nonetheless "abominable" to the Lord – we can feel empathy for the Christian homosexual's struggle.
Having said all that: should a gay Christian be granted church membership, or be allowed to hold a church office? My gut response is no. But then, if a gay individual is sincerely trying to overcome his or her sinful nature, how is he or she different from any other sinner in the church? It's a tough and contentious issue, and I'm glad I'm not responsible to create "guidelines" for how to address the issue of "alternate sexualities". I am in the position, instead, to love and to empathize with the Christian homosexual, and that's precisely what I will continue doing.
Heather,
Thank you for sharing your experience. I am thankful to see that you have learned the common nature of sin and the need for us to share God's love, which is offered to redeem all sinners. Our challenge is to teach others in the church to share the love we have learned is so absolutely essential.
Constance, should not our associations be with the same types as Christ our role model associated with?? "Go out unto the highways, and the byways and invite them in". With your life experience with Jon, recognizing his painful experience as a "hard wired" creature toward an alternative sexual lifestyle, in which the seeming alternatives of which we are one type (or more), to be a contradiction of his faith in Christ, in which our lives also are not in oneness with Christ, caused Jon such painhe was unable to live with it. Why would you project that Jon and other homosexuals sins, are beyond the pale, compared to any other death demand sin??Why is the homosexuals sin a worse sinful condition compared to my sin and yours?? We all merit the death penalty!!!!; Yet we all are saved in Jesus Christ and the shedding of His Holy Blood, for "ALL SINNERS". "For all have sinned and fallen short of GOD'S GLORY. Why should not "Any SINNER" be allowed open membership, and association in God's house, with no restrictions as are all other sinners??
The document apparently tries to accomplish two things:
1. To give guidelines in regards to legal issues around homosexuality in different cultural / legal contexts. Here it primarily argues from a religious liberty perspective and demonstrates a certain balance and cohesiveness.
2. It offers guidelines for church internal dealings with the same subject matters. Here the spirit of religious liberty abruptly ends. Personal conscience no longer counts, the very language used becomes quite threatening. This is unfortunate, especially as the real problems within the SDA church in regards to sexuality are not homosexuality or polygamy, but issues that are not addressed at all: sexual violence, pornography, marital faithfulness… you name it. Take these guidelines serious, and we wouldn't just lose the 0.7% of homosexuals in the church (that probably can be integrated if we learned the compassion of Christ), but vast portions of our church, leaving a fairly small remnant of sexually pure members who nevertheless would be preoccupied with sex, just to keep on track. Such an approach does not appear to be helpful guidance at all – even if the Biblical premises were accepted.
What this tells me is that government legislation that supports such sinful practices is been allowed to dictate to the church and force a redefinition of biblically based theological positions to shift even to the extent that terms like 'alternative sexuality' is accepted and used as a virtuous norm. This is outrageous and unbiblical. Will those who claim to be sexually attracted to children also be included in the 'alternative sexuality' category? They may also claim they are born this way. Since when has such abomination be reclassified as 'alternative sexuality'? Answer: since the church has bowed down to political powers who speak through their legislature.
A question for those involved: Is 'alternative sexuality' sin?
Hi, Trevor. To answer your question "Is 'alternative sexuality' sin?" Following is my opinion on the matter:
No. In and of itself, "alternative sexuality" is not a sin. It is not the orientation of the person that is sinful, but rather the thoughts and actions of that person as they pursue a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible. It's akin to asking, "Is being human sinful?" No. Rather, it's the mischief we humans get up to (lying, stealing, coveting, philandering, extorting, etc.) that makes us sinful.
Earl: Apparently you misunderstood my post : I agree that we are ALL sinners, Christians and non-Christians alike; that it is the Christian imperative to love everyone, including non-Christians and non-Christian homosexuals; that we should treat Christian homosexuals with empathy because theirs is a uniquely difficult struggle. However, we must be careful to condone something as acceptable that the Bible teaches is unacceptable – in this case, practicing an actively gay lifestyle. Should a practicing homosexual be allowed to partake in communion, and sit in our pews, and attend Bible studies and seminars? Absolutely. But if they are not tring to actively overcome their sinful behaviors, then they should not be allowed into church membership or hold an office or leadership position. Would you want someone who is a flagrant adulterer or adulteress to act as your church's marriage counselor when they can't speak to maintaining a godly relationship with one's spouse or believe in the sanctity of the marriage covenant? Would you want a known pedophile teaching Sabbath School? Would you want an embezzler voted in as the church treasurer? How can we protect the righteousness of ourselves and our churches if we allow people who are not trying to overcome their sinfulness into positions of authority? Moreover, how can we claim to be Christians if we don't adhere to a higher moral calling as demonstrated by Jesus Christ?
"should not our associations be with the same types as Christ our role model associated with?" OK
Should not our words be the same as Christ out role model also?……niether do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:11
Constance, not certain i misunderstood your message as you've repeated the portion i have difficulty with. Namely the following: Firstly i believe a practicing homosexual is drawn to church by the Holy Spirit, and recognizes his sexual lifestyle is sinful. Homosexuals aren't looking for the membership to condone their sin. They are fighting a daily battle just as every other sinner is, to overcome a losing battle. The homosexual's sin is more noticeable than most every other sin, so they are targeted for special treatment. As a man thinketh so he is. A persons thought patterns can be sinful, whether consumated or not. Why do most of society male & female have sexual intercourse? Certainly not just to have children. Its because it is the strongest hard wired mental drive occupation of mans thinking. Mankind is incapable of not pursuing this most thrilling and soul satisfying act. God made us this way. He could have made only the male sex drive to be pleasurable so to be able to deliver the seed, and for the female to have no pleasure at all, and to be fertile only once or twice a year, but he didn't. Now to answer your questions:
Can we have active homosexuals sit in "OUR PEWS", have communion with us,wash our feet, teach in our Sab Sch etc?? YES, they are here already, and worshipping , in our midst, in most every church on Earth, every Sabbath a.m. A few of the church family may suspect, but rarely know for sure. The ones drawn by the Holy Spirit are not going to flaunt their sexual orientation, in your face as some of the rainbow crowd fed up with the hypocrisy of "straights". They don't now. With approx 10%-15% of the population considered to be LGBT, isn't it obvious some of these are in every church fellowship, but they are generally not even noticed for their sexual preferance, and you are not condoning THEIR sin and they aren't condoning YOUR sin. Homosexual and heterosexual Christians aregiven the same prerequisites for acceptance by our Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation by grace through FAITH in our Saviour. Nothing extra needed by the alternative sexes We must not be fearful we can be contaminated by those with differances in lifestyle. We already have all types sitting "IN OUR PEWS". PREACHING IN OUR PULPITS, READING THE SCRIPTURE, AND PRAYING FOR THE CONGREGATION. Sitting on our nominating committees, and named to the executive and constituency committees, perhaps even in the conference, union andGC corridors. You have Elders in your churches who generally know who is and who isn't liable to be a backslider, and become a problem, but in two terms as head elder of a 1200 member church, we never had a single incident with our homosexual members.
All4HIM, your suspicion that homosexuals, are a risk to the church family and their children, in sinful acts, is no greater than one of the members arriving with a Glock, a sword, a hand grenade, or a machine gun, and start shooting.
Hi, Earl. Allow me to clarify something before I begin my response to you: my name is Heather, not Constance. My last name is Constable, which is likely where you're getting "Constance" from.
At any rate, I don't understand why we're chasing our tails in these last couple posts. I said that homosexual Christians face a uniquely difficult challenge because they are created by God to desire what almost everyone desires – that is, an intimate physical relationship with a significant other. No, their sin is no different and no greater than my sin or your sin, but I believe their struggle is greater because of the very nature of what they are trying to "overcome" – that is, their divinely created need to give love to and receive love from a life partner/mate/lover. I also said that Christian homosexuals (those who are repentant and trying to "overcome") should be allowed to partake and participate in any church goings on, and should likewise be allowed to serve. It is the homosexual who is NOT trying to "overcome" and who is not repentant that should not be granted church membership or be allowed to hold a church office, and there ARE these types of individuals in our ranks. However, they should still be welcome at Sabbath School, service, Bible studies, seminars, etc.
Like you, I am extremely empathetic to the Christian homosexual's struggle and believe that they are just as welcome in Christ's arms as I am. They are just as worthy of grace, forgiveness and salvation as any other repentant sinner. Earl, I'm almost positive we're on the same page, so why are we going in circles? What, specifically, do you take issue with in what I've written in my posts thus far?
So many write of "God's ideal" and expect that humans should live by that, despite sin that entered the world with his ideal people. They were unable to live perfect lives, and Christ said that the ideal was not reached because "of the hardness of man's heart."
No one expects that everything in our world today to be the "ideal" when they do not know or have never seen it in reality, only in their imaginations. We only know our world today as it IS, not as we might wish it to be. There is divorce, and while permitted, polygamy, not allowed today, was widely practiced and God never gave one condemning word. Why not? Do we know?
Should that not be an example of how we today should be able to live with the less than idealist utopoia which cannot be known? There are anomalies from birth, there is sickness, fatal diseases killing millions more since most of history, and those were certainly not God's ideal. Yet we expect that while mankind cannot live without the affects of sin, we somehow expect others to do so. "They" should not be sinning, but my sins are different and I am not free of sins—yet.
Judge yourselves, but no others. Let God be the final judge and those you turn away today may be the ones who God accepts but rejects you for the hardness of your heart in judging others.
