Goal Proposed at Council: Preserve Stand & Minister to LGBT Community
by Monte Sahlin
An Official Release from the Adventist News Network, March 18, 2014
A panel of experts discussed how best to negotiate issues surrounding the gay and lesbian (LGBT) community in a way that both upholds the doctrinal position of the denomination and acknowledges the realities faced by people with alternative sexual orientations. Those realities are already impacting the life of the church, panelists said Tuesday (March 18) at the summit on sexuality convened this week by the General Conference (GC) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
“Church membership runs the gamut between actively gay people and those who deny that reality,” said Pastor Willie Oliver, co-director of the denomination’s family ministries department. “We’ve encountered [these realities] everywhere for years. People are hurting and experiencing feelings that some of us may not want to acknowledge.”
Currently, the governments of 18 nations and 15 U.S. states recognize gay marriage. More than 100 countries have decriminalized homosexual behavior. Thirty-four of 54 African countries, however, prosecute it as a crime, said Karnik Doukmetzian, general counsel for the denomination, in an overview of legal realities.
One practical example, Doukmetzian said, is whether an Adventist pastor can legally choose not to marry same-sex couples based on conscience. “Make sure legislation in your country allows clergy to opt out,” he said, urging administrators and pastors to advance a response designed to protect religious liberty.
In the sphere of employment, too, the law can affect the Adventist Church, said Lori Yingling, associate director of human resources at the GC office in Silver Spring, Maryland. “Because we are a religious organization, in the U.S. we have a legal ‘carve out’ that allows us to hire only Seventh-day Adventists,” Yingling said, noting that the exception allows church institutions to require conditions of employment based on the working policies and beliefs of the church that potential employees must agree to.
But beyond the legal and employment questions are the struggles of real people, said Pastor Brett Townend, president of the denomination’s Northern Australian Conference. “We think it is about policies, politics and protocols, but it is about people,” he said. “If we just make pronouncements that rub salt in very open wounds, we aren’t helping. We must both preserve our church and deal with the very real pain these individuals are experiencing.”
Panelists also considered the growing need to minister to Adventist young adults exploring or struggling with questions of sexual identity. “What we’re seeing, particularly on college campuses, are students trying to discover who they are,” said Elaine Oliver, co-director of the GC family ministries department. “Sadly, many Christian parents are silent about this topic. When we’re silent dealing with our children’s identity issues, there are many voices out there willing to help them figure out how to deal with their identity. We can no longer afford to be silent.”
Pastor Ekkehardt Mueller, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute, strongly agreed. Young adults today are “bombarded with messages in the media.” Mueller noted a “shift” in mindset as younger generations increasingly approach gay and lesbian issues through the lens of social justice rather than morality.
The panel, moderated by Pastor Pardon Mwansa, a GC vice president, also discussed whether church membership should be granted to LGBT people who are celibate. “The very least we can do is recognize that orientation itself is not sinful,” Townend said. “Did Jesus die for [LGBT people]? Does he want them to enter into a relationship with him? I would baptize them without too much hesitation.”
Townend acknowledged that such a move could generate a surge of conversation in local congregations, but said that “discussions must start from the position of listening, not condemnation.” Church, he said, should be a “safe place” where mentors are assigned to newly baptized members who are wrestling with sexual issues.
Asked how he would respond to an LGBT person actively working to change their sexual orientation, but failing, Dr. Peter Swanson, seminary associate professor of pastoral care at Andrews University, said he would “affirm” the person’s “persistence,” but would ask whether the person’s goals were “unrealistic or unattainable.” Another factor, he said, could be whether the person has the love and support of a circle of Christian friends and family members.
Earlier in the day, Dr. Kwabena Donkor, an associate director at the Biblical Research Institute, presented a paper on the hermeneutics of Bible passages about homosexuality. He said a main point of contention is that people who disagree on an interpretation are often coming to the text with different suppositions: “traditional” versus “contemporary” hermeneutics.
