God Loves Gays (and so should we)
by Kendra Perry
“As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’” ~John 9:1-3
Here’s a thought experiment for you: replace the word “blind” in this passage with the word “gay.” Or “bisexual.” Or “transgender.”
Yes, God’s ideal is that marriage should be sacred between one man and one woman (reference). God’s ideal is also that we should be born perfectly healthy and happy, and that we should live forever.
Jesus healed this man born blind, but there are still blind people in the world. When you see a blind person, do you tell him that he is an abomination of sin? That God hates him?
Is it possible to live a life that honors God AND be outside his original plan for marriage? Let’s ask Abraham, Jacob, or David. Ask your friend in church who had to get a divorce because her husband beat her. Or the friend whose wife left him for someone else. Ask how many respected leaders in your church have struggled with pornography. Or had premarital sex (talk about the Adventist sin that dare not speak its name!).
We all die.
Would you dare to say to the child born with a disability that he will burn in hell simply because of who he is?
Should my grandfather be disfellowshipped because he has a genetic neurological disorder that requires him to use a wheelchair everywhere he goes? Should he be required to choose between walking on his own, even though he physically cannot, or always lying in bed because using the wheelchair would stain the ideal of health that God established in Eden?
All of us, in some way, fall short of God’s original ideal. We all bear the marks of sin in our bodies, our minds, our hearts. I was born tongue-tied and had to have surgery to remove my frenulum (the small piece of skin below my tongue). I have a bad temper. I like to eat.
Think of the moment you face your besetting sin, maybe the secret one. The one that so easily ensnares you. Think of the moment BEFORE you act: the overwhelming craving to eat a whole box of Little Debbies. The wave of desire that sweeps over you when you see or think about that person. The hot anger rising in your throat when that stupid person says yet another stupid thing. The knowledge that you should, really should, put down the game controller because there are other things much more worth your time. The critical comment or piece of juicy gossip you find poised on the tip of your tongue even before you think about it.
Now, imagine that everyone and everything you know tells you that HAVING THAT IMPULSE (not even doing the act, just having the impulse) means that you will burn in hell. You are afraid to talk to anyone about it because acknowledging that you have that desire, that struggle, will condemn you. It will put you irrevocably outside your circle of family and friends and church and love.
From what I understand of my LGBT friends’ lives, they are not choosing to be the way they are to spite their families or church or God. In fact, most of them spend a lot of time trying NOT to be the way they are, often falling into deep depression before coming to the conclusion that they can either be honest about who they are or kill themselves. Too many choose the latter.
How can we condemn those who choose to be honest about who they are and the struggles they face? Our condemnation helps drive our brothers and sisters into the arms of the flamboyantly out, often promiscuous LGBT community, where they can find people who acknowledge and affirm their existence.
Their VERY EXISTENCE. While the church too often tries to tell them they do NOT EXIST. Or should not.
Too often, we conflate BEING lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender with outrageous promiscuity. But there are celibate gay people and promiscuous straight people. When a man says he finds women attractive, do we automatically assume that he lives like Hugh Hefner? He is not representative of every straight man any more than highly promiscuous gay men are representative of every gay man.
The attraction is not the sin. Not any more than the thought, “Chocolate is yummy” or that moment you stand before your besetting sin. Yes, leading a promiscuous lifestyle is clearly outside God’s will. But knowing who someone is attracted to tells us NOTHING about the decisions they will make about how to act on that attraction.
Some LGBT Christians (it IS possible to be both at once) believe that God is leading them to a life of celibacy. Should we not honor that heartwrenching decision? Some LGBT Christians believe that God is leading them to a life of committed monogamy with someone of the same sex. Did not Paul say in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that it was better to marry than to burn with desire?
I happen not to be attracted to the same sex, so I haven’t had to wrestle with my conscience before God about this particular issue. I have the privilege of knowing without question that it is POSSIBLE for me to have a romantic partnership according to his will. But I DO have those things in my life that I have to wrestle with him about. We all do.
