Fixing Adventists and Homosexuals
by John McLarty
Recently I saw part of an interview with a psychiatrist who was discussing Christian “reparative therapy” for homosexuals. Reparative therapy is an attempt to change people's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual using various spiritual and psychological resources. The interviewer asked the psychiatrist how effective reparative therapy was. How many homosexuals get “fixed.” The psychiatrist said, “About four percent.” It's a measure of effectiveness fairly broadly reported by Christian and non-Christian investigators.
Christian tradition strongly favors heterosexual orientation. So it is natural for Christians to latch onto the promises of change held out by reparative therapy. We want people fixed. But given the abysmal success rate, is it righteous to urge people to engage in a process that is highly likely to fail? What is our responsibility to people who have employed every imaginable resource for change and found those resources insufficient? Is right to condemn them? How do we help deal with the despair their (predictable) failure is bound to induce? What responsibility do we bear for the domestic wreckage that results when homosexuals marry thinking they are “fixed” only to discover later, it ain't so.
Hope is valuable, but deliberately offering false hope is immoral. Telling people they can and must change when, in fact, that change is out of reach for 95 percent of people who attempt it is cruel. Maybe it would be more in harmony with God if we quit insisting people be something they cannot be.
Which gets me to thinking about the abysmal success rate of “reparative therapy” for Adventists. Revivalists and week-of-prayer speakers urge Adventists to change. We must “perfectly reproduce” Christ's character. We need to “finish the work.” We need to pray and read our Bibles more. We need to eat healthier food and smaller quantities. We need to be more generous, more self-controlled, more orthodox. Unfortunately, it appears the Adventist success rate for change is about the same as homosexuals. Just like reparative therapies for homosexuals, the Adventist change ministry draws on the classic spiritual resources of Bible and prayer and community, disciplining the mind and the work of the Holy Spirit. Still we fail 95 percent of the time, and have been failing for a very long time.
In 1893 Ellen White wrote, "It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner" (GCDB, February 4, 1893 par. 9). To paraphrase: The church's success rate was less than five percent.
Perhaps one might argue this was late in the development of the church–by 1893 James White had been dead for 12 years. Surely things were better when the church was younger, purer, closer to its pioneer roots. Maybe. In 1867, EGW wrote, "Names are registered upon the church-books upon earth, but not in the book of life. I saw that there is not one in twenty of the youth who knows what experimental religion is. They serve themselves, and yet profess to be servants of Christ; but unless the spell which is upon them be broken, they will soon realize that the portion of the transgressor is theirs" (1T504, repeated in MYP 384). To put it in contemporary English: in 1867 the Adventist effort to transform youth was successful in less than five percent of the cases. Our failure rate was 95 percent!
Arguing that we need to get serious about seeking the Holy Spirit or engaging in various practices, disciplines, and programs advocated by revivialists appears to me to be blind or cruel. Blind if we don't realize that Adventists have been seriously pursuing holiness for over a hundred and fifty years. Cruel, if knowing the failure rate, we continue to urge people to throw themselves wholeheartedly into a doomed endeavor.
Given our history of failure despite endless revivals and weeks-of-prayer, maybe it's time to quit insisting that people meet impossible standards. Maybe it's time to begin loving each other the way we are. Let's honor the five percent who can achieve the change. Let's love the 95 percent of us who can't. And by “love” I don't mean tolerate. I mean regard with affection and admiration. I mean welcome with open arms and open heart.
It is vital that we advocate ideals that are so lofty they remain out of reach. They give us something to reach for. But standards, the minimum acceptable levels of performance, must be well within the reach of at least 80 percent of our members.
It is time to quit beating our people with impossible standards. It's time to unabashedly embrace as fully worthy and honorable members, people who perform at the 80th percentile or maybe only at the 60th or 45th percentile. We do not lower our ideals to the performance level of our people, but our standards must be realistic. Our standards must be in touch with what people can accomplish with aid of the resources God has placed in his church.
To push it a bit further. If we see the church as God's creation, it seems unbelievable that God would design a system with a 95 percent failure rate. If we argue that the failure is not in God's planning but in the human implementation, we are back to the same problem. God has placed salvation in the care of a system that is so susceptible that it can be deranged by predictable human variation. If that is true, what was God thinking?
I think better of God than that. I don't think he looks at his church as a 95 percent failure. I believe he regards the ordinary people of God with affection. He is not wringing his hands in agitated frustration because hardly any one is getting it right. God is pleased with his people. Does he have plans for growth, for change in good directions? Sure. But these plans for growth and change do not drive him to the endless condemnation of ordinary people that is common among Adventists and other Christians. Rather when God looks at his people he sees his future companions, the company that will spend eternity with him on the throne.
God is going to enjoy this future with ordinary Adventists, the people who show up in church week after week to teach kids, sing, listen to sermons, fraternize. God is happy to see them. They're good enough for him.
https://liberaladventist.blogspot.com/2009/12/good-old-days-of-adventism.html
“…it’s time to quit insisting that people meet impossible standards. Maybe it’s time to begin loving each other the way we are. Let’s honor the five percent who can achieve the change. Let’s love the 95 percent of us who can’t. And by “love” I don’t mean tolerate. I mean regard with affection and admiration. I mean welcome with open arms and open heart.”
Are you not having, like all the other ordinary pastors, the same approach that will only give 5% positive response for change?
Perhaps heeding EGW’s “God Made Manifest” statement where she clarifies that the only way we will be set right and kept right will be through the knowledge of the manifested character of God.
So lets focus on God, not on ourselves, but on how He is, how He runs His universe, how does He behave, and, by unconscious identification with Him, we’ll be restored to be like Him. “By beholding we are changed” -homosexual, heterosexual, adventist, self-centered, or otherwise.
Humberto
How many of us have sat through innumerable altar calls, softly singing “Just as I Am”? Did no one believe that but were simply mouthing the words? We tell new converts that Jesus will take us just as we are, but once in the club, they find there are innumerable hoops to jump: eating right and no alcohol, coffee, tea and no meat. Remove all jewelry, no makeup, modesty in dress (women only), guard the edges of the Sabbath, and never, ever, work on Sabbath except: “necessary work for the good of mankind” (carefully interpreted.
With all the varied instructions it is a wonder that so many sign themselves up for such deprivation with what benefits? Oh yes, great rewards but ONLY if one becomes sinless before death or translation, whichever comes first.