“Contemporary hermeneutics creates a distinction between what the text meant [at the time it was written] and what it means [today], and this marks the shift from traditional hermeneutics,” Donkor said. The goal of contemporary hermeneutics “is to set in motion this so-called extra linguistic world, the projection of new worlds of meaning.”
One anonymous delegate asked in a handwritten note if a believer in contemporary hermeneutics would be accepted at the conference. Donkor replied that the church needed to maintain open discussion with people who believe in such an approach. For example, he said, those who espouse contemporary hermeneutics offer an exegetical viewpoint on the Genesis 19 story about Sodom, which is translated into semiotic and literary terms to show how homosexuality has come to dominate the meaning of the story. Donkor said contemporary hermeneutics assert that the Sodom story is taken as a linguistic signifier, where the primary referent is not homosexuality, but injustice, which is expressed as a breach of hospitality customs and attempted homosexual rape. “They are denying the basic premise that this was actually an attempt at homosexuality,” Donkor later told ANN. “But as a church we need to dialogue with people who have these presuppositions. … We write them off as ‘liberals,’ but labels don’t help. They are committed and we need to understand them and talk with them.”
“They are denying the basic premise that this was actually an attempt at homosexuality,” Donkor later told ANN. “But as a church we need to dialogue with people who have these presuppositions. … We write them off as ‘liberals,’ but labels don’t help. They are committed and we need to understand them and talk with them.”
Committed? Come on! We conservatives Christians are committed much more so, just as Donker seems to be when he points out the “basic premise” of Genesis 19. But if Donker thinks we should keep talking to them and trying to understand their corrupted desire, well this only serves to weaken the traditional and correct interpretation of this important biblical account and makes the sinner think the has some say in the matter of righteousness. Remember, these sodomites were so filled with homosexual lust they didn’t want to have relations with Lot’s daughters but rather wanted to have sex with Godly angels – an outright attempt to corrupt Holiness and Godliness every level and as much as possible! It is no different than the way they will eventually attempt to gain access to the pulpits in the form of homosexual pastors – ultimately poisoning the entire church with their message of “understanding” and “compassion,”– all in the name of “tolerance” and acceptance.
I say end this debate with obvious sin and move on into preaching the Gospel – the turning away from one’s sins. For those that are dying and lost in this world, who amoung them will listen seriously to the message of a committed Christian life if we allow by “dialogue” the same homosexual infiltration that the Catholic church has allowed to go on in their ranks for a thousand years. A sinner knows what sin is.
Men and Women of God, we are slaves to righteousness not to the flesh. Stand your ground and the LGBT will eventually go away and form there own perverted chruch to play Christian in. Remember, Moses was harsh when it came to keeping sin out of the camp if Israel. Revivals only happen when godly men and women preach boldly the way of righteousness. (And rightousness is not homosexuality)
“Contemporary hermeneutics creates a distinction between what the text meant [at the time it was written] and what it means [today], and this marks the shift from traditional hermeneutics,” Donkor said.
Words obviously have varying degrees of differing meanings in different times and cultures. For instance, gay means something very different now than when Shakespeare was writing or even when we "donned our gay apparel" in a fairly contemporary christmas carol. To assert that it is only "contemporary" (and thus somehwhat apostate or inferior) hermenuetics that recognizes this difference seems to me incredibly disingenious.
Understanding what words meant to the writer and his audience is the absolute core of ANY effective exegesis.
I agree, Daniel. It is ridiculous not to recognize that the meaning of words change over time, and that Bible writers' worldview lacked the scientific knowledge that we have today. God met people where they were, and didn't try to enlighten them about something they would not have understood.
Dr. Donkor mentions the Sodom story, which says that every man, both young and old, from every part of the city, gathered at Lot's home. Are we to imagine that every man in the city was homosexual? Of course not. They were mostly heterosexual husbands and fathers. And their words to Lot, "We will treat you worse than them," indicates that their intent was rape, not pleasure. The corresponding story in Judges sheds light on this story. And other texts referring to Sodom say that the "sin" of Sodom was its arrogance and refusal to help the poor. I don't understand how he can not understand that this was talking about the inhospitality of the men of Sodom, who used the common method of humiliating strangers by treating them like women – raping them.