Like Jacob (the polygamist), sometimes I must hold on for dear life and say, “I will not let go until you bless me!” And in those dark moments, often it is the fellowship, acceptance, and caring of other Christians that encourages me not to give up, to keep holding on, to believe that all have sinned and that the blood of Jesus covers all sins. Yes, even THAT one. Or THAT one.
Would it not be better to embrace our brothers and sisters with the arms of Christ and stand beside them as they wrestle to find a way to be themselves that honors God? How can we presume that our conscience, shaped by our own culture and natural inclinations, can speak for them?
At the very least, can we not compassionately acknowledge that in this world shaped by sin, we all find ourselves in less than ideal situations from time to time, and that it is sometimes difficult to discern God’s will in two less than ideal choices? We do our best to choose rightly, and sometimes we do. But sometimes we don’t. All of us.
But thank God, he still loves us. Still draws us to him. Still forgives and cherishes and leads us.
Someday (soon, I hope), it will get better once and for all when we meet that God face to face. In the meantime, compassionate acceptance and encouragement of our fellow LGBT pilgrims is one important way of letting his unconditional, transforming love shine in this broken world.
Thank you so much for this article. It is very well written & nice to see our church publicly comment about this issue. Thankfully for me this is not my "besetting sin", but my sister struggled with these feelings. It tore her apart for years. I was blessed to have been by her hospital bed as she lay dying of acute myeloid leukemia at the tender age of 26. She was in a coma and fighting hard just to breath. I leaned down and asked her if I could pray with and for her. She made gutteral noices that let me know she had heard me. I asked the Lord to draw close to her and forgive her sins. I then told her to please let go & the next face she would see would be Jesus on the resurection morning. Within the hour her blood pressure fell and within five hours she was gone. She had only been diagnosed 4 months earlier. While this was extremly hard on my father & I since my mother had also died only 5 months before, we were both comforted in the knowledge that she is only sleeping, waiting for the Lords call on that wonderful day so soon to come. My father passed away just last year and I wait alone now to be reuinted with my family. I can hardly wait to see them again! As I struggle with temptations and trials I take courage & hope in the knowledge that soon, if I am faithful, I will not only see my family again, but my Lord & Savior who willingly laid His life down for me. Oh how undeserving I am! I have many times cried out to Him that I would not let go until He forgave me. While I have let Him down over & over again, He has never & will never let me down, neither will He let any of us go without a fight!!
I speak His name & ten thousand angels start singing and at His name every knee shall bow. His name is "Wonderful", "Counselor", "The Mighty God", "The Prince of Peace". At His presence the earth shakes, the sea parts open & yet all this wonderous power and majesty steps aside to honor the dignity of our individual choices. "Oh, how He Loves You and Me." But how do we approach such a magnificent Being? Shall we give Him our first born or "Ten thousand rivers of oil"? What does the Lord require of us but to do justly and to love mercy & to walk humbly with our God!!!" This is an excerpt of what my sweet Daddy wrote several years ago in the beginning pages of Steps to Christ. I am forever grateful to have been raised by such a Godly man who showed me Christs character in his daily life!! Rosalie Nicholas Alderman
I see the gay lobby is back! They don't stay quiet for very long. As soon as it's quiet on the Creation/Evolution front, they come back to fill in the void.
So tell me, why is it that gay people who try not to be gay get depressed, but promiscuous straight people who try not to be promiscuous do not get depressed?
Or why should it be considered OK for someone to be homosexual and monogamous, but not to be heterosexual and promiscuous? Both are a mixture of a good trait with a bad one?
Better just to be obedient to God. To obey is better than sacrifice.
In 1 Peter 4:8 we read "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins", and in James 5:20 we read "remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins." Therefore we also see that if we truly love someone deeply we will help them turn from the error of their ways. This applies to both gays and straight people (promiscuous or otherwise.)
Pagophilus,
There is far more to redemption and overcoming sin than merely choosing to obey. Only those who do not know the true natures of the sin that is in them or redemption are so quick to offer such a simple solution to sin.