What would the preachers have for topics if not the perfection required of Adventists? Why would any homosexual even want to continue in a church which regards him as defiled, sinful, and degraded? It should be criminal to point any such person to “reparative therapy” with such poor results; results that do not “cure” but make the victim have more self-hatred because of lack of “success.”
How many pastors and denominational employees have sons and daughters and close relatives or friends who are gay? How should these children feel, knowing that their orientation is despised among their fellow church members, folks they may have known all their lives? To be rejected is to invite depression, even suicide, and this is the legacy the church has given them.
“With all the varied instructions it is a wonder that so many sign themselves up for such deprivation with what benefits? Oh yes, great rewards but ONLY if one becomes sinless before death or translation, whichever comes first.”
This is why believers the typically prefer the torture of a protracted terminal illness as against a painless instant death. Because we need time to “make it right.” We don’t want death to come and catch us with unconfessed sins. It’s as if God is just sitting there waiting to say, “Aha! I caught you!”
Get the Book: http://www.holditpreacher.com
Lets get real here. I’m hearing so much negativism and un-Biblical nonsense that makes me think I’m on …Adventist Today or Spectrum. God will not lower His standards for those of you who rebel at overcoming sin–and yes, please make no mistake, the homosexual lifestyle is a constant breaking of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” and is lovingly given by God for our own protection from our sinful nature. Homosexuality should not be encouraged in the church, but those who do it should be kindly and carefully–and yes lovingly, directed to the worlds Redeemer Jesus Christ for deliverance and forgiveness from sin. Legalizing homosexuality is not love, but manifests the most abject hatred of the person himself while having no regard for the fact that all sin destroys along with its always-present guilt and shame. Weak sentimentalism–Satan’s counterfeit for love often comes into play in the remnant church (see on GC p. 558) because it makes little or no distinction between good and evil.
Jesus Himself–not Ellen White gives the conditions for entering heaven, along with every sin overcome during probation time.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
One must be totally transformed by the Holy Spirit, then following the Savior in immersion baptism. Confession of every known sin must follow along with full repentance to be born-again;
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
And the glad results? 2Co 5:17: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
We know we have passed from death to life when we love God and the brethren–our spirit witnesses with His Spirit that we are the sons and daughters of God–and we love righteousness and hate sin, a complete west-coast turn-around!
So it is Jesus that sets the standard for entrance into heaven–not Ellen White who merely amplifies what He stated. One in 20 sounds reasonable to me, although today with upwards of 16 million SDA’s, the gap may even be wider which agrees with Holy Writ;
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Many rise up against the Straight testimony, but it is that truth and only that truth that will save us at last.
Ladies and gentlemen; I hope and pray that we shall all be found covered with Christs Robe of Righteousness when He comes!
In the 19th century the SDA movement began with our founders dismantling almost every part of the Christian heritage to see which parts were Biblical. Then they put it back together, letting the Bible shape our teachings. That is what made us so unique. But it was not every part of our heritage, it was almost every part. They did not study Biblical sexuality. At the time they probably were not able to give sexuality a full and fair treatment. It is time we did with Biblical sexuality what they did with our other teachings.
Can we actually do it? Our denominational structures are probably too political to support a completely open discussion, but we desperately need one. We cannot resolve homosexuality without dealing with the full range of human sexuality and its Biblical treatments. And as an international church we must deal with other issues such as polygamy (Practicing the kind of spin some use on Leviticus 18:18 won’t cut it. Let’s do it right.).
If we do it there will be fireworks — and attacks, vicious attacks. But I think it must be done.
Jim Miller,
You could not be more wrong. Ellen White spoke extensively on Bible sexuality, marriage, and the family. here is the beginnings of one chapter in 1MCP.
Chap. 25 – Love and Sexuality in the Human Experience
NOTE: ELLEN WHITE LIVED AND WORKED IN A DAY WHEN GREAT RESTRAINT WAS EXERCISED IN SPEAKING PUBLICLY OR WRITING ABOUT SEX AND THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES. {1MCP 218.1}
SHE WAS MARRIED TO JAMES WHITE ON AUGUST 30, 1846, AFTER ASSURING HERSELF THROUGH PRAYER THAT THIS WAS A PROPER STEP. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SHE WAS WELL INTO HER MINISTRY, FOR SHE HAD FOR TWENTY MONTHS BEEN THE RECIPIENT OF VISIONS FROM THE LORD. AS A RESULT OF THIS UNION WITH JAMES WHITE SHE GAVE BIRTH TO FOUR SONS, BORN IN 1847, 1849, 1854, AND 1860. {1MCP 218.2}
IT WAS IN THE 1860’S–THE DECADE OF TWO BASIC HEALTH-REFORM VISIONS (JUNE 6, 1863, AND DECEMBER 25, 1865)–THAT ELLEN G. WHITE BEGAN TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATING TO SEX. STATEMENTS IN LATER YEARS PROVIDED SOME ELABORATION. IN REFERRING TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN MARRIAGE SHE EMPLOYED SUCH TERMS AS “PRIVILEGE OF THE MARRIAGE RELATION,” “PRIVILEGE OF THE FAMILY RELATION,” “SEXUAL PRIVILEGES.” {1MCP 218.3}
Well, why not start with the beautiful and very vivid portrayal of love in the Song of Solomon? It is a celebration of human sexuality, and something that EGW did not advocate. Rather, she warned wives to do nothing that would “excite the animal passions of their husbands.” And like Paul, who said “it is better to marry than burn,” the only celebration of sexual love is in the Song of Songs.
The whole debate on homosexuality will continue. I would like to know what is the purpose of the gospel. What does the word repent means. It is a change in behaviour. If a person is a pedophile, a maniac who is murdering people would we condone the behaviour. I think it is time for the church to take a stand. The gospel was never a popular message and will never be. God says WOE TO THOSE THAT CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL. It does not matter what people think or believe but what God says. As a member of the SDA church I would hope that church will take a stand. But it seems that for years the church has been playing games and not calling a spade a spade. Sexual love between two people of the same sex is not what God ordained. We can argue this until the cows come home. Two people of the same sex cannot procreate. This would be the end of society as we see. God told Adam and Eve to multiply. It is sad that people’s value system is all messed up. God knew that the time would come when people would be PARADING THEIR SIN LIKE SODOM. I will continue to BELIEVE what the word of God says. Whatever was right in bible times WILL always be right no matter what age we live in. The female turtle has indentation in their back for the male turtle. The female animals God made have the area allocated for their male counterparts. Homosexuality is filthy. God knew why he made that particular area for its surely was not for sexual pleasure.