'No one expects that everything in our world today to be the "ideal" when they do not know or have never seen it in reality, only in their imaginations.'
I was thinking on this the other day. The ideal was for one man married for life to one woman. But you had Eunuchs, who could never live up to that ideal. They couldn't 'repent'; they couldn't be 'cured.'
The OT punishment for that 'sinful condition' (in the sense of a condition borne out of a sinful world) was exclusion from the assembly of the people, as it requires in Deut 23:1:
'No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.'
And so in Jesus' day, Eunuchs, like Gentiles, were excluded from entering the Temple. But Christianity turned that idea on its head. As Isaiah prophesied, the Eunuch would one day be allowed in the Temple!
And it was this newfound hope that the Eithiopian Eunuch, who was reading Isaiah, stumbled upon. And it was Philip who explained that the new Temple is Christ and the Christianity community of believers.
So whilst there is an 'ideal', Christianity is a faith that says sinners are allowed into the Temple, which is the Christian community, whilst they are still sinners. And that includes people with born 'sinful conditions', like being a Eunuch, which cannot be 'cured'.
Finally, if we apply all this to those made Eunuchs, what of those who Jesus mentioned of being born Eunuchs (which is to say homosexuals)? How do homosexuals find their place in the Temple, and why do we expect them to be 'cured' for not living up to an 'ideal' that is impossible for them to live up to?
Hi, Elaine. You wrote "No one expects that everything in our world today to be the "ideal" when they do not know or have never seen it in reality, only in their imaginations. We only know our world today as it IS, not as we might wish it to be. There is divorce, and while permitted, polygamy, not allowed today, was widely practiced and God never gave one condemning word. Why not? Do we know?"
While I agree that the introduction of sin into God's paradise has incalculably altered and degraded His creations over the intervening millennia, I disagree that we can only "imagine" God's ideal. I know from previous exchanges with you that you're not a big believer in the validity and application of Old Testament teachings, but only read the creation account in Genesis and you get a clear understanding of God's ideal. In addition to creating birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates, and flowers and trees and grain-producing plants, God created man. This is our first glimpse of God's ideal – a vibrant paradise filled with natural wonders, over which Adam was given dominion.
But Adam looked around and saw each creature with its mate, and despite all the amazing things that surrounded him, and despite that he had God all to himself in this wondrous paradise called Eden, Adam felt loneliness. And so God, in His infinite wisdom, reasoned, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." Genesis 2:18 (ESV).
Here is our second glimpse of God's ideal – a partner/mate "fit" for Adam. And who did God make that was "fit" for Adam? Eve, his female counterpart. Notice that God didn't create a male helpmate for Adam, nor did He create several female helpmates for Adam. Reading the Genesis account of creation, we clearly see that God's ideal is a monogamous male-female union.
Because God is perfect and unchanging, His ideals likewise are unchanging. The human partnership described in Genesis remains God's ideal to this day. It is not God who changed, but rather His creations that changed due to the introduction of sin and its compounding effects over the centuries. God, of course, understands the tremendous and heavy "sin burden" under which mankind suffers, which is why Christ swapped divinity for a human form – so that He could not only relate to our struggles by "walking a mile in [our] shoes", but also give the final and ultimate atoning sacrifice for mankind's collective sins.
We can furthermore know God's ideals by careful study of His Word. Students of the Bible (notice I said students, not casual readers!) can ascertain not only more ambiguous ideals (i,e., why He destroyed certain ancient human communities due to their utter violation of His ideals), but forthright ideals as revealed in Scripture: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." Isaiah 11:5-7 (ESV). God's ideal is clearly revealed here – no predator/prey struggles, no consumption of flesh among God's creatures, peaceful coexistence between heretofore enemies, and a young child leading such fearsome beasts as wolves and lions! Wow!
But there's more! "'The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord." Isaiah 65:25 (ESV), and "'The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.'" Isaiah 11:7-9 (ESV). And finally, "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.'" Revelation 21:3-5 (ESV). Here we see the fullness of God's ideal. Having been completely cleansed of sin, God can can once again dwell among His children! There will be no more death or sadness or weeping! There will be marriage relationships and children born of those relationships! Infants and toddlers will play beside the nests of incredibly venomous snakes in complete safety! Nothing will "hurt or destroy" anything else ever again after Christ's return and God's justifying triumph over Satan, at which point God's ideals will be reinstated.
To me, those are pretty vivid pictures of God's ideals, with no imagining necessary! Humankind reconciled to God! Beautiful, spectacular and unspoiled nature! Harmonious human relationships and harmonious animal relationships, and harmony between man and animals! No more death or disease or suffering; no more pain or fears or tears! These are the ideals according to God, and someday soon those among us who love Him will get to experience it as we commune with our Lord and Savior! WOW! I can hardly wait!
But…for now I return to the here-and-now to address one final thing. Elaine, you said that "polygamy…was widely practiced and God never gave one condemning word." Yes, polygamy was an ancient custom (and in some communities, such as among some fundamentalist Mormons, is practiced still). But just because it wasn't recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that God didn't condemn it! Humans were no more likely to obey God back then than they are today. So don't assume that just because polygamy was practiced among God's people that it was OK with God – it wasn't, or He would have made that the model of marriage from the getgo and in addition to Eve, He would have created Evelyn, Eva and Evana for Adam. Not everything was recorded in the Bible, but if we are prayerful, faithful students of Scripture, the Spirit will unerringly lead us to the truth even if it is not readily apparent.
Thank you, God, for allowing us to see Your ideals as revealed to us by Your holy Word! Thank you, Jesus, for Your wonderous creations that we enjoy today, but will delight in even more when You restore them to what they were before sin marred everything Your divine hand created. Thank you, Father, for loving us so much that You gave us the gift of free will, and for having a backup plan to reconcile us to You should we choose to disobey you, and in so doing, invite disastrous consequences into our lives. Thank you, Jesus, for Your example of obedience as You trusted Yourself to Your Father, dying on the cross to be the final atoning sacrifice for our sins. Thank you, Father, for rewarding Your Son's obedience by raising Him from the dead to be the living Christ, the Redeemer through Whom we are reconciled to You. And thank you, Jesus, for giving us a Foundation upon which to build our faith, so that we have hope that those who die in You will likewise be raised through our Heavenly Father's power to eternal life with You. Thank you for loving us so much, God, and for inexplicably finding us worthy of Your infinite love, mercy and tender care. That we are beloved by the God of the universe is too wondrous to put into words! Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, in your Precious Name, amen.
Heather, please pardon my mistaking your name. Senior fallibility i suppose. i've always loved the name Constance,from an early age(The Three Musketeers/Dumas). Yes, the perfect circle, the geometric symbol of "inclusiveness", for all in Christ. We agree.
Stephen, Deut. wowee, Praise God for the New Covenant.
Hi, Earl. No harm done. And please don't chalk up you mistake to "senior fallibility", because you are only one of many who have called me "Constance"! LOL I'll leave a message for someone saying who I am, and they'll call back asking for Constance; the bank will call and ask for Constance; back when I was working, business associates would call and ask for Constance! It almost makes a girl want to take back her maiden name! ;o)
Since there are none who live by the "ideal" we should learn to accept people where they are and stop demanding that they reach the ideal here on a sinful world. Christ gave the right answer: "It was for the hardness of you heart that divorce was allowed, but it was the ideal." So we should have a high goal for OURSELVES but be as lenient with others as we are with ourselves when we are far from the ideal. Christ alone is the ideal man; but we are not Christ, and should not expect to be sinless as he was when we are humans, and not born of a virgin.
The ideal sexual-marital situation is actually celibacy. And yet in Matt 19 Jesus admitted no everyone could embrace that ideal.
If I was made prophet and king of the SDA Church for a day, I would try to create a Church that was:
That is what I see in the example of Jesus, the Apostles and Paul. It might suprise many, but the NT repeatedly affirms there is indeed double-standards. Much is expected of Church leaders who demand much. Much less is demanded of the average attendee, where Jesus fellowshipped with notorious sinners.
Steve,
You wrote: "The ideal sexual-marital situation is actually celibacy."
I understand where you're coming from but am not willing to take it quite as far as your statement seemed to imply. In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul says that "it is good for a man not to marry." I think we need to be careful with how far we run with the word "good" because it carries the meaning of "acceptable" instead of honorable to something to necessarily be esteemed. Though Paul goes on to say "…each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him." (1 Cor. 7:16) In that chapter, Paul frames his discussion about whether or not to marry based on the gifts of the Holy Spirit that are in a person and, if someone is gifted as he was to devote himself completely to spreading the Gospel, then they should remain single and dedicated to their purpose according to that gift.
So I'm going to disagree with describing celibacy as God's ideal for man when not all are gifted to be celibate. Doing so is like the illustration Paul gives us of the Gifts of the Spirit being like the parts of a body, all fitted together and working in harmony. "The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"" (1 Cor 12:21). Our ideal should not be to have a particular gift (even though Paul's wish was that everyone could prophesy) but that we know our gifts and use them to advance the Kingdom of God.
Yep yep!
So I much agree with you here Elaine.
As the "Ideal" is unatainable by mankind, was the bar raised too high by our Creator?? First man is told to be fruitful and multiply. Hard wired to their fruitfulness and fertility. Then, Celibacy is the ideal?? If so no one would be here in the 21st century. Seems contradictive??
Steve…um…say what?! "The ideal sexual-marital situation is actually celibacy. And yet in Matt 19 Jesus admitted no everyone could embrace that ideal."