There is far more to overcoming than choice alone. It begins with the power of God enabling us to see the nature of the sin that is in us and give us a desire to change. Then God gives us the power to choose to accept His power to overcome. Once in a while you hear of a person being delivered in dramatic fashion where they are no longer bound by a particular sin. Most of us have a long struggle where we learn day-by-day to trust God and depend on Him for power for that minute, hour or day. I take hope from the experience of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12 where he talks about the "thorn in my flesh" that God gave him to keep him from becoming proud. I praise God for the "thorn in my flesh" that God uses to remind me of my need for him each day and that my salvation is secure regardless of if I overcome that weakness prior to the Second Coming.
I accept what you're saying William. We cannot overcome by our own strength, only through the power of God. However the first step to overcoming is to admit we have a problem. And this is where the gay lobby falls apart because they don't believe they have a problem. They believe some people are born gay and are going to stay that way.
It is possible that people are born with a tendency to be attracted to the same sex, just as it is possible to be born with a tendency to steal or a tendency to be attracted to alcohol. That does not make it OK to continue to steal or drink alcohol, and likewise it does not make it OK to continue to practice homosexuality.
To struggle with sin is a good thing, because it means you acknowledge you have a problem. It's when you stop struggling that you are in serious danger.
As a matter of fact, many straight people who are promiscuous and try not to be DO become depressed. Hence the existence of support groups such as Sexaholics Anonymous. The difference is that straight people in this situation are trying to stop a problem BEHAVIOR, not change the fundamental makeup of their being.
It is possible that God's will for his LGBT children is to live a life of celibacy (I do believe that the Bible leaves this somewhat open to question, but we will go with your assumption for now). If celibacy is the only option, shouldn't this make us shower MORE love and compassion on them? What a difficult cross to bear! God also said in Eden that it is not good for people to be alone, so our brothers and sisters who struggle with this need MORE support and encouragement from their church family, not less, if celibacy is the only road open to them.
Kendra,
I agree with what you have said. There are many "straight" people who are single for one reason or another, and we expect them to be celebate. They may also face a life alone. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the same from the homosexual who strives to be a Christian. Happiness and success in life doesn't depend on someone else.
However, I would not be against legal partnerships outside the religion, because our religion should not decide what others should do (as in banning same-sex marriages).
I don't know–this is a tough issue for Christians.
Pagophilis: When did you choose to be straight? Your prejudice and judgmentalism is revealed in your use of the phrase "gay lobby." Oops!
This is the same drivel we hear from the mainstream supporters of this aberrant lifestyle. We're all born with a "disability." It's called a sinful nature. I've never heard anyone say that someone will go to hell for "having the impulse." But the impulse must be ovecome. You can hardly put a disorder that confines someone to a wheelchair in the same category as homosexuality. There is no clear consensus on whether or not it is genetic. Some have hateful, violent impusles. Jesus called that murder. He would put homosexual impulses in the category of lust, which he called adultery.
The issue is not whether or not we love homosexuals. God loves everyone and so should we. But we do not affirm the lifestyle. The purpose of the church is to help lead sinners out of their sinful lifestyles, not aid and abet them like Kinship and some other "Christian" organizations are doing. The argument that "they are born that way" is a very weak argument; one that comes form a defeatist mentality. We are all born with sinful natures. One could claim that they were born a kleptomaniac. So what? We've been promised power to overcome all inherited and cultivated sinful traits–that would include homosexuality, selfishness, pride, etc. So, whether or not that is "who they are," is irrelevant.
We each have our own areas of weakness. Some are attracted to one evil, some to another. But some are worse in the eyes of God than others. I have a hard time believing it is harder to overcome homosexual tendencies than it is to kick the alcohol or nicotine habit. We are not told to merely refrain from acting out our evil desires; we are told to overcome them.