Amen Anita!
Thank you for your strong stand for God’s truth. Unrepentant homosexuals would be totally miserable in heaven with it’s unpolluted atmosphere of pure love–just like every other sinner who refuses to accept God’s free grace. The homosexual person’s entire life, the thoughts, and actions, are completely focused upon how they can continue to seek perverted pleasure with others of like sex, and often times both. The absence of sexual pleasures alone in heaven would cause them to beg God to obliterate them.
Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
John,
Amen and hallelujah! I totally agree that it is time to stop beating people up with impossible standards and started experiencing the real power of the Gospel. I beat myself up for a lot of years seeking the victory that people demanded but God never required as a prerequisite for salvation.
We could all take a lesson from Paul’s temptation in 2 Corinthians 12 where Paul declares that he was given “a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of satan, to torment me.” The result of that “thorn in the flesh” was that it prevented him from becoming conceited. God used that “thorn” to keep Paul ever-aware of his weakness and need to remain in a close relationship with Him. By doing that God turned a curse into a blessing.
Paul’s declaration is a paradox to those who want to condemn others because of some particular sin they see, or who strive to become perfect in this life. I can testify of God’s power in my life in this regard because I have struggled with a particular challenge in my life for as long as I can remember. I cannot tell you how many times I have begged God to take it away from me, but He did not. As with Paul, his repeated answer was “my grace is sufficient for you.” Realizing He was using it to make me aware of my weakness and need of Him presented me with a choice: abandon faith because He was not giving me the “victory” so many in the church declared was essential if I was to be saved, or embrace the grace He was offering and find peace in God’s assurance of salvation. Choosing the latter option opened me to becoming a willing servant of the Holy Spirit with the result that I now have an empowered ministry that is building the church and bringing people into a saving relationship with God. Will God ever give me victory over that weakness? I have no idea and, to be honest, I no longer care if He does. Why? Because I’ve learned that what is an issue to some people is not an issue to God, that His power and love reach past my weakness and our relationship is teaching me things I might never have learned otherwise.
We each have more than enough sins in our own lives to be concerned with “OPS” (other people’s sins).
There is no need to worry about people’s choice for marriage or whether they should marry. Everyone will not choose a same-sex partner, so no worry about future generations. Neither will some folks choose to marry, and so never procreate. That is not God’s worry and shouldn’t be ours.
Marriage is not solely for procreation, otherwise, all older couples past fertility should remain single. Parenthood should always be a choice and no one should either dictate another’s mate or their choice to bear children or not.
What kind of world would there be if everyone chose other’s people’s mates or all the other personal choices that God, in giving us free will, has offered us? To say that God didn’t design homosexuality is to forget that he didn’t design for there to ever be babies born with both physical or mental deformities. God loves each and every one of his children and has never condemned their orientation, which the Bible never mentions.
“God loves each and every one of his children and has never condemned their orientation, which the Bible never mentions” (Elaine Nelson).
Surely you jest. The Bible is full of warnings and examples of condemning judgment as fire and brimstone rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The commandment; “Thou shalt not commit adultery” applies to all sexual relations out side of marriage by a man and a woman. Does perverted homosexual acts adulterate marriage–legal unions in God’s eyes? Yes. Fornication is fornication regardless of gender.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1Co_7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Steve, you wrote:
“Thou shalt not commit adultery” applies to all sexual relations out side of marriage by a man and a woman.”
Adultery cannot be committed unless one of the parties is married. Women were property when this command was given and adultery meant a married man taking another man’s wife, property which did not belong to him. He could, however, have more than one wife and it would not be adultery, as Moses and many of the patriarchs had more than one wife.
Men in the Bible, could “take” a wife from the conquered tribes as long as they were virgins, and this would not be adultery, evey though they already had a wife. Nothing was said about additional wives.
Even when Christ was asked about adultery he said “but I say to you that every one who DIVORCES his wife except for the cause of unchastity makes her commit adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Women are damned either way (Matt. 5:28).
“Everyone who divorces his wife and maries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).
It is clear that a woman had no choice: if her husband divorced her, she became, ipso facto: an adulteress and if she married again, both she and her new husband were adulterers.
Where is there a single word in the Bible about homosexuals committing adultery?
Now that the SDA church has essentially ignored divorce and remarriage for many years, is the homosexual agenda the latest societal revolution it chooses to attack? No church or institution can long exist and grow when it bcomes oblivious to the changing social mores, unless it chooses to take the path of the Luddites or Amish who have practically no conversion at all–other than by birth, and then, it must keep isolated in order to preserve their way of life.
Elaine,
While you are correct in the narrow use of adultery; all of God’s commandments have a depth of meaning that is sometimes not apparent–see on the SDA Commentary under the commandments of Ex. 20; “adultery;” page 606 in my edition. This commandment covers all sexual impurity–even by a thought.
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
God designed the beauty and joys of sexual intimacy between a married man and woman only, thus, anything apart from that adulterates the holy institution of marriage. The Bible need not connect the two words “homosexual” and ‘adultery’ to make this true, just as the Bible does not connect “idolatry” and “money;” yet we know for many, money is an idol.
Adulteration occurs when something is added to the substance that corrupts, therefore, any lustful thought, fornication, and any and all homosexual acts adulterates marriage. In other words, two homosexual men together committing unlawful sexual acts, should cease their sin, confess and repent, and God will heal them making them ready to enter a proper marriage–with a woman, not a man; thus no longer adulterating the holy institution of marriage. God makes the laws; not man.
By the way Elaine; no one is condemning homosexuals, but making plain what sin is in this context. We, like God, should love the sinner (because we are one too) and hate the sin.
It is pure folly to attempt to justify homosexuality by using the Scriptures, it cannot, and will never be done. God’s Word should not be twisted and trifled with as the arrogant power such as the papacy has done. All, such who do this will pay a fearful penalty unless there is repentance.