I have to strongly disagree with you here. In the first part of Matthew 19, Jesus is teaching on the topic of divorce. This is in response to the Pharisees challenging Him over Moses' supposed breaking of God's commandment, in that Moses "permitted" divorce despite God having said that nothing should separate two individuals that He had joined in marriage. Jesus answered that in the beginning it was never intended that a couple should dissolve their marriage covenant, but because man's heart has been "hardened" by sin, Moses allowed divorce when sexual unfaithfulness had occurred. Therefore, Jesus said, divorce was only "acceptable" in the case of adultery. However, should a man divorce his wife for any other reason than adultery and marry another woman, he himself would be guilty of committing adultery.
Jesus' disciples at this point question Him, saying that if a man's heart can be "hardened" against his wife, or that a wife would seek a sexual partner outside her marriage covenant, then maybe it's best not to marry at all and risk such potential outcomes. But Jesus disagrees that celibacy is the solution to the conundrum, and in fact says that the desire to live a celibate lifestyle is "given" to just a handful of people, and that only a handful of people, therefore, will receive the "message" to live such a lifestyle. Here is the Scripture we're discussing:
"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered,“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." Matthew 19:3-12
If anything, Jesus' teaching supports the fact that we are created as individual sexual beings ("Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…), and that when the time came to be married, they would consummate their partnership and become one ("'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'" So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.") And here is the divine mystery and miracle of the marital sexual relationship, if you have been joined by God – the transformation from two individuals into "one flesh" that has been physically, spiritually and irreversibly joined by the Creator.
Even Paul, who you identify as having met the so-called celibacy ideal, in a response letter he wrote specifically to the church in Corinth (that is, he was not broadly speaking) said, "'Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” (Note that this first line was written by the church in Corinth in a letter to Paul, but was not said by Paul! Paul is merely responding to Corinth's assertion that they should not be having sex.) But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
Essentially, the Corinthians are in a hot debate over whether it's best to remain single and devote oneself fully to the work of sharing the Gospel, or if they should continue marrying as they had done prior to becoming Christians (remember, the Apostles, Paul and other early Christians expected Christ to return within their own lifetimes. So they were preoccupied by thoughts of self-conduct respective of Kingdom work: do we marry or not marry? Should we who are married have sex or not have sex? Do we have children or not have children? So Paul is speaking specifically to Corinth's particular concerns over the topic of marriage, in response to their letter to him asking for his advice).
But Paul, being Paul (that is, with his single-minded pursuit of teaching others about Christ and his unfaltering commitment to Kingdom work), added this final tidbit: "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 Oh, dear Paul! Ever the tortured soul; ever the man with a cause and singular purpose; ever a man on a mission! Here Paul wishes that everyone would abandon human preoccupations – in this case, marriage – and serve the Kingdom with single-minded determination, just as he does. Paul is voicing his own opinion rather than conveying a mandate from God ("Now as a concession, not a command, I say this…). Yet he acknowledges that not everyone is called by God to this lifestyle of utter self-denial; rather, each of us is given our own spiritual gift to use as we go about doing God's work here on earth.
The final thing I'll point to as "proof" that celibacy is not the ideal is, once again, the creation account in Genesis. God made Adam, and then made Eve for Adam. Male and female. Adam with sperm-producing testicles and a penis through which to deliver his seed, Eve with a vagina, ovaries and womb to receive Adam's seed, couple it with an egg, and safely house a new human life. And of all the weird things, He made this a pleasurable, endorphin-creating experience! Why did God create Adam and Eve this way? He could easily have made the entire human race from the dirt, just as He had made Adam. But no – in His wisdom, God created sexual human intimacy, that physical uniting of two that spiritually bonds husband to wife as one flesh. God never intended us to do permanent things (i.e., have sex) with temporary people ("flings"). Rather, He created the sexual relationship as a gift for humans, to be enjoyed within the boundaries of the permanent marriage covenant.
William: 'So I'm going to disagree with describing celibacy as God's ideal for man when not all are gifted to be celibate… Doing so is like the illustration Paul gives us of the Gifts of the Spirit being like the parts of a body, all fitted together and working in harmony.'
Heather: 'I have to strongly disagree with you here… Yet he acknowledges that not everyone is called by God to this lifestyle of utter self-denial; rather, each of us is given our own spiritual gift to use as we go about doing God's work here on earth.'
Wow, the reaction to my statement about celibacy is quite amazing. I wonder to what extent you are both conflating what I am saying, because I certainly have no huge problems with what you are saying.
At no point did I suggest marriage or sex was a sin. And I don't deny that God made marriage for humans in pre-Fall Eden. I am married myself. You are conflating the issues somewhat I believe.
The issue is Christians conflating the idea of a 'minimum standard', based on principles such as the Noahide-Alien principles of the Torah (see Acts 15:20 cross-referenced to Gem 9 and Lev 17-18) with the Edenic-Eschatological, which indeed is based on Jesus notion of 'in the beginning' per Matt 19:4 (which is to say something akin to Paul's natural Law of Romans 1 and 2).
To take the example of food, there is no sin in eating meat. I eat meat. There is still a minimal expected standard when eating meat, as made clear in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:20. But the SDA Church has long also promoted the ideal of vegetarianism (despite or in direct opposition to texts such as Rom 14:2, but that is another story) because of this Edenic-Eschatological ideal. Adam ate meat before the Fall, and in heaven we will be vegetarians (as the lion with lie down with the lamb, and in the eschatological prototype of Daniel and his friends). So the SDA Church has long recognised the distinction between different standards of behaviour when it comes to eating!
The problem, as I see it, is whilst we have nuance when it comes to eating, we seem to totally lack any such nuance when it comes to sex! And when you see Acts 15:20, sex was likewise something on the minds of the Apostles when imposing the 'minimal standard', as well as the mind of Jesus in prescribing the ideal as 'it was in the beginning.'
That is where I'll leave it in that aspect because I want that point to be made clear before I delved into what is or isn't the 'ideal' when it comes to sex.
Sorry typo, where it should be: 'Adam didn't eat meat before the Fall…'
Well, Steve, I am thoroughly confused! LOL You did indeed say that "The ideal sexual-marital situation is actually celibacy." When I think of what is "ideal", I think about that which is congruent with God's original plan. When it comes to sex, God's ideal is a monogamous male-female union. Likewise, when it comes to eating, God's ideal is a vegetarian diet (although I am a meat eat; it was that way in Eden, it will be that way when God reinstates His original creation on the new earth. It is true that none of us, as creatures flawed by sin, are capable of living up to all of God's ideals ("But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"). This is why we need Christ in the first place – to atone for us when we fail to live up to God's "standards" (when we lie, when we murder, when we commit adultery, etc.).
Notice in the above Scripture, though, that as Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ as our Redeemer, we all stand on equal ground ("For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…"). So these nuances of which you speak, and the double standards in Christianity that you allude to, don't exist in the eyes of God. There is a single, immutable standard that cannot be watered down or pemutated: God's standard. Any other standards are human fabrications (such as Catholics disallowing priests to marry) that just confuse matters. To get ourselves back on track, we need to look past the standards imposed by mankind (our political leaders, the Conferences, our church, etc.) and know what God expects of us. Of course we will fall short, but it is only God's measurement of us that matters.
So what does this mean for homosexuals, this divine and immutable sex standard? While it might seem unfair, it means that they should try to get as close to God's ideal for the sexual relationship. I believe that the majority of homosexuals are born that way, so to talk about a "cure" or "conversion" to heterosexuality is ludicrous (although admittedly not out of the question, for with God "all things are possible"). I believe the best they can do, then, is either to be single, or to enjoy life with a significant other while remaining celibate (I can't even imagine how incredibly difficult this last option would be! There are times when I watch my husband as he interacts with our son, and in those moments I find him to be undeniably sexy, and my libido experiences a noticeable uptick. And it's likely, then, that my husband is soon to get a little "sumpthin' sumpthin'"! I have no doubt that homosexual partners feel the same love and attraction for their partners, so for them to resist the divinely created sexy drive…like I said, I can't imagine it would be anything short of impossible). This is why I have tremendous empathy for the homosexual Christian's struggle.
Steve,
I don't think we're far enough apart to be worth disputing. God has gifted each of us to minister in particular ways so I want to respect, encourage and support your ministry according to God's design.
Heather: 'The final thing I'll point to as "proof" that celibacy is not the ideal is, once again, the creation account in Genesis.'
There is certainly a strong argument that monogamous marriage was the original pre-Fall Edenic ideal. However, consider the following:
So again my primary point is Christianity does promote 'double standards'. By that I mean there is a clear 'minimum', as the Apostles expected of Gentiles in Acts 15:20 according to Noahide-Alien principles, as compared with an 'ideal' based on Edenic-Eschatological principles.
The big problem with many Church groups is they fail to understand the nuance between the 'minimum' and the 'ideal'. Roman Catholics impose the 'ideal' of celibacy on all priests – clearly wrong for the reasons given by William. Some very conservative Adventists think vegetarianism should be mandated; not merely promoted. By contrast, some liberal Christians fail to see the ideal at all, and think one need go no further than just the minimum.
I'll make a final comment about Eunuchs next.