A review of all the Bible texts mentioning homosexual activity, not one mentions love. They are always perversions and for gratification of lust and domination. The only one is the story of David's love for Jonathan that "exceeded the love of women." This is true homosexual love, always omitted in any conversations and discussions of homosexuality. Someone care to explain why it is never mentioned?
Sure Elaine, that is not too difficult. David and Jonathan’s love is not characterized or defined or described as homosexual love because there is no hint that it was sexual as opposed to brotherly (love).
I mean, it’s not like David’s faults and foibles, nor those of his children, are exactly hidden very well, were they?
It would appear then that it was never mentioned only because it was nonexistent.
Stephen, surely every time the word Love is in the Bible it is not connected with sex; nor did I ever infer that David and Jonathan were engaged in sexual activity, but it cannot be denied that they loved, even more than the love of women–whatever that meant.
There are many examples of brotherly love in the Bible "Greet everyone with a holy kiss" that was never meant as sexual.
My contention is that if there can be heterosexual love that doesn not invove sex, why cannot same sex people love without sexual intimacy? Love is not always associated with sex, nor should it be. If David and Jonathan's love was not heterosexual and it couldn't have been heterosexual, was it an "alternative sexuality?
As the texts in Genesis 19 and the story of David reveal, the Biblical writers obviously didn't think about sexuality the same way we do, which is why it is so important to try and understand what they meant when they used a word or phrase. Stephen Foster points out that David had sex with women, which he would interpret to preclude David from having a sexual relationship with Jonathan. But that is not how Biblical writers thought about sexuality at all. The guys in Soddom and Gomorrah aren't "homosexual" the way we use the word today. They were likely all going home to their wives and children.
Daniel,
I pointed out that David’s life was what we’d call an ‘open book;’ and I am reasoning that since him murdering someone to cover up an adulterous affair with his victim’s wife is recorded, that a homosexual relationship with the king’s son would therefore also have been recorded if indeed such a relationship ever existed.
Elaine questioned why a homosexual love relationship was never mentioned (in scripture or elsewhere?); and I am suggesting that the love David and Jonathan shared was not erotic, because we’d know if it had been—given that we know about a murder.
I’m baffled; because now Elaine seems to say that she wasn’t talking about a sexual relationship between them, but something else. The something else was a brotherly affection; but I think Elaine is saying that it was actually a platonic homosexual relationship—and that such relationships are not sinful.
If that’s what she is saying, I don’t know who said/suggested that they were.
Let me see if I understand your reasoning, Daniel. The Bible writers didn't think about sexuality the same way we do (or much of anything else for that matter). But of course we know they all thought pretty much the same about sexuality, even if the events about which they wrote were separated by millenia. Since they thought differently about sexuality, it is not unreasonable to think that the men of Sodom who accosted Lot were likely bisexual. Therefore, David, who lived many hundreds of years later, may have been bisexual. Since it is "likely" that this speculation is true, we can reasonably infer the proposition that David had a sexual relationship with Jonathan from the assumption that Bible writers thought differently about sexuality than we do. Impeccable logic!
See Elaine's comment below to help fill in the reasoning a little more clearly Nate. It is not that big a stretch to see how we may have gotten off track a bit based on our misunderstandings of what the ancient writers were actually talking about. Certainly it would make it easier to reconcile being kind and loving to all human beings and a little less judgemental if we could use that logic instead of the "you are going to hell if you're gay" logic that has dominated Christian culture over the last century.
i don't believe the Sodom & Gomorrah debacle happened "as reported". i don't believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt. i don't believe Lot was in the wild area long, as he valued his creature comforts. i seriously doubt he would leave children in a bad place, but would have ordered them to leave with him, being the pariarch of his group. And don't believe he was incestous with his children. He had lots of enemies, but no mad mob would have backed away when the door was shut to them.