Christians must not condemn but we must call sin for what it is why did Christ die so that we can do as we please. Marriage is not only for procreation I agree that is a fact but it was not designed for two men and two women. We can argue from now until eternity. Don’t you know that the sexual sin that the bible calls an ABOMINATION is sodomy (homosexuality) Are you equating homosexuality with mental and physical deformities..LOL. The deformed person has no choice, but those who WANT this alternate lifestyle..CHOOSE it for themselves. My grandmother would say to you lady, what else are you saying besides nothing. If you are a member of the SDA church and this is your thinking, I am not surprised, since many SDA’s are more concerned about not eating pork, drinking coke,and eating vegan foods BUT when it comes to moral issues, they seem to have clouded vision. I rest my case here I have no more to say on this issue. I love all people gays as well as straight.. BUT I want to see them changed and glorify God in their bodies. ” (The gospel is an everlasting gospel. Though all flesh is grass, the word of the Lord endures for ever. The gospel is the great means by which men are brought to FEAR God and GIVE GLORY to Him.”(Matthew Henry’s Commentary)
I hope we all know that our bodies is GOD’S TEMPLE. How we use it tell God so much about how we view him.
It is only YOUR body for which you are responsible, and no one else. Keep that in mind. God will condemm those he chooses, we have not been given that job.
Do you condemn everyone you see smoking or drinking, or using coffee, or their choice of friends? Who gave you that authority? God said “Judge not, lest you be judged.” That is also biblical.
(The gospel is an everlasting gospel. Though all flesh is grass, the word of the Lord endures for ever. The gospel is the great means by which men are brought to FEAR God and GIVE GLORY to Him.”(Matthew Henry’s Commentary)
I am not gay so I do not have to be defensive when it comes to this issue. Whatever God hate we must hate. What is your definition of sin.
“Do you condemn everyone you see smoking or drinking, or using coffee, or their choice of friends? Who gave you that authority? God said “Judge not, lest you be judged.” That is also biblical. I DO NOT CONDEMN I JUST CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS, IT DESTROYS A PESON’S HEALTH.
In the absence of any reliable evidence that homosexuality is a choice in any way, Let God be responsible for what he has created. Our only task is to exhibit Christ’s loving tolerance. The Christian message of freedom should be broad enough for each of us to limit our criticism to our own mistakes.
Dave, I’d say that Romans 1 is pretty reliable evidence that homosexual behavior is a choice. It says that “the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.” The language used indicates choice. The women “changed” and the men “left.”
And even if this were not so, it doesn’t mean that God has to be the one responsible. My pet rabbit only became a lesbian pedophile when the cage got too crowded, and went back to normal once she had more space. So there may be environmental factors at play that man, not God, is responsible for.
Bob,
While that portion of Romans 1 it typically interpreted as describing a fully voluntary choice on the part of the individual (and I used to view it that way), we must allow that it may also be simply a description of what happened instead of identifying specific cause.
My extended contact with the gender community (homosexual, transsexual, etc.) began with intensity when I was part of the Greater New York Conference’s Medical Van Ministry in New York City. That put me into frequent contact with members of those groups. My contact with co-workers, neighbors and others in those communities has continued over the years since. While members of those groups often use the “God made me this way” argument to explain their orientation, I have no doubt that choice plays a contributing role. However, there are a considerable number of influencing factors that diminish the real/perceived role of choice.
The big question I see in the issue is not their ability to choose, but we as Christians having a personal testimony about the power of God working in our lives to help us overcome sin. Whether a person is a homosexual, a thief, or prideful we each face the same problem called Sin and have the same need of a savior to give us victory. I praise God that he give us victory where we see no options and feel powerless to choose.
Was Paul given victory over sexuality? He seemed to disparage sex except in the marital bed as a cure for “burning.” Surely, faint praise for married conjugality.
It was also EGW who warned wives never to do anything to arouse their husband’s “animal passions.” Such a dour view of human sexuality, which is a gift from God, is a thread that has run throughout all Christianity, and in Judaism it was both restricted as to time and the participants.
Interestingly, in the Levirate marriage, the widowed wife was to be taken by the brother who died. This was the biblical pattern. It was also biblical to practice polygamy and marriage between siblings, else how would the command to “be fruitful and multiply” have been obeyed?
Christians have always had a warped view of sexuality, and today love and sexuality are confused. Same sex love is always suspected as being sexual; opposite sex love is also presumed to be sexual. Is it sinful to love someone of the same sex? Or does it become sin only if there is sexual expression? IOW, if two older, infertile couples live together is it only sinful if there is sexual expression, rather than simple love and mutual interests?
Is it impossible to believe that sexual expression is only one element of love and that love was the greatest commandment; never mentioned at all in the Ten Words, but was a new commandment given by Jesus?
In the next quarterly we will study about Conformity, Compromise and Crisis in Worship (lesson 8). It will include Elijah and the Prophets of Baal — but no where will the lesson deal with the fact that Elijah, who as far as I know was not even a Levite, much less a priest, will rebuild an altar far from the one true place of worship — Jerusalem, and there prepare a sacrifice which God will honor, in spite of the several things wrong with that sacrifice.
And throughout the Old Testament, we will see sexual situations which depart significantly from the Eden ideal, yet are apparently sanctioned and blessed by God.
And then we get to the New Testament where many of the rules and ideals will change. And we go on asuming that 1950’s American values encompass the totality of acceptable Biblical sexuality.
In the Bible God repeatedly works with what He has, even if it is far, far from ideal. Do we?
To Anita Douglas:
You say “I am not gay.”
Trust me, you do not need to tell us that. If you were gay, you would demonstrate some actual knowledge of the issue to which you apply your cold Old-Testament-style fundamentalism. Let me give you an analogy….
A couple of years ago, at the time of the 150th anniversary of Darwin, the airwaves were flooded with stories about Darwin and evolution. Just about every single one of those radio & TV programs that were sponsored by Christians (and fundamentalist Christians especially) contained heavy doses of ridicule for the Darwinian notion that life could come from nothing. Leaving aside the fact that creation is also something from nothing, please observe that Darwin did not address the origin of life at all! He didn’t know how life started, and he didn’t propose any notion or theory of how life started. His whole thing was about the origin of various SPECIES.
The point of that analogy? Clearly preacher after preacher after preacher railed against something they knew precious little about. Clearly they hadn’t read anything at all about evolution—they just blathered what they’d heard on the street, or what they just assumed in their own minds, or what they’d gotten from equally uninformed persons in pulpits. Three of the broadcasts on which I heard this happen were SDA programs ABN; every one of them mocked Darwin for believing life started from nothing—thus embarrassing themselves in front of anyone who knows anything about Darwin and evolution.