Hi, Stephen. To your first point I say this: scholars are generally more studied in a particular topic than others, but they are still fallible human beings. And it's funny to me that a "scholar" has concluded that God created a genderless humanoid. If there is one thing I have learned from my study of nature and animals it's that God is consistent in His creations. Like one might look at a painting and know it's a Dali because of his distinct style, one can look at things in nature and recognize that a single Artist has created it all. There's a pattern, a conscious and deliberate design. With the rare exception of an oddity that God throws in for kicks (such as an egg-laying, bill-sporting mammal), everything follows a pattern. My point is this: God made all mammals male and female: horses, kangaroos, elephants, mice – all are created according to the male-female pattern. Why would God suddenly deviate from His trademark style when he made man? God is a God of order and consistency, and I think the genderless humanoid dreamed up by so-called scholars is just silly. (Note: The Hebrew word for "man" is "adam", and literally means "dirt". "Man" in Hebrew does not speak to gender, but rather is the collective term for mankind, and the more accurate Bible translations use the word "mankind" instead of "of "man" in the creation account of the sixth day. And Adam is in fact formalized to become Adam's name – it is not a title.)
In response to your second point, I agree. God's original plan didn't include death, so one man and one woman, forever, is indeed the divine ideal. This is why my husband and I have committed to one another that we will not remarry should one of us die (in fact, we've committed to remain celibate should one of us die. The Biblical definition of marriage – that is, two fleshes becoming one – is defined by the sex act. This is why a man who divorces his wife for any other reason than sexual infidelity and has sex with another woman commits adultery. He is literally "marrying himself" to another when his original marriage is still in effect in the eyes of God. So that my husband and I don't marry another by having sex should one of us die, we have not only committed not to remarry, but moreover have committed celibacy to one another). We want to be together forever, not just during this brief earthly walk. And so we have literally committed forever to each other.
Regarding your third point: God the Father and God the Son do not have different agendas. Jesus was with God in the beginning, and is in fact the Creator ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:1-3 But how do we know that Christ is the Word? "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14). Neither God the Father nor God the Son is unchanging. What was ideal during the original creation event, then, will be the ideal when the new earth is created – including the marriage relationship.
You referred to this text when saying that there will be no marriage in Heaven. "The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching."
Nowhere does Jesus say that there will be no marriage in Heaven. Rather, the above a Scripture is an account of Christ rebuking the Sadducees – they didn't even believe in the resurrection, but there they were trying to trap Jesus by questioning the goings-on during an event (the resurrection) that they didn't even believe in. And Jesus essentially responded, "The dead are being resurrected to eternal life, and the living are being reunited with their resurrected loved ones! This resurrection thing is a big deal – a demonstration of my Father's power and the justification of those who died hoping in Me! Is is the fulfillment of prophesy and the culmination of Earth's history! God will be justified in the eyes of all, and at long last will be vindicated! Do you really think We're going to stop the party to discuss which wife is whose, or to match-make? You silly Sadducees! Everyone's going to be praising and rejoicing and singing and glorifying God, just like the angels! Nobody's going to be thinking about marriage during the resurrection. There will be time to work that out later, but the resurrection is a time to PAR-TAY!" But Christ never says or even hints that there will not be marriage in Heaven. He is speaking strictly of the resurrection in the above verses.
To your fourth point: I really don't "get" how you're reading that Christ is teaching celibacy as the ideal in Matthew 19:12, which reads, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” Before I begin, though, a little history: In Jesus' time, a eunuch didn't have to strictly mean a castrated male. A eunuch could be an impotent male, or a male who is disinterested in getting married (i.e., an eternal bachelor, of whom I have known two), or even a man who sexually functions perfectly well, but who eschews marriage and sex to be able to focus solely on his "calling" (such as a monk. Paul, too, falls into this category of eunuchs. He was not a physical eunuch, but a spiritual one). So I understand this verse to simply say, "There are different kinds of eunuchs, some born that way and some who have been castrated. But if you feel 'called' to be a spiritual eunuch, and you feel that this calling is acceptable to you, and you feel able to commit to the calling – then accept the calling and be a spiritual eunuch (such as Paul did. He never married, and he gave himself completely over to evangelizing and teaching for the sake of his Lord. And after such a powerful and profound encounter as Paul had on the road to Damascus, and after his conversion from "every Christian's enemy number one" to not only becoming a Christian himself, but to becoming perhaps the most dynamic character of the New Testament – well, I can certainly understand his overwhelming need to serve his Redeemer every waking moment and to teach far and wide the amazing news about Jesus Christ and His kingdom).
And to your final point that celibacy is God the Father's or God the Son's ideal? There is simply far too much Biblical evidence to the contrary to convince me that celibacy is not an ideal, and is not something to be "lived up to" unless you feel "called to" or have chosen the lifestyle Paul did.
Once again, I just don't see a double standard, at least not as created by God. Man might make a bunch of confusing and vague "standards' and expect others to live up to them, but not so with a God. Rather, He's a straight-forward kind of Fellow with no agenda to peddle. He only wants to be our God, and for us to be His people.
Heather: 'Nowhere does Jesus say that there will be no marriage in Heaven… There will be time to work that out later, but the resurrection is a time to PAR-TAY!" But Christ never says or even hints that there will not be marriage in Heaven. He is speaking strictly of the resurrection in the above verses.'
Heather, just an intellectual tangent here. But how can you say Jesus never said there will be no marriage in heaven? You quoted Jesus Himself in your piece:
'For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.'
At the Resurrection, it seems we become asexual beings, like the angels in heaven. How can you read it any differently? Jesus doesn't merely say, 'We'll sort it out later' as you suggest, He makes an emphatic statement.
Yes, Jesus was primarily addressing the Sadducees' disbelief in the Resurrection. But He also revealed spiritual insight at the same time, which you seem to discount as something other than a true statement.
And think logically, why would there need to be marriage in heaven? Humanity doesn't need to procreate, because there will be billions, if not trillions of us by then. And if there was marriage, that raises the very sort of questions the Sadducee's raised with Jesus about multiple wives and husbands!
Human beings were originally tied to planet earth – angels were tied to no one planet but were messangers sent across the universe – that is the impression I get. Adam was made of the dust of this planet, to emphasise the point. But in the resurrection, we humans will no longer be tied to this planet in the same way, but will have celestial bodies, just like the angels, as Jesus makes clear. We will be priests and kings across the universe.
Ellen White says something similar when she says humanity will effectively take the place of the fallen angels. We will almost be in effect another order of angels, which already consists of different cherubin, seraphim and others. The notion of marriage is a human thing linked to planet earth – that is how I see it anyways.
Heather: 'And to your final point that celibacy is God the Father's or God the Son's ideal? There is simply far too much Biblical evidence to the contrary to convince me that celibacy is not an ideal, and is not something to be "lived up to" unless you feel "called to" or have chosen the lifestyle Paul did.'
Heather you possibly have a different idea of what 'ideal' means, because I don't fundamentally disagree with you.
I entirely agree that celibacy is a spiritual gift, one that only a select few have. But you simply ignore scripture to suggest it isn't something God doesn't ideally want for a select few of 'elite', like Paul, for theological and practical reasons.
My whole point, which I am not sure you are getting, is that there are a range of 'ideals' that no all Christians have. Paul talks about how prophecy is superior to tongues, and wishes more had the gift of prophecy, and yet he admits not all will have this gift.
Vegetarianism is another ideal. In the OT, the oath of the Nazarite, which forbid drinking wine, cutting one's hair or touching a corpse, was another ideal.
During the middle ages there were some Puritans who believed going naked was the ideal, as it certainly pointed to the beginning before the Fall, just like vegetarianism. But again, not all of us can live up to that – whether because of dirty minds or a cold climate. And none of us has the clothing of light anymore, and we can't 'cure' that clothing defect either.
So again, not all Christians can live up to, or are given spiritual gifts of, these ideals. My point is Christianity is not so clear-cut in behaviour, but actually represents a nuanced spectrum of behaviour.
None of us is perfect, and contrary to popular myth, there are different standards of behaviour. Church leaders are held to a higher account of behvaiour than ordinary members or attendees. You see that clearly in the life and teachings of both Paul and Jesus.
The Christian Church should be 'wider', in being a place where prostitutes and drugies feel comfortable. After all, sinners loved hanging around Jesus, even though He had no sin.
And yet the Christian Church should be 'deeper', in being a place where our leaders should have a much higher standard of righteousness. And I don't just mean outward appearances like the Pharisees had. Jesus and Paul both make that point also.
Now I am not sure if we are fundamentally agreeing here or not?
Heather: 'God made Adam, and then made Eve for Adam. Male and female. Adam with sperm-producing testicles and a penis through which to deliver his seed, Eve with a vagina, ovaries and womb to receive Adam's seed, couple it with an egg, and safely house a new human life. And of all the weird things, He made this a pleasurable, endorphin-creating experience! Why did God create Adam and Eve this way?'
Yes Heather, but Eunuchs can never live up to the pre-Fall ideal of monogomous marriage. You can talk about Adam's semen, but Eunuchs don't have any because they don't have testicles!
So my concern is some silly notion that we can all be 'cured' and live up to some ideal standard. The fact is we can't. Eunuchs can't (or God usually won't) be healed. It is just the way things are, because we live in a broken world.
Judaism said Eunuchs were to be cut-off from the assembley (i.e. lit. the church). Christianity says, in fulfillment of OT prophecies, that Eunuchs are now allowed into the assembley. They can never be the 'husband of one wife', so maybe that means they can never be elders – who knows – because they can't live up to the ideal. But they can be fully accepted members.
So what about homosexuals. It seems they to might be the other Eunuchs Jesus was talking about. They can't be 'cured' any more than a man without testicles can father a child. How does the Christian community treat those Eunuchs?
"Of all possible sexual perversions, religion is the only one to have ever been scientifically systemized."