We all love to "fill in the blanks" on Bible stories: where there is incomplete information, we are certain of what really happened when in truth we assume far too much. We do know that perspectives, as well as knowledge about sex proved them to be very ignorant: only men planted the seed into an incubator and the mother was merely like the "earth" when grain seeds were planted. The admonition to be fruitful and multiply could only be fulfilled if all available females of child bearing ages were kept pregnant and seed that was wasted was sinful (see Onan).
Rape has been a terrible form of domination as far back in history as we have records: the enemy could be subdued by the victorious army raping the conquered soldiers. This was the story of Sodom: Uninvited and unknown men were visting Lot and those outside were clamoring to have access to them to show them who dominated the city: a most powerful form of domination. This is well recognized by correctional workers who observe a young, new prisoner is taken under the wings of a more powerful inmate for "protection" in exchange for sexual services–also domination.
Whether David and Jonathan's love was erotic, it was certainly called love in the Bible. This should demonstrate that there can be love between same sex individuals with, or without sexual intimacy. But while the Bible praises love, sex is forbidden to both heteros and homos if it is abusive, and is devoid of love. If all the verses in the Bible mentioning same sex are read, they ALL, without exception, never mention love. We know that sex without love is sinful because it is using a person as an object; love never objectifies, but respects and cares for the other. This is what is so often seen in the older, lesbian partners who are so happy they are finally able to marry; many care for disabled children, and in old age care for each other. Sexual "hook-ups" do not have long-lasting love relationships. This is what the Bible appears to be recording: mere "sexual hook-ups" without love.
Very well put Elaine. This concept is so difficult to understand for so many who are steeped in the traditional Christian take on same sex love. In one fell swoop we have condemned a whole class of society to 3rd class status and opened the doors to ostracizing and persecuting people who are born with different wiring. Worse yet we have created a situation where the bullies feel empowered to pick on and abuse these folks with both words and even physical attacks, to the point that suicide has been the only way out for many many gay people. Shame on us for not seeing their human-ness and their value as God's creation, no matter how their sexuality is wired.
All this speculation about David and Jonathan is useless insofar as I am concerned. I do not for one moment believe it was a homsexual relationship and a woman who suggested such on the Spectrum blog was taken to task to put it mildly. She knows who she is.
On the Summit itself. Why was it necessary? Wasn't there a much better use for the $$ it cost?
Will the next one be on recreational drugs?
Maranatha
I'm with you on that point. I often wonder what is the purpose for many of the study meetings and why the church takes official positions on various issues. Does our church leadership actually believe them taking an official position on a topic will influence which way the church goes? Instead of having study committees and issuing statements, what if they challenged groups of grassroots-level believers to consider the issue and took guidance from their input? I think sometimes that might provide a far more practical and realistic approach to topics.
Reading the postings today, I am, after attending a SDA church service in Los Angeles County and being disturbed by a couple of events at the communion service: 1-The minister introduced a woman (member? I don't know as I am a guest) who is asking the church body what office in the church she can hold as a lesbian; 2-My black Armani sunglasses disappeared during the communion service, not to found by me, or in Lost and Found; and 3-There was no Act of Humility Footwashing Service prior to the communion service held during the church service, or did I miss it due to missing Sabbath School.
Needless to say, I am home hungry, but not eating, and praying about my concerns and I am sharing my opinion as a third generation Adventist.
1- Biblical law, I know is frequently debated and the SDA lesson study recently is regarding Biblical law, so discussions are timely. The Biblical law definately forbids homosexual acts and even tatooing, so any debate about it being a sin is mute. Yet, we are all sinners, but we know that our favorite sins, if we do not repent and stop them, will cause us to fall.
2- Surprised I was at the theft in a church of the Lord's on the Sabbath and during Communion. Is theft here at this time and place any different than any other theft? I'm not sure, but it is really in your face, so to speak.
3- The Act of Humility is a favorite time of mine to talk with the Lord in prayer and let go of and ask forgiveness of sin, especially sins I've made that are unknown to me. Yes, sins I've made that are unknown to me. In these days we can offend and sin easily with our quick freeways, computers and cell phones. Best of all, the act of humility is to humble us and cause us to remember our sinful state.
We must be careful as good christians not to slide down slippery slopes of sin.