Back to you. You seem completely oblivious as to how much you embarrass yourself by demonstrating how little you know about the very topic you seem to think you and God so closely agree on. I suggest you do two things. First, become informed about homosexuality from some place other than a pulpit and your own imaginations. Then become aware of how many biblical admonitions YOU already IGNORE because they are too inconvenient for you to follow—become aware of those and the 300+ direct contradictions in the Bible. If you do those two things, you might just find the courage to upgrade from Fundamentalist Christianity to Mainstream Christianity.
When you’ve done that, come back with a post that demonstrates you are at least minimally informed on the topic and more aware of the problems inherent in a “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” mind set. Do that, and I’ll be very interested in giving you a more serious listen. Who knows, after you honestly learn about homosexuality, and what it means to be gay, you just might decide to do with that handful of texts the very same thing you already do with those dozens of texts that unequivocally support slavery. (You do ignore them, don’t you?)
Of course I speak to all uninformed fundamentalists, not just you.
JD
@Jonathan Dough
Sir, in your preoccupied fixation on attacking those who hold true to fundamental biblically based teachings of truth, you have yourself made no informed contribution regarding the topic in your post except for some serious venting.
What is wrong with the Creationist questioning of where Darwin’s species came from? It is a fairly reasonable query most informed persons would logically make considering the far-fetched claims of the likes of Darwin. Wouldn’t it Sir?
T
To Trevor Hammond:
A single post that disagrees with your point of view and I have a “preoccupied fixation” on “attacking” fundamentalists?
I cannot help but wonder: If my post had AGREED with your point of view, would it still have been a “preoccupied fixation” and merely a “serious venting”?
Anyway, you obviously missed a few points along the way. I can only wish you would read more carefully before responding.
To Jonathan Dough
Well Sir, Where did Darwin’s species COME from? Please enlighten us … if I’m not asking for too much?
Anyway, I’d rather go for the “God said it – I believe it – that settles it for me!”
THAN the “Darwin said it – I believe it – that settles it for me!”
On the ‘fundamental’ ROCK – Jesus Christ!
T
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
– Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review
Let us be careful about citing someone’s statistics. Advocating based on selective statistics can be self-deceiving.
On the other hand low cure rate is no reason to abandon medical therapy for certain cancers. Let us not give up hope.
What percentage of people made it onto the Ark? I think it would be safe to assume that there were more than 160 people alive at the time of the flood, indicating that the rate of those saved was far less than 5%, in fact I would not be surprised if it was lower than .00000005%. How many people was salvation available to? Didn’t Noah preach for over 100 years? If the only thing they needed to do to be saved was get on the boat, how could the standards have been lowered any further? Were those that died, lost because Noah’s message was ineffective or outdated? Or, were they lost because they refused to listen to the warnings?
God only asks that we acknowledge the sin in our life and allow Him to give us the strength to overcome it. When a person makes the declaration that they cannot get over something, they deny God’s ability to help them gain the victory. Gaining the victory isn’t a single moment in a person’s life, it is the lengthy process of repeated failures. Thomas Edison wasn’t successul at creating a light bulb on his first attempt, but he didn’t give up. I have been reading a book by Marvin Moore entitled “Conquering the Dragon Within” and I strongly recommend it as he draws out many of these points. There are two things that Mr Edison needed in order to invent the light bulb. First, was faith that a light bulb could be created, and the second thing was that he had to believe that he could invent it. Had he failed to believe either of those things, he would have quit; as many who tried before him did. Overcoming any sin in ones life requires faith that victory is possible and that Christ can accomplish that victory in you. God doesn’t care how many times you fail to gain the victory, He just doesn’t want you to give up on those two beliefs. To say that victory is impossible, and therefore needs to no longer be the end goal, is to declare that Christ is powerless over sin and powerless in helping us acheive that victory over it.
The tone of this article reminds me of Luke Skywalker’s attitude, in a scene from ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, when his X-wing fighter sank into the swamps of Dagobah. He tried once to lift it out of the swamp and when he couldn’t he declared that it was an impossible task. Yoda promptly showed him it was not.
“Didn’t Noah preach for over 100 years?”
Where in the Bible story is there a single reference to Noah’s preaching–and for 100 years?
As for Noah’s preaching, Some interpret Genesis 6:3 that there was 120 years from God’s decision to destroy the earth, and his call of Noah, until the flood. Others interpret the 120 years as the eventual shortened lifespan of humans — after the flood.
The problem of the low success rate for homosexual to heterosexual conversion (which may be as low as 0 % in reality) is not the success rate of God’s salvation. After all, with such low success rates none of us in this discussion may end up in Heaven. The problem is that “ex-gays” are encouraged / forced to lie about their successes. They do so until either they successfully develop a double life, or they give up on the lie and the church — and sometimes on God. It is always a problem when we insist on a lie.
There are conservative churches which teach a strong form of predestination, and they point to certain factors that indicate an individual is predestined to be lost. For Phelps’ “God Hates Fags” church of Topeka, one indicator is homosexuality.
Is it a good thing to promote lying about successful conversions? Does incurable homosexuality indicate no possibility for salvation?
I personally know of two people who have converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality. One is Adventist, and one is a non-Adventist Christian (denomination unknown.) Many of you would surely like to question their conversion, but unless you can give evidence to the contrary, they are both happily hetero, married with children and doing God’s work. It is possible, it just depends on how much you want to obey God and overcome your sinful desire. Some ex-alcoholics will be tempted the rest of their lives. Does that mean they should just give in? Some ex-gays will be tempted the rest of their lives. Does that mean they should just give in?
Does incurable homosexuality indicate no possibility for salvation? Yes, it indicates they person has not yielded their will to God. They love their sinful life more than God.
There are many who are bisexuals. David may have been, since he “loved Jonathan more than women” but later had many female wives. It is a well-know sexual orientation.
Simply because a former homo is now in a heterosexual marriage and a parent, does not mean a “cure” as there are many who have tried this and left a marriage and children. One shouldn’t rely on present circumstances as a lifetime cure.
Elaine, it doesn’t mean he’s not cured either. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the onus is on you prove that he’s not cured.
And the onus is on you to prove David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. It seems you have been influenced by modern corrupt lifestyles and think “love” equals “sex” and that whenever you see the word “loved” you can insert “had sex with”.
It is no different than a patient who is “cured” of cancer. It means that the individual has been in remission for at least five years. Having worked with cancer records for many years, there is no such thing as “cure” as many years later, it often recurs, somethimes as long as 20 years later.