Louis Aragon
"I distrust those people who know so will what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony
"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life" Aristotle
Heather, any thoughts on why various mammals have differing social and mating styles? Especially those those most like humans (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, siamangs, gibbons, etc.)…. And why is one man one woman forever required of humans? And what of it if a couple breaks up and its members remarry? Why complicate that with some sort of perpetual guilt trip?
Hi, Joe. So we meet again…dunh, dunh, dunh….
Any thoughts on why various mammals have differing social and mating styles? Because, despite their many similarities, they are different after all. Take whales and humans. Bull whales court cows as men court women; made male and female, whales have sexual intercourse and produce offspring, as do humans. Cows go into labor and birth their offspring. They nurse their infants and protect and nurture their calves, as do human mothers birth, nurse and care for their offspring. And in whales, just as in humans (and as observed in every mammal species, in fact), is the play drive. But due to the many similarities, should a man and woman mate underwater just because that's how whales do it? Or should whales book a room at the Ramada Inn because that's where some humans do it? Of course not! God patterned mammals to be similar but not exactly alike. How uninteresting, under-challenging and uncreative would it be to have a multitude of paintbrushes at your disposal, and every type of paint imaginable in every hue under the sun, but paint the exact same picture time after time after time? The variances in God's creatures showcases His creativity and divine aesthetic. He's a creative genius! His "media" (blood, tissue, tendons, bone, organs, teeth, dermis, hair/fur) has a recognizable pattern from mammal to mammal, but not every creature looks, behaves or socializes exactly the same.
And why is one man one woman forever required of humans? Because that is God's design. I mean, what other answer can I give you? I can give you some logical reasons why God likely designed marriage that way, but I will miss a million reasons that an omniscient God can fathom. First, "broken families" are almost without exception complicated. I come from a broken family myself, and let me tell you, we are as dysfunctional as they come! Then there's the question of paternity if there is more than one man procreating with a single woman. Whose child is it? Whose heir? From which man should the child inherit? And the possible introduction of STD into the marital bed when one or the other partner strays into the bed of another. And the destructive consequences of adultery (do you remember the account of King David and Bathsheba and all the terrible fallout due to David's desire to bed a woman who was another man's wife?). And ultimately, things are simply not as close to the ideal when we stray from God's deigns and intentions. Because my parents strayed from the ideal by divorcing, I was raped by my stepfather and violently abused by my stepmother. I was not their offspring, after all. Where was the benefit to them in nurturing and protecting me?
There are, of course, cases in which a separation through divorce is better for the parties involved than staying together. Even so, divorce – even "justified" divorce – was never God's plan for us. It harms us and alters us in ways we do not even recognize. But due to sin, and due to humans treating the marriage covenant as a dissolvable contract, it's not uncommon in this day and age for people to marry four, five and six times. Nonetheless, this was never God's plan and is far from His design and ideal (if we are to believe the creation account, which I do).
As far as "complicating" a remarriage with a "perpetual guilt trip", I highly doubt that's God's intention, but rather a result of an individual's acknowledged sinfulness on some level. There are two types of guilt: human guilt (wherein we feel guilty over something we have done, even if we have asked for forgives and been granted it. For example, I still feel guilty for having a brief "virtual affair" because I know how deeply I hurt my husband. God has forgiven me and my husband has forgiven me, but I have not forgiven myself) and divine guilt (wherein the Spirit convicts an individual of his or her transgression against God). If either or both individuals in a remarriage feel "guilty', then they should do some soul-searching to ascertain the source of the guilt. Do they feel guilty because they hurt and damaged their previous spouse? Do they feel guilt because they know that it was wrong to get divorced? Do they feel guilt because they know they have disappointed God? The truth is that you will only feel guilty about something if YOU know you have done something wrong, or if the Spirit convicts you that you have acted in a disobedient manner. I could follow you everywhere for the next five years and lecture you that you have done something wrong. But the truth is that a feeling of guilt will only manifest if you yourself feel badly about something on some level (even subconsciously), or if the Spirit convicts you of the truth of my accusations and you feel divine guilt. As much as we might want to blame another for "making" us feel guilty, guilt is in fact an incredibly personal experience. That is, if you feel guilty about something, it's because you know you've done something wrong.
And that's my "two cents", which of course you may take or leave. But you asked, and so I responded. ;o)
Alternative sexuality and alternative sexual orientation is just code for perverted sexual appetite. Those churches allowing membership and leadership positions to homosexuals are condoning perverted sexual behaviour. It is rather disturbing to note how Adventist churches in cultural strongholds have allowed this non-Christian homosexual lifestyle into their congregations. Shows how many have progressed into darkness rather than light.
Trevor, let me respectfully suggest that you mind your own sexuality and bedroom behavior and stay out of the private lives of others. It is none of your business what I do, and none of my business what you do–with any consenting and competent adult.
Dr Erwin
What's your point?
Spoken from density.
Density ma'am? Well, density I can deal with. At least its not a perverted density.
"I distrust those people who know so will what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony
If only! Within the past year alone God has pulled several "whammies" on me by making me abandon long-held beliefs and asking me to put myself in a very awkward place.
Most notably, He reversed my belief (held for 20+) years! that it was "acceptable" for gays to live an actively homosexual lifestyle. Surely God would understand that He created in them a craving to give love to and recieve love from a life partner, and would overlook their homosexuality because they were born that way! …Not the case, said God. Elaine, I struggled and argued and searched for sonething that would allow me to maintin my "gay is OK" viewpoint, but time and again God proved His way out until at last, I had to concede and accept that as unfair as it seemed, God's way was the right way. When I am open to receiving God's counsel, He works on my life and brings me into better harmony with Him.
And jewelry wearing! Don't get me started! I was and remain convinced that it's OK to wear jewelry in moderation. "I'm not letting the church tell me I can't wear it!" I huffed to my husband. And got a while, I did. But then the Spirit started working on me. "See that person looking at your diamond ring instead of paying attention to the sermon?" and "What do you think that person is thinking about right now, as she looks at your rings?" What the Spirit taught and what I learned is that wearing jewelry is OK for me to do. But when it presents a stumbling block to someone else and prevents them from receiving the blessing of being in God's house on Sabbath and receiving the speaker's message, then I need to take it off. And so I do, not because it's wrong for me to wear jewelry and not because I necessarily want to remove it, but because God asked me to while I'm in a His house.
Oh, and then there's God's fight to get us to attend our current church! "Return to Bethel!" He told my husband and me after the first visit there. There was nothing at all wrong with Bethel. It's just that we wanted to be in a church wherein we could serve, and being the only whites at Bethel, what opportunity would there be for us to do so? "Go back to Bethel!" God asked us again. No! We have nothing against black people – in fact our son is biracial – but the culture is different and the things they do during service are different…it just feels awkward. And again, where is the opportunity to serve? "Please, I need you at Bethel," God asked us yet again. And so we returned, completely confused by God's insistence on the matter. And week after week, we noticed the adults being spiritually fed but the kids were languishing. There were zero committed Sabbath School teachers for them. There were no regular activities that included them or helped them grow spiritually. And finally we understood: God needed us to advocated for His young ones, and He needed us to teach Sabbath School, and He needed us to do something with and for them to lead them to Christ and salvation.
So now, we are Sabbath School teachers, and every other Friday night we have the youth over (ages 12 to 20) for dinner, vespers and fellowship together. We gave the kids a voice, and now they get to run their own Sabbath service the third Sabbath of every month. My husband has given sermons to light a fire under the behinds of parents who aren't taking their kids' salvation seriously and getting them to Sabbath School. We take them on outings, and we pick them up if they need to talk; Mike recently took two of the girls whose fathers aren't involved in their lives to a father-daughter banquet and concert hosted by a local radio station. I have paid a cell phone bill and bought weave so one of my girls could get her hair done for her first Valentine's dance, and sponsored one of the Pathfinder kids so he can go to the international jamboree in Oshkosh this summer. We do this all out of our own pockets, simply because God has asked us to take care of His kids. The reward? Our kids love us, confide in us and trust us. And how they have blossomed and revitalized Bethel! It's amazing! But what if we had remained stubborn and attended church elsewhere? What if we had done what we wanted instead of what God asked us to do?
And then there's the pull over pork! LOL I had studied the Levitical food laws and researched the New Testament Scripture that appears to say it's OK to eat anything. And while I ultimately knew that there are foods that are healthier than others to eat, I loved my pepperoni pizza and ham and egg bagel sandwiches and pork chops and pulled pork! My pastor tried to tell me I shouldn't eat unclean foods, and I had to be careful not to influence the kids by eating unclean foods in front of them, but still I wasn't convicted on the issue. Then, as I listened to the sermon one Sabbath, the pastor was saying how we can't just pick and choose those of God's rules that "work" for us, but rather that we should obey all of God's laws. And although the sermon had nothing to do with clean and unclean foods, at that precise moment the Spirit whispered, "It's not about what's clean and what isn't or what you can and can't eat – it's about obedience to the Lord." Ding! In that precise moment I understood and my heart was convicted on the food laws. Did I want to give up many of my favorite foods? Nope. And it's not a popular change with my six year-old son, who was a baconaholic. And despite my conviction, I am still tempted and crave, say, a pulled-pork sandwich. But then I remember the words of the Spirit: "It's about obedience". And so I resist.