While this evil should not be treated different than any other evil, at least in the sense that it must be overcome in the same way as any other evil, it does get treated differently in practice, because of its very nature. And we see in the Bible, God treated very differently, as well. To most people it is more repugnant than many other evils. The fact that it is not repugnant to some is an indicator of how low humanity have fallen.
Horace,
How badly you misunderstand and dustort the natures of both sin and redemption! You raised the homosexual lifestyle as an issue making that sin repugnant. WRONG! That lifestyle is a product of the sin that is in a person, the identical sinful nature that is also in you from head to toe and fingertip to fingertip. I am thankful God doesn't get hung-up on our lifestyles and let that prevent Him from redeeming us. Only when you learn to look beyond the lifestyles and behaviors will begin to understand what it truly means to be a partner with God in His work of redeeming sinners, including both you and me.
That's the best you could do? Fixate on the last paragraph, ignoring the rest. I stated a commonly known fact: most people find that lifestyle repugnant. I didn't say that it prevents redemption. In that respect we are all in the same boat. The "white" lie will bar us from the kingdom just the same as being homosexual will (or being hateful, jealous, selfish, etc.). But God doesn't regard all sins as of equal magnitude, or He would not have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. My objection is directed toward those who try to excuse it because "that's part of who they are." That doesn't cut it for any other sin, and it doesn't for homosexuality, either.
Horace,
You wrote "But God doesn't regard all sins as of equal magnitude, or He would not have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah." On what scriptural basis do you make that claim? If one sin is of different magnitude than another, how do you know that Jesus' death at Calvary was sufficient to redeem you?
"All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men . . . . " Mark 3:29. That tells me that Jesus' death was sufficient to redeem anyone.
According to Paul, in his letter to the church in Ephesus, there are some sins that it is "a shame even to speak of . . . . " And yet there are sins that he speaks about a lot, and without shame. Clearly, then, some are much worse than others, and, apparently, will receive greater punishment in the judgment. Jesus said that there are degrees of guilt in his parable of the faithful and unfaithful servants. Luke 12:46-48.
Horace,
The wages of sin is death. Period. Absolute. No exceptions. The difference you illustrate is merely that some sins bear greater shame, or are considered more "acceptable" by people. But they are equally repulsive to God and all bear the same penalty: Death.
If all sins can be forgiven, why are you having such a difficult time with redemption for someone whose particular sin is repulsive to you? How is their sin any less sinful or deadly than your pride or selfishness?
By the way, I learned the Gospel from a homosexual who knew the redeeming power of God and wouldn't let the opinions people had about him keep him away from God.
Pastor Noel, It seems that it may not have been the FULL gospel you have learnt. Question is, do you believe that homosexual practices are acceptable biblical principles of righteousness and godliness? Or does such behaviour fall within the context of sin?
♥T
Trevor,
First, I'm not a pastor. Just a redeemed sinner.
Second, what I learned was a major expansion of my prior, traditional SDA concept of the Gospel being powerful enough to redeem most while people with some sins were questionable because their sin was more repugnant. I learned that all sin is equally repugnant to God and equally deadly to us, but the grace of God is able to look past the sin and touch the heart of the sinner who seeks redemption. My friend helped me learn to look past specific behaviors and love sinners the same way Jesus loves sinners.
In the time of Jesus lepers were the social outcasts with a stigma attached to them that is equivalent to how Christians view homosexuals today. Just touching a leper made a person unclean where they could not enter the temple. Still, Jesus was willing to look past that stigma and the threat of uncleanliness to touch them. More than that, he healed them. Jesus offers to do the same for each of us today regardless of our besetting sin or the social stigma that may surround it.
Our biggest challenge as modern Christians is will illustrated in the book "Unchristian" where is it documented that the majority of Christians in America are viewed very negatively because we are perceived first as being anti-gay and anti-abortion. Our task is to understand redeption the same as Jesus so we can see sinners the same way He does. So I encourage you and others to look past the issue of homosexuality and learn God's power to redeem so that you can minister that redemption to sinners, whatever their besetting sin may be.