Celibacy does not mean “cured.” Nor does heterosexual expression mean cured homosexuals. As a female, I would not consider marrying a former homosexual as it would, in effect, mean than I am being used to “cure” his orientation. Many women have discovered too late that they were being used in this fashion.
I have no need to prove anything about David and Jonathan, because love is not always expressed sexually: see all the elderly people who marry and are celibate. All we know what the Bible explicitly says: David’s love of Jonathan was more than the love of women.” And since David was a “man after God’s own heart, there is much about him and many patriarchs that is not spelled out.
And we are judged by our works. So if one is a recovering homosexual and does not act on his impulses, that part of his life will pass the judgment. Whether his orientation will change is another matter. I believe it can. With God, nothing is impossible.
Elaine, the text in question reads:
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
It says Jonathan my brother, not my lover. One does not usually have sex with one’s brother. This is talking of strong brotherly love. Once again Elaine is found to be misquoting the Bible to suit her own purposes.
Surely, you recognize that the term “brother” was a warm title, just as the church today often addresses members as “brother” and “sister.”
This is the only time in the Bible (you are free to correct me) that such a description of two males love is so described. Surely, it was a very close relationship; nor did I ever conclude that it was sexual, as “love” in no way is limited to sexual expression. Do you “love” your sisters and brothers in the church? But would you say that your love for brothers is more than for women?
Mrs Elaine Nelson falsely claims that David may have been involved sexually with his ‘brother’. A bi-sexual ‘strawman’ which is used to distort the scripture (as usual). Very much just erroneous surmising by seeking to justify a perversion.
That’s what sometimes happens with a radical imagination which can reduce what is noble and elevated into a cheap degraded lust thereby insulting the very word of God. Mrs Nelson clearly implied a sexual connection by suggesting that David may have been bi-sexual.
That is clearly an overkill of an innocent virtuous description of sincere love between friends which apparently Mrs Nelson is unable to fathom and therefore seeks to pervert this noble example of brotherly love.
Many people love their pets more than people. Does that then imply a sexual relationship? Mrs Nelson may apparently think so…
T
How many times must I repeat that there is no evidence that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship; which raises the question: why is sex ALWAYS a part of love? The Bible statement should be taken at face value that David LOVED Jonathan more than the love of women. Is it wrong for two men to love each other and sex is not involved?
Where does the Bible speak of “sexual immorality as an abomination” other than relating to promiscuity of either homo or hetero? There are probably much more promiscuity between heteros than homos, simply because the majority of people are hetero. Both were condemned in the Bible.
You speak of “innocent virtuous description of sincere love between friends” and I will agree with that, which is the whole theme of my contention: love between either sexes is never confined solely to sex. Undoubtedly, we both have very close friends whom we love of both sexes, none of which implies sexual expression. Most men are deathly afraid of close contact with another man while women are not bothered by physical expressions: hugs, even cheek kiss of either sex. Notice many national figures are far more physically
expressive than rigid Americans.
Nowhere does the Bible condemn men loving other men, nor women loving another woman (Naomi and Ruth?). ONLY sex was condemend when it was promiscuous; and both hetero and homo was condemned equally.
Mrs Nelson said: “There are many who are bisexuals. David may have been, since he “loved Jonathan more than women” but later had many female wives. It is a well-know sexual orientation.”
—–
This statement is very different from the last one above this and therefore confusing as to what you are saying. Sex is not love or love is not sex more than women love is bisexual ????
—–
I still don’t agree with your homosexual monogamy line though which you allude is NOT sin and that this is ACTUALLY taught in the Bible. That is very dodgy doctrine! May go down well on the Spectrum gay website and for some on this site – but NOT for me…
—–
It is a misleading and dangerous position to falsely point sinners in the wrong direction. [Psalm 1:1] – Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
T
The statement to Jonathan by Saul (1 Samuel 20:30) that Jonathan loved David ‘to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness’ is taken by some to refer to a sexual relationship. The mixing of ‘shame’ and ‘nakedness’ usually does, but that may not mean that it always must, should anyone be disinclined to read it that way. There is no compelling evidence that Jonathan and David were anything but close friends, but it is true that the evidence that there is more to it is not lacking. As is often the case, it comes down to what you want to believe, or what you can’t bear to believe.
Kevin, is that all you have to go on? The gay lobby really is clutching at straws. Notice it talks of Jonathan’s mother’s nakedness, not Jonathan’s nor David’s. Either one of them had been sleeping with Jonathan’s mother (no evidence anywhere), or you can take a simple reading indicating shame on the family. Saul’s rant indicates he believed Jonathan would not be his heir and king as long as David was around.
But no, the so-called scholars around here once again are philosophising and reading things that aren’t there. They have a hypothesis and are determined to make the data fit (just like the evolutionists) rather than fitting the hypothesis to the data.
The statement you mentioned “may be taken by some to refer to a sexual relationship”, but those “some” don’t take take the Bible at face value and come to it with preconceived ideas that they are unwilling to relinquish when abundant evidence to the contrary is presented to them.
I have a feeling you come with as many preconceived ideas as scholars do. “Taking the Bible at face value’ is a slippery idea – it has led some to believe in hell and many other doctrines we don’t see. And yet Jesus clearly says in one of his parables that Lazarus was in heaven and the rich man in hell. You have trouble convincing some people you take the Bible ‘at face value’ when you tell them you don’t believe that Jesus stated facts in that parable. It is like trying to convince them Jesus told lies. Preconceptions bind all of us, and we are all reluctant to accept evidence that we may be wrong. As I am agnostic on the question of what exactly David and Jonathan’s relationship was, I don’t care to argue the case either way. But the argument that everyone who disagrees with you is ‘seeing things that are not there’ and twisting scripture doesn’t wash with me, because I am aware of how much can be read in different ways depending on your preconceptions. The fact that I share many SDA preconceptions does not change them from preconceptions to facts. It just means more often than not we will come to the same conclusions, not that those conclusions are correct.
Kevin, you obviously accept what you choose to accept, and reject what you choose to reject. Remember that the parable of the rich man and lazarus is a parable, an illustration. It is there to make a point. Just like there was no lost coin, and no prodigal son, there really didn’t exist the situation described in the parable of the rich man and lazarus. But some will latch onto it and quote it as proof of their being hell. I suppose the Holy Spirit told Peter to eat unclean animals?