So you see, it's been initially quite inconvenient or uncomfortable or challenging to follow God's leading, and indeed following Him did not at all coincide with my own desires in the above accounts! But in keeping my heart and mind open to the Spirit's leading, and by ultimately being willing to do anything God asks of me, I have been transformed from a self-serving human to a God-serving heir to the kingdom. I am of course an imperfect work in progress, but my Creator's fingerprints are evident everywhere in my life and will become more evident as time passes, simple because I love Him and He loves me.
You are fortunate that God is speaking directly to you regarding your behavior. But do not assume that he is also telling everyone what you are hearing.
Well, I certainly don't believe that God is going to tell me that somethong is right, then tell the next guy it's wrong. Not only would that make God a liar, but it would create chaos, and the Bible tells us that God is not a God of chaos. However, I do understand that God reveals truths to us each at different times or points in our lives. For example, I wasn't ready to receive the teaching about not eating unclean foods being a matter of obedience until very recently, whereas almost everyone around me had recieved that truth. Does that mean they were wrong when they counseled me about food laws? Absolutely not. It just means that they had a piece of truth that had not yet been revealed to me.
So no, God is not telling everyone what He's telling me at the same time He's telling me. This does not, however, mean that I should keep what He has revealed to me to myself. Today I might plant the seed, and tomorrow you may water it, and the next day it could sprout as truth into another's life. We are commanded to teach and witness (and teaching happens to be my spiritual gift), so I teach and I witness If someone isn't ready to receive a message the Spirit has pressed me to share, so be it. But in some way God is glorified, and after all isn't that the point? :o)
Heather: ' Likewise, when it comes to eating, God's ideal is a vegetarian diet (although I am a meat eat; it was that way in Eden, it will be that way when God reinstates His original creation on the new earth. It is true that none of us, as creatures flawed by sin, are capable of living up to all of God's ideals… I believe that the majority of homosexuals are born that way, so to talk about a "cure" or "conversion" to heterosexuality is ludicrous (although admittedly not out of the question, for with God "all things are possible"). I believe the best they can do, then, is either to be single, or to enjoy life with a significant other while remaining celibate (I can't even imagine how incredibly difficult this last option would be!.. This is why I have tremendous empathy for the homosexual Christian's struggle.'
Heather I feel the important point is lost in our discussion on celibacy. Reading the above, I would probably agree with everything in this extract here. The point is, eunuchs can't live up to the ideal of monogomous sexual immaticy (or at least many of them) because they physically can't.
I think we are both agreeing that the same sympathy we should show to a man born without testicles, or as a hermaphrodite, we should show to a homosexual. All are eunuchs of a type, born that way, and can't simply be 'cured' as silly Christians agree.
Most in our Church don't have that sympathy, and what is worse, tacitly agree with the idea of physical violence or exile for such people. My major point is that the Gospel, holding OT prophecies, should stand in absolute conflict with the idea. Eunuchs are invited into the Temple, which is Jesus and the Christian community.
Now as to behaviour, I am more inclined to agree with you that homosexual acts (or at least sodomy) is a sin. But first we have to distinguish the sin from the mere broken (as in the Fall) sexual orientation. I agree ideally homosexuals should be celibate single, or asexual, but I also agree in realising how difficult this would be.
Hi again, Steve. I had responded to your last post about what Christians should "do" about homosexuals, but then I accidentally refreshed my browser and lost it, and couldn't rewrite it because I had to pick my son up from school. Argh! I hate when that happens!
So to your question "How does the Christian community treat the homosexual?" The same way Jesus would – with love, compassion, empathy and grace. And ultimately, we must realize that their sin is no greater than my sin or your sin, and just like you and me, they are welcome in Christ's arms.
I do believe, however, that it's necessary that we understand the "condition" of the known homosexuals in our churches. Are they repentant and trying to "overcome" like those of us in the flock who are trying to get our lives square with God? Or are they unrepentant, like the gay couple who asked my pastor a few weeks ago to marry them? We don't need to know for any other purpose than to know how "deeply" we should allow them into the body of believers. Whether repentant or unrepentant, all homosexuals should be welcome in the church, and welcome in Sabbath School, and welcome to partake in communion, and welcome to attend seminars. But just like an unrepentant adulterer or unrepentant embezzler should not be allowed to take or retain a leadership or administrative position in the church, neither should an unrepentant homosexual. This has nothing to do with the nature of his sin, but rather the unrepentant condition of his heart.
Should the repentant homosexual be allowed into a leadership position in the church? I've really mulled this over the past couple of days, and reflected deeply on the nature of God (a must when weighing right and wrong), and listened to the Spirit, and discussed it with my husband (who is an Andrews-educated ordained youth pastor, so I guess his counsel counts for something! LOL). And my answer is… Absolutely. Every last one of us, even the most righteous among us, is trying to overcome something. And on a daily basis, each of us sins in one way or another (take me, who bought a purse online today that we really can't afford. I didn't demonstrate very good stewardship of our financial resources, particularly because we are a one-income family due to my disability, but mostly because the little "extra" we have is earmarked for our church's youth. Yep – I should not have spent what God has entrusted to us on a designer purse…but I did. At least I have something good to confess during our bedtime prayers later!). So how is the repentant homosexual any different from you or me? He or she is not. We are all sinners, we all fall short of God's glory and we are all in need of Christ's redeeming grace. And should the repentant homosexual "backslide"? Like I said, how is he or she any different from myself, who sins daily? If there is an extended period of backsliding then a leadership position should be suspended or revoked, but this standard should apply to anyone who repeatedly fails to fulfill the obligations of their appointment/leadership position/office (like someone who is having an ongoing extramarital affair should have his or her office suspended or revoked).
Anyway, I agree with you that we Christians collectively need to demonstrate more love, less condemnation and greater empathy toward homosexuals. And what's interesting to me is that they only seem to offend our sensibilities when it comes to what goes on in their bedrooms. I've seen this time and again during the countless discussions I've had on the topic of homosexuality over the years. I laugh when I ask why it's the bedroom details that offend them and someone says, "Because it's disgusting! I can't imagine having sex with another guy!" Because my friend Jon used to shudder at the thought of having sex with a woman – it was just as "unnatural" for him to consider that scenario as it is for me to consider having sexual relations with a woman. Which is why, at the end of the day, Christians should work a little harder at understanding those who are "different" and work a lot less at condemning them. This does not mean that we should compromise or relax God's rules, but rather learn to love everyone despite their individual shortcomings. This is admittedly not an easy thing to do, but it is the example that Jesus Christ set forth for us and thereby should be our standard of conduct.
So did I finally succeed in responding to the "important point"? ;o)
Hi Heather,
Yes, I think we are basically in agreement – mostly at least.
For me, I tend to agree homosexual acts (especially sodomy) are clearly sinful acts. So I don't subscribe to the liberal idea that those who are looking for the Church's acceptance of those acts as non-sinful.
However, I find conservatives often go too much the other way. They treat the Church as a house for saints as opposed to sinners. A gay couple attending your Church should be treated with as much acceptance as anyone else, in the sense that they are sinners and so are we all. Now no one says they should be allowed to take high Church office, or for the Church to sanction their behaviour. Again, I think the 'right approach' is usually lost somewhere between those two extremes.
As to repenting and seeking to 'overcome' sin, it depends on what we mean. Obviously, I don't believe homosexuals can 'overcome' their sin by being 'cured' into a hetrosexual, anymore than an actual eunuch missing testicles can marry and consumate that marriage (which I agree is the biblical definition of marriage). And I think we probably largely agree on that point.
I do agree that homosexuals who are celibate have as much right to leadership as anyone else. Part of my point about the 'ideal' of celibacy is to try and change some of the negative stereotypes about homosexuality.
For examle, there is some evidence to suggest Paul may have been a celibate homosexual – he's great wound in his member. And yet, despite all this, Paul accounted his celibacy as a blessing, not a curse. Even God can turn the brokeness of this world, of those who are Eunuchs (whether born or made) into a blessing for His kingdom. It isn't easy, and no doubt homosexuals continue to struggle throughout their whole lives, but who doesn't?
I get very, very concerned when the Church turns homosexuality into some unpardonable sin. Because as someone with a number of very close homosexual friends, who are usually treated very poorly, one can't maintain the hate that most Christians have when it is a best mate. And despite the plattitudes about accepting homosexuals with Christian love, the reality is often in practice the exact opposite.
So again, the Church, being God's kingdom on earth, has to be both wider (and more accepting) and yet paradoxically deeper (with a higher standard of behaviour for its leaders than the world). I am yet to find a Church that does that well. The Church featured on the Seventh Gay Adventist movie, dealing with the Lesbian couple, probably comes close.
I have the impression (and I'm not representing this as ultimate truth) that whether one "hears voices" or merely "forms impressions" they believe to be instructions from God, that they are experiencing delusions or are simply fooling themselves. This can be especially destructive when these "insights" are taken as ultimate truths that are applicable to all people in all situations, regardless of heritage or culture or experience–and they are all the more destructive when one feels it is their mission to judge or rail against people on the basis of prejudices about intimate behavior.
Let's all be more careful and considerate and less judgemental. Why should an infidel like me be urging you holy folks to be more like the God you profess to serve?
Joe,
You ask an excellent question that deserves thoughful consideration by more people.
Unfortunately, a lot of Christians think their particular view of things is complete, correct and universally applicable. In contrast, Jesus ministered to people individually. He didn't tell the demoniac at Gadara that his sins had been forgiven, or talk to the sick about living waters. Effective ministry is not necessarily easy. Rather, it takes us outside our comfort zone and challenges our views as we are forced to learn how the Gospel applies to a person. The demoniac was not a genial soul surrounded by children and the lepers did not draw crowds because they were beautiful. Yet He loved them and they were changed forever after He touched them where they were hurting.
'I have the impression (and I'm not representing this as ultimate truth) that whether one "hears voices" or merely "forms impressions" they believe to be instructions from God, that they are experiencing delusions or are simply fooling themselves.'
Very good point Joe. The way to hell is paved with good intentions. From a Christian perspective, there needs to be a balance: scripture vs reason vs experience. One without the other is sheer folly and may indeed be a delusion.
See how the Apostles came to a decision in Acts 15. They said that it seems good to them to conclude as they did as moved by the Holy Spirit. But they also based their decision on scripture as well.
17 “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." Acts 2:17-18
May those who understand be edified by Your Word, but let those whose hearts are hard continue to be confounded by Your great mysteries. For Your ways are right and just, and those who walk in Your ways are justified by You and through You Who make their paths true; but those who walk outside Your light stumble and fall as those who walk in darkness along crooked paths. I pray, Heavenly Father, for those on both paths. In the name of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, amen.
male serva
Thank you William and Steve for thoughtful responses. I also appreciate your response, Heather, although I don't see exactly how it applies to the discussion. Even so, warm wishes to you.
The acceptance and condoning of homosexual marriage and behaviour by a permissive society is a sign of moral decay. Sinful sexual behaviour that is sugar coated with flowery language and words like 'orientation' or 'alternative' only prove that we have become openly corrupt and debased in our thinking and values. It is taking human rights to an extreme where morality and obedience to God are non-essentials. Slavery and abortion lie on one extreme – because these atrocities reclassify humans and their offspring as sub-human or non-human and deny basic human rights – whilst homosexuality and homosexual marriage lie on the other extreme where abnormal perverted sexual appetite is pronounced virtuous and passed off as an acceptable norm not just for secular society but brought into the church in utmost arrogance thereby encouraging ungodliness and promoting wickeness. The absurd thing about this is that secular government is controlling the morals, worldviews and thinking of so-called Christians today.
Alas no eunuchs in your temple then Trevor?
Trevor, while you certainly have right to your beliefs, they seem to me to be extreme and fanatical. You seem to feel that only the views you express are valid and deserving of consideration. Everyone must conform to your values or be damned. You, and those who have the same views as you do, are claiming the right to judge and condemn all the rest of us. You diminish the value and personhood of those with whom you disagree. I do not like to hear hateful speech, and I think when it comes from those who claim to be Christians, it becomes especially problemmatic–for other Christians. Fortunately, there is recognition by some in government, including some of those who are responsible for constitutional law, that everyone deserves equal consideration under the law. What you think they might do in some private place with another consenting adult may not be used by you to deny them employment or the right to marry, or anything else. Not gender. Not skin color. Not ethnic heritage. Not religion. Not sexual orientation. You do not need to condone or participate in someone's reference group to recognize that all should be treated as fairly as possible. Shame on anyone who claims to be Christian and departs far away from the teachings and style of life attributed to Jesus.
Shame on anyone who claims to be Christian and departs far away from the teachings and style of life attributed to Jesus…..
And shame on anyone who claims to be a Christian and departs from Christ Word…..
Impurity is today widespread, even among the professed followers of Christ. Passion is unrestrained; the animal propensities are gaining strength by indulgence, while the moral powers are constantly becoming weaker…. The sins that destroyed the antediluvians and the cities of the plain exist today—not merely in heathen lands, not only among popular professors of Christianity, but with some who profess to be looking for the coming of the Son of man. If God should present these sins before you as they appear in His sight, you would be filled with shame and terror.—Testimonies for the Church 5:218.{TSB 121.1}
Church members need to fast and pray, striving earnestly to overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. Not one particle of Sodomitish impurity will escape the wrath of God at the execution of the judgment. Those who do not repent of and forsake all uncleanness will fall with the wicked. Those who become members of the royal family and form God’s kingdom in the earth made new, will be saints, not sinners. Isaiah 30:1-3, 8-16.{TSB 119.3}
So no Eunuchs allowed into your Church either All4Him?
According to Elaine it been claimed that David and Jonathan may have had an affair it seems we now have to put Daniel and the prince of the Eunuchs in the same bed?
This request was not preferred in a defiant spirit, but as if soliciting a great favor. The appearance of Daniel and his companions was like what every youth’s should be. They were courteous, kind, respectful, possessing the grace of meekness and modesty. And the good behavior of these youth obtained favor for them. Of Daniel we read, “God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.”{YI September 15, 1898, par. 9}
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
1 Corinthians 13:1-13
"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.” Proverbs 6:16-19
Hmmm… Interesting that, like same-sex sexual relations, lying is described as being "detestable" to the Lord. I challenge anyone in the AToday community to tell me they have never lied! It appears, Joe, that you're in the same sinking boat with the rest of us sinners. Our individual destinies are the only variable, here, and dependent exclusively on who among us holds fast to the Life Preserver.
Hear and heed this truth: sin breaks God's heart. Whether I lie to my husband, or Joe has sex with a man, or Trevor throws a plastic bottle from his car window, or All4Him fails to show love to a fellow sinner – God's heart breaks! It is not the nature of the sin that matters to God – it is that sin puts distance between us and Him, and that causes Him deep and agonizing pain! We were not created to be distanced from our God!
And so this point remains: not one of us here is without sin, not one of us is any less beloved of our Creator despite our sinfulness, ALL fall short of the glory of God. And all are in need of Christ's atoning blood – He died for all of humanity, not just for those who would accept Him.
Heather it breaks my heart to be known as someone who fails to love a fellow sinners for if you really knew me you may not say that. I have the problem of helping too many others that my own faimly gets the short end of the stick. Enabling someone toward a lifestyle that is not condusive to Scripture is not love.
Thanks Joe, you are right on again. The fundamental fanatical views of this gentleman, and others like him, in judging their brothers & sisters, without an ounce of compassion, will pay the price of their lack of brotherly love, and forgiveness of sins, as Christ forgives. "If you don't believe as i do, don't come here looking for acceptance, and compassion, find yourself a pew somewhere else, no homosexual sinners allowed here".
Trevor: 'Sinful sexual behaviour that is sugar coated with flowery language and words like 'orientation' or 'alternative' only prove that we have become openly corrupt and debased in our thinking and values.'
I agree with Joe and Earl above. I guess Trevor thinks these Eunuchs (to use the biblical phrase) can be 'cured' and won't be allowed into the Temple until they are? Would he likewise think a man with crushed testicles, who was also excluded from fellowship under the OT laws, be denied fellowship? I take it Trevor wouldn't be like Philip and baptise the Eithipioan Eunuch?
There are still Eunuchs around today Joe!
Dear Mr Ferguson
Please show at least just one example from the Bible of any Eunuchs being involved in same-sex marriage or same sex sexual behaviour. I won't hold my breath. We are talking about homosexuals here and you're sidetracking with the Eunuch issue which is really something else.
I don't support denying human rights like in the case of racism, slavery or abortion. Nor do I support the other extreme that overdoes human rights as in the case of homosexual behaviour as an alternative human rights extreme which even biologically doesn't make sense. Homosexual behaviour is proof also that evolution theory is a hoax both in terms of survival and arrival of the fittest – and spontaneous speciation. How extreme is that? Just shows who are the ones really holding extremist human rights worldviews. For Christians to bow down to government ordained morality as in the case of homosexuality being touted as a virtuous alternative sexual behaviour is another example of extremist behaviour in terms of deviating from what the Bible teaches. Many Christians even voted in support of such extremist behaviour. Extremism is relative: morality isn't.
Trevor: 'Please show at least just one example from the Bible of any Eunuchs being involved in same-sex marriage or same sex sexual behaviour.'
Trevor I'm not talking about same-sex behaviour or same-sex marriage; I'm talking about same-sex orientation. It is a nuanced difference you ultra-conservatives seem unable to grasp, and contributes to the sort of hate that is at odds with the whole purpose and meaning of the Gospel. You illustrate you inability to understand the difference when you said earlier:
'Sinful sexual behaviour that is sugar coated with flowery language and words like 'orientation' or 'alternative' only prove that we have become openly corrupt and debased in our thinking and values.' (my underline)
So Trevor what's a Eunuch? You wanted a Bible verse? I only go off Jesus' own definition of them in Matt 19:12:
'For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept it.'
Jesus shows an understanding on the complexities of sexuality that seems to be missed on you and your fellow uncompassionate ultra-conservatives.
The eunuchs who are made by men are clearly the 'common' eunuch, who has hill tescticles cut off or crushed, as contemplated in Deut 23:1. But interestingly, Jesus seems to expand the 'common' notion of eunuch.
Jesus also mentions eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. That seems to be a reference to those who choose celibacy, like Catholic priests (although they are clearly wrong in imposing that carte blanch on all their clergy en mass, with horrible results).
Finally Jesus mentions eunuchs who are 'born that way'. So who are these people? Are they possibly a reference to the 'not normal' sexually outliers who make up the LGBT community?
Again, I am not advocating homosexual behaviour like sodomy. I think there is clear arguments to such such behaviour is sinful. But to suggest orientation is sinful, as you seem to suggest, is in my view a sin in itself of wrongful judgment! So you better watch out, because how you just others is how God will judge you!
My point which now seems lost about the story of the Eithiopian eunuch was one about acceptance into the new Temple, which is Jesus Christ and the Christian community of faith; whereas, under the Torah, a eunuch was cut-off from the people. No one expected the Eithiopian eunuch to be 'cured' before God was no magically growing to grow his testicles back was he. So I think my point about homosexual eunuchus is very apt to this whole discussion.