The Bible must be taken at face value. Poetry as poetry (trees don’t clap their hands), prophecy as prophecy, history as history. And any conclusion must be in line with the rest of the Bible. Remember, Jesus is the way (not many ways), the truth (not many truths or half-truths) and the life. And “thy word is truth”. There is only one correct understanding of scripture. Postmodernist thinking simply doesn’t hold water.
“There is only one correct understanding of scripture. Postmodernist thinking simply doesn’t hold water.”
Which is another way of saying “my understanding of scripture is the only correct one.”
Not quite. God’s understanding is the correct one. His Spirit help anyone who desires to understand His sure.
If you look at the parable of the 10 virgins you will find that having a lamp (God’s word) but no oil (Holy Spirit) is useless.
“God’s understanding is the correct one.”
And God only knows. If the Holy Spirit helps all who desire, why are so many different interpretations? Does this imply that 1) the Holy Spirit was not with them, or; 2) they were wrongly guided by the Spirit? As even Adventists often have very different interpretations. Does God expect, or even want 100% uniformity?
Yes, to point 1 above, it implies people not willing to be teachable by the Spirit and chasing their own ideas instead. And yes, I believe God does want 100% uniformity in our understanding of Him and His principles. Not in culture or personality, but in theology, yes.
When will the day arrive when everyone uniformely agrees on theology?
Surely, that is wishful thinking, but dream on.
I have read the news also that reparative therapy changes “only” 4-5% of homosexual behavior. If it is something each is “born” with or into I would expect that none would change. However whether one is born into homosexuality or not the homosexual is born into sin as we all are. These numbers (4-5%)represent the typical statistics for any addictive behavior change whether that be an heroin addict or an obese person. (ie the percentage of people who after 5 years remain free from their addictive behavior – stay off heroin, remain normal weight etc.) We humans live in the human condition which is fallen and carnal. It is by the grace of God that any of us escape out of the grasp of any of the sins of the flesh. But we have been called by Christ to enter into His death of the body/carnal and to be reborn into His Spiritual body. Sin is recognized for what it is (through the Law) but we no longer curse it because we have a Saviour who saves us from that sin while we cannot save ourselves. Truly we can praise God for his blessings and mercy to all of us sinners. And thankfully we have a hope for the future when this carnal nature will be glorified and sin will be no more with the coming of Christ’s glorified body. All things will be made new.
WOW! I am new to Adventist Today. I was encouraged by a fellow church member to check it out. Since I fall into the catagory of one who ‘has a same sex partner’ John McLarty’s article jumped out at me. I was over come with suprised joy of his message. Thanks for your message. I am fortunate to attend an SDA church that so far exends open arms to me and my non-SDA partner. My story is personal and private. It is not open for discussion to anyone unless I choose to share it with them. Jesus who is a friend and my great counselor with whom I confide in. He is the only one who truly understands and with my willingness and open mind will lead me to where he wants me to be. It is my hope and prayer my partner will come to know Christ and understand the many truths the SDA Church has. Because my church has demonstrated to him love, openess and a non judgemental attitdue he is beginning to change his entire thinking of what and who he has thought Jesus Chirst is. I am aware and also have warned him their will be those who will surface like the Anita Douglas’. My hope is he will be grounded enough to be loving and forgiving of any hate/judemental verbage and not be driven away from knowing Jesus as his person savior. It is my understanding we all sinners even if we have a close walk with Jesus. I beleive Paul states he didn’t understand why he did some things in his life he didn’t want to do but did them anyway. David was a man after God’s own heart and his behavior even by today’s societial standards make’s one quiver alittle. I am not trying to justify sin by these examples. I am saying life is a journey and believe Jesus will lead and change if we are willing. Jesus will change me if he wants me changed in this world and if not in a twinkling of an eye. I will be eternally greatful when that day comes then all sin known and unknown will be gone. I will be what he wants me to be. I pray Jesus will open the minds and hearts of the Anita’s of our church that Jesus loves all sinners. I am thankful Jesus hung out with the sinner’s when he was here. I would have been humbled and blessed to be at his feet. Thanks to all who have shared their comments of understanding of a very serious life situation many find themselves in.
For those desiring a scholarly exposition of the topic see John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Going back to the original post on statistics, you can easily find on line that 95% is the failure rate for weight loss. Does this mean that every overweight person will be lost? And what about other addictions? When are bodies are changed from the corruptible to the incorruptible, is that when we will be free from our addictions? Why is so little said about adultery compared to homosexuality? Are they different? Polygamy was once the accepted form of marriage in biblical times as was slavery. It was tolerated by God then, apparently as part of that culture. How does this apply to same-sex partners today? Can they also have a close relationship with God as did the polygamas patriarches of old? Polygamy is not tolerated today, and would be a sin in this culture. Yet divorce is now more acceptable than years ago.
We now know a lot more about homosexuality and the fact that it is not chosen. And there are different levels which would make it easier for some to change. The ideal, of course, would be celibacy. There are a lot of ideals we cannot live up to.
I would suggest our lives consist of ideal goals that we may never meet until we receive our new bodies. (But our bodies are not the same as our characters.) In this world we live with the in-born sin of selfishness and self-centeredness, and our daily struggle and conversion is to start anew and do better than the day before. We only can do this with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as our help.
Would there then be some time in the future when pedophiles, rapists and serial killers etc., are also given ‘kosher’ status by the Govshop? They may also convince the culture of that day that they were…er – let’s see…BORN THAT WAY?
Just asking…
T
Well, there surely may be such sinners in heaven, are else none of us will be there. Does God have an order of the worst sinners to the least?
Satan seduced Israel into licentiousness before leading them to idolatry. Those who will dishonor God’s image and defile His temple in their own persons will not scruple at any dishonor to God that will gratify the desire of their depraved hearts. Sensual indulgence weakens the mind and debases the soul. The moral and intellectual powers are benumbed and paralyzed by the gratification of the animal propensities; and it is impossible for the slave of passion to realize the sacred obligation of the law of God, to appreciate the atonement, or to place a right value upon the soul. Goodness, purity, and truth, reverence for God, and love for sacred things–all those holy affections and noble desires that link men with the heavenly world–are consumed in the fires of lust. The soul becomes a blackened and desolate waste, the habitation of the evil spirits, and the “cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” Beings formed in the image of God are dragged down to a level with the brutes. {PP 458.1}
Trevor,
I used to think something like that as well years ago. However, the sins you mention destroy human beings–there are definite victims in these scenarios. It reminds me of the old (trite) saying, comparing apples and oranges, It doesn’t work.