I am not advocating gay marriage or acts of sodomy, but your own behaviour demonstrates you probably are unable to even extend the hand of fellowship to a celibate person who admits they have a LGBT orientiation. It reminds me of Marium's prejudice to Moses' wife, where she was given leprosey by God for her bigotry.
Perhaps some definiton of terms here is necessary so we are all at least on the same page when we use words like gay or sexual orientation. Yes, some may classify it as a flowerey term to accept or condone homosexual sex. but that doesn't mean it is necessarily so. I shunned the term gay for years even though I have been same sex attracted for as long as I can remember. I went through reparative therapy twice and it made life worse. I held on to a belief for as long as I could that somehow, some way, God would change me. I even went down the road of Last Generation Theology which made life a living hell for me. After a nervous breakdown I finally had to quit hating myself and come to terms with it all.
Believe me when I say that admitting those words, "I am gay" was one of the hardest thing for me to do. But as the old saying goes, "to thine own sel;f be true" had to finally win out or I was ready to die. I had to finally admit after decades of struggling to convince myself that I wasn't born this way, that I indeed must have been. What a relief to finally accept that and stop all the self hatred.
Did that suddenly lead me to try and argue around all those Biblical texts that forbid same sex sex, as so many gay christians argue. No! They want there cake and eat it too, and I think groups like Kinship make it harder for many consevative church members to really love us as Jesus does. don't get me wrong I think Kinship has at least been some kind of refuge,some place to turn when a gay person in the church felt rejected.
But there should be better alternatives. The church must stop living in a vacuum and admit that many of us are there worshipping every week among the rest of the flock. Old cliches like "love the sinner but hate the sin" come across to many gays as missles closing in on a target, rather than gestures of genuine love.
The church is at a critical crossroads right now. I think the conference in Cape Town was a good thing.
Many, here on the AT blogs have been critical that it excluded people from Kinship. Kinship has an agenda that includes hammering at the church to accept gay marriage and all the baggage that comes with it. I believe they would have been a disrupting effect if they had been included. The church is looking for ways to communicate compassion to gays. It doesn't need an in your face parade.
I do not believe that those who are out there hollering the loudest, represent the majority of gays in the church. Many of us struggle in silence, just wishing more people in the flock would try to understand just what it's like to carry what to many of us is a heavy load.
Wow Tom amazing – much thanks. Again, your own testimony shows that 'relational truth' of personal experience communicates in a way dogmatism can't.
Thankyou Tom for illustrating with your story some of the complexities surrounding the issue of human sexuality. And I very much appreciate your pointing out of perhaps extreme thinking on 'both sides' of the issue.
Hi, Tom. First, let me echo Steve above…WOW. It took some seriously and profoundly iron-clad nerve to "come out" at the point in the conversation where some Christians here were ready to crucify you – and others like you – right along with Christ! It is the negative, judgemental and elitist Pharisees in the Christian church (and right here in this forum) whose intolerance and distictly un-Christlike pronouncements and attitudes that pushed my best friend, Jon, to commit suicide five years ago. If a gay man can't find love among those who claim to follow the absolute Model of love, then what hope is there? He might as well hang. And that's exactly what Jon did. At the age of 41, my dear friend hung himself, seeing death as the only escape from the sharp tongues, hate-filled sidelong glances and public condemnations of his personal life by those in his close-knit, ultra-conservative community.
Far too many Christians refuse to accede the distinction between the individual homosexual and same-sex sexual relations. The fact that someone is gay is no more a sin than the fact that someone is black, or Asian, or Polish. "Who" we are when we are born is not the issue; what we will do when we know right from wrong is the issue. But many Christians are unable to view the person apart from their sin, which can have disastrous consequences. What we don't "get" is that Jesus didn't sup with a tax collector – He supped with a man who collected taxes. Jesus didn't love the prostitute – He loved the woman who worked as a prostitute. Jesus didn't socialize with lepers – He socialized with men and women who had leprosy. The distinction seems slight and might seem to some like meaningless wordplay, but in actuality, if we consciously understand the distinction, we can see past the sin to the individual behind it. That is how Jesus saw the tax collector, the prostitute and the lepers – He didn't focus on the condition of an individual, but on the individual him- or herself, and that is why His earthly ministry worked and transformed the lives of almost everyone who met Him. This is the example we must follow if we wish to be more Christlike and win souls over to Him.
Tom, you are the very model of what a gay Christian looks like – someone who steps out from behind the gay rhetoric and agenda and recognizes that it is your actions, not your self, that makes you a sinner who is in need of God's unconditional love and Christ's atoning sacrifice. The fact that you are a homosexual, and the fact that you are attracted to men, is not sinful of itself. It is engaging in same-sex sex and allowing yourself to have sexual fantasies about someone you find attractive that is sinful. You came to understand these distinctions, and thankfully so. For instead of having a vibrant, walking-and-talking example of how to live a Christian life as a homosexual person, we might instead have another death statistic showing the results of so-called "Christian" intolerance and bigotry.
Thank you, Tom, for having the courage to speak up and to speak with such openness and candor. It is vital that we heterosexual Christians hear from the truth-seeking homosexual community, so that we might understand your particular struggles and challenges, and your desire to find a place with Christ. Christ turns away no sinner; rather, He instructs us to "sin no more". This is, of course, not an easy direction to follow, particularly when something as fundamentally "human" as sexuality is in play. But through God ALL things are possible, and I am thankful that you have experienced this truth for yourself. Is it easy to live a celibate life when the most basic human emotional need (that is, to give love to and receive love from a life partner and mate) is the thing that needs to be resisted? Absolutely not. But is it possible to live a celibate life despite that human need when you have God on your side doing battle with and for you? Resoundingly yes! You bear witness to this possibility, and I thank God for allowing you to realize this truth for yourself so that you may share your story with others.
Thank you for bearing witness, Tom. I would be proud to occupy the mansion next door to you in the Kingdom! See you there!
Tom,
Thank you for sharing your experience! You reached a point where you had to recognize that things were the way they were and quit denying it so you could begin dealing with it. The church needs to do the same thing. Past attitudes have rendered Christianity largely impotent to deal with the issues of gender variation, so the church's challenge is to recognize that impotence, admit it and learn to minister God's redemption to people who don't necessarily match our concepts of how life should be.
If you read my comments above addressed to Nathan you will get a glimpse of the challenges God has put me through so I could learn both how essential it is that we learn how to minister the Gospel to everyone and some of the ways He wants us to do it. Notice that I said "some of the ways." God keeps showing me new challenges so apparently I have more to learn. Add the screaming and yelling I'm hearing from some corners of the church on the topic and it leads me to believe God is challenging some others to learn those lessons, too.
On the top of the complexities of human sexuality, I found the following interesting:
13 Myths and Misconceptions About Gay Men
Okay, let’s just out with it. An assumption that is made about gay men is that they all just love the butt sex. Like this is something particular to gay men that it is a vital and inseparable aspect of the gay man identity. Sure, there are plenty of gay men who love anal sex–but there are also plenty of people other than gay men who love anal sex. Further, there are plenty of gay men who do not like anal sex at all. It’s not something that all gay men engage in simply because they’re gay. I’m often baffled when people who barely know me encroach on this area in conversation: “Are you a top or a bottom?” or “Do you pitch or do you catch?” Okay. Aside from that being no one’s business, it’s based on a patriarchal view of sex that all relationships require a penetrator and a penetratee. Simply not true.
http://queereka.com/2012/01/09/13-myths-and-misconceptions-about-gay-men/
Unfortunately the discussion has moved quite far from the document under discussion.
Whether we are open to the idea of alternative sexual orientations (a dangerous terminoloy, because "alternative" implies choice!) or see it as an abomination, we do have to realize that there are people in our world who have very different sexual urges than most of us. The issue at hand – in the document – is, how this should be addressed.
Here the document fights for "purity" within the church – with a very strong tendency to reduce impurity to homosexuality. This is where the document is going wrong in my opinion. Exclude all the LGBT members from the church and you will find the church no purer. Exclude all impurity (sexual or otherwise), and you find no church at all. The discussion of human sexuality – if needed at all (remember the days when we criticized the Freudian preoccupation with sex?) – needs to be on a different level.
It seems the Netherlands Conference has made a similar point I have, about sexual 'ideals':
'Although we acknowledge the biblical ideal of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship, we continue to emphasise that it is an ideal. The basis of Christianity is that all people fall short of God's ideal; this is why we require God’s grace and Christ’s sacrifice. This leads to the conclusion that we, as Christians, must welcome all children of God – who all fall short of God’s ideal – into our churches with love.'
And about trying to make Churches welcoming and accepting for all, including homosexuals, who might be sinners but in that sense are no different from the rest of us – because we are all broken and crushed people – just like the ancient eunuchs and foreigners, who were forbidden from entering the Temple:
'We advise the churches in the Netherlands to fully commit themselves to ensuring that LGBTI individuals feel safe in the church. We would strongly advise against any steps to revoke the membership of LGBTI people, given the unsafe environment this would create in churches."'
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2014/04/24/church-netherlands-commits-itself-being-safe-place-lgbti-individuals
The Netherlands Conference has taken the only stand that is Christian. Now let's see how the G.C. reacts. Remember: "It is always better to act, than to react."
This article received the largest number of comments in the shortest amount of time than any in many years; most approve of this conference. The G.C. has only two responses to consider: Approval or Disapproval.