Steve B: I am not quite sure how this quote applies to the topic.If you mean same-sex partners or celibate homosexuals, they wouldn’t be any more lustful than heterosexuals–maybe less.
Ok Mrs Rydzewski
If you feel it is an overkill with my examples that let’s go for somthing a bit (milder?)like ‘prostitutes’. The oldest profession some say; but what if they were to convince society that they are ‘born that way’ and lobby for the church to accept them as part of noble Christian aspirations?
Or maybe even those who view pornography including the sicko child porn which is very very big in the US of A. (I saw the lights go on across the US in an Oprah Winfrey show which showed the internet hits on known child porn sites frequented by sickos). Would they qualify if they argued they were born that way?
Peace
T
Sorry, Trevor, but no one has considered a study with the premise that prostitutes were born. The majority, as many studies have shown, were molested when they were young, traumatizing them with sex as only satisfying a male figure, often a father, step-father or close relative. Pimps take over, ply them with drugs to cover their feeling while working and they become “hooked” to that lifestyle. Ask any psychologist about such a study you suggest and they would laugh.
To equate homosexual monogomy with child porn is a red herring. Again, where is the slightest bit of evidence that such devotees were “born” loving child porn. If you can’t come up with legitimate reasoning, directed on topic, such strawmen are only diversions.
BTW: where have you seen homosexuals lobbying the church for membership??
Let me put it this way…
Mrs Rydzewski makes good sense by pointing out a flaw in my earlier comments and suggests that comparing apples with oranges isn’t a fair logical comparison.
I wholeheartedly agree with her and Mrs Nelson for using such bad logical reasoning. I should have said BAD apples and BAD oranges…
T
Doctorf Doctorf
RE your comment:
"I have never understood why Christians stop at God."
—–
Well – Sir, In your statement above lies the fundamental error many make.
Christians DON'T 'stop at God': we start with GOD! (in Christ Jesus of course – at the Cross – for most of us)
In God
T
This is why so many people leave the church. Adventists teach a hopeless message of perfection, a discouraging belief that when one sins, he hasn't exercised enough will power. Thank God, some of us–the muddled heap of sins that we are–are saved by our faith in the only perfection we'll know this side of heaven. I am so glad I am not an Adventist.
Fix this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/fashion/weddings/andrew-brennan-anthony-house-weddings.html?ref=weddings
The author did a good job at relating our need for unconditional acceptance. Where would we be if God did not show us His loving kindness. The truth is, there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, regardless of their background. But for those who long to live in the freedom that Christ offers, there is hope.
Unfortuantely, Adventism does not have much to offer (except for a critical attitude towards those that come out of their box). I for one, still believe in the healing ministry of Jesus. He is still able to set the captives free and restore sexual purity. (I have seen it first hand on a number of occasions). But the reality is, you may need to look around to other churches that have such ministries. Anaheim Vineyard, California is one such place. I had the chance to meet some of the leaders of "Desert Streams" many years ago. Powerful ministry to homesexuals. Kris Vallotton from Bethel Church, Redding, California has been leading some very radical stuff on sexual purity.
Check out their website for more info: http://moralrevolution.com/
So, no matter who you are and what stuff you still don't know how to deal with, never give up. Freedom on you…Blessings
With all the interest in people's sexual lives, maybe Adentism with its older members would address the current "live-in" relationships that many senior citizens are adopting, largely because of financial reasons. Why should a senior give up her pension benefits, even Social Security simply because of a marriage license? Many are now simply living together and there are ministers who will perform a ceremony with all but the state license. What is the church's position on this? Is it somehow different than their position on homosexuality?
So if homosexuality was at one time in a theocracy required the death penalty, then how is it today less sinful in the eyes of God? Same for all the apples of Sodom (Adultery, Fornication, Self Abuse, Lust, Homosexuality).
What happens to the soul that sins but never repents?
Under the theocracy in which the Israelites lived, there were many things subject to the death penalty including picking up sticks on sabbath, rebellious children, and much more.
Are those less sinful that those mentioned above?
Is it possible to never need God's forgiveness? When will the time come when one is completely sinless? Are there "worse" sins than others for which forgiveness is not given?
I'd like to point out that we all of us -with or without Christ- have free will. Lowering the bar does in no way elevate us to be in more control of that free will.
Before I became a born-again Christian I smoked; I was in a street gang; I was a fighter, a coniver; I was a swindler and I was a thief. I had an increadably foul mouththat was often used to lay curses on others. Without any human guidance I had started practicing occult stuff. And I was prayed upon by child molestors -I was almost 12 years old.
Now God took care of all of those things in time. Most of it fell away immediately but not all things fell away.
I had to stand up to my molellestors and tell them no- no more. Can you immagine what a mess I would be today if God said "Well dear you will have to put up with that it's their sexual orientation." But God did not do that, God told me to stand up and stand firm.
The other thing I was not freed from immediatly involved stealing. Before I gave myself over to God I gave in to my urges to steal without too much thought, thinking I was in full controll of my faculties. I found out I was not. Infact, I was a kleptomaniac. I remember the countless times I walked past a store with the immense urge to steal. It was hard, very hard and very disquieting -but not imposible! It took several months but God worked me through it. For years after every so once in the while Satan would come tempt me -But God reigned in me triumphant.
Smoking, God did not even get serious about it untill I came to a fuller understanding of being enslaved to anything (smoking, food addictions, tv, golf, diet, exercise ….) hinders my freedom -especially the freedom to serve Him ( you shall have no other Gods before me)
Urges to comply to either God or satan can lead us one way or another. If sexual urges stand between you and God then cast it away. These include urges to commit adultary and homosexuality. No one says you have to be in a relationship. You have a free will. You choose to act on the urges or not to act on them. It could be that the person with homosexual urges may never be atracted to the opposite sex but that does not mean he/she must indulge in a same-sex sexual relationship. I realize that it may be difficult -but not imposible. If we are only living for the here and now these things don't matter, but we are being groomed for greater better things -things to come.
Lowering the bar is not the answer. Decriminalizing car theft may result in lowering the number of car thieves sent to jail but it is not the solution. Lowering the bar on the posible limmits free will. Are we to love the sinner regardless of what sin? Yes! Are we to condone the sin? No, never! This will just result in a sinner remaning in bondage -hindering his freedom. Something Christ died for.
People with thorns in their sides will have to choose. Choose to lower the bar for comfort's sake here and now, or endure and recieve your prize in Glory.