Brother Noel,
Sir, I have no grouse regarding you views above but just want say that God can use all sorts of people and avenues to speak to us (He even used a donkey once). I know of a dynamic preacher who told us that he learnt about Jesus love and the salvation freely offered to believers from the preacher's 'drunkard dad' (just as he told us). His drunken dad would call his family for worship and sing, preach and pray with them. The preacher became a believer as a direct result of this. (I can just picture all the 'christian' tipple revellers going yippee hallelujah!) … but does this excuse the drunkeness? I respectfully say no to both drunkeness and homosexual behaviour no matter how virtuous they may be perceived.
♥T
Trevor,
As you reminded us, if God can use a donkey…
Have you read the rest of what I've said? I have no problem with redemption for those whose sins I find more repulsive than others. My beef is only with those who would give them a pass because they were "born that way." Would we give the pedophile a pass because he was "born that way?" Right now the world embraces homosexuality and abhors pedophilia. Is one worse than the other? By your standards, apparently not. The term "scum of the earth" comes to mind when I think of pedophiles–but Jesus died for them, too. But they have to repent, as do all of us, including homosexuals (along with the proud, the selfish, the hateful, etc.)–whether they claim to have been born that way or not.
I'm still trying to figure out why those of us who refuse to affirm this lifestyle and find it repugnant are somehow Pharisees. I'm repulsed by the proud and arrogant, too, but no once calls me a Pharisee because of it.
Perhaps scientific information can be furnished showing pedophiles are "born that way" or that "alcoholics are born that way" or even lovers of pornography were "born that way." Surely, with such a statement, it should be accompanied by indisputable scientific evidence. Otherwise it only reflect one's personal bias–no better than saying "sugar causes diabetes and Alzheimer's."
Point #1) You seem to regard the "gay lifestyle" as a monolithic entity. It is not. LGBT individuals and their lifestyles vary widely, as do heterosexuals. Some practice complete celibacy, some enter into committed relationships akin to marriage, and some are wantonly promiscuous. We certainly can find straight people who fall into all of these categories as well.
Point #2) Ezekiel 16:49 makes it clear that sexual perversion was not the only reason for Sodom's destruction: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." I do not know one single solitary lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who has tried to beat down their neighbor's door in order to ravage hapless visitors as the Sodomites did to Lot's guests.
Can we not acknowledge a continuum of behavior for everyone — gay, straight, and in between — rather than posing the false dichotomy of GAY (EVIL) vs. STRAIGHT (PURE)?
Sodom can't be used as an example of homosexuality unless all the men in the town were homosexuals, and that would not be possible. They were no doubt family men who just wanted to let the visitors know they were unwelcome by humiliating them in the violent custom of the day. I believe this is what most theologians would say about this text. They were a wicked people.
Horace,
I agree with you in rejecting the "god made me this way" claim. That claim blames God as the cause of sin instead of Satan while seeking to avoid personal responsibility for behavior.
Thanks, Kendra, for your excellent article. Some seem to have missed the part about God's love being unconditional for all of us as sinners. I believe that is the center of the everlasting gospel that we are to share with the world. And, it is easy to grasp onto an "impluse" instead of realizing that sexual orientation is not a choice any more than being blue-eyed or left handed. But, since the Holy Spirit is the only one who can change a person's thinking on this, I don't expect to. I will just pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to work to lead us all to a deeper relationship with Jesus and His love.
Kendra,
Thank you for such a thoughful and realistic exploration of what it means to be less than perfect and still loved by God. I truly wish more people could understand that it isn't the particular sin we don't like in someone else that is the problem, but the sin that is in us making weak and imperfect and that no sin is worse than another because they are all sin and we all are in equal need of a savior, whatver our besetting sin may be.
I agree: God loves SINNERS (and so should we)…
But for us to imply: God loves SIN (and so should we)… isn't what the Bible teaches no matter how politically, CULTurally and socially correct we want to portray ourselves to be. The bottom line? Condoning sin isn't the same as loving a sinner. To 'baptise' sin whether it is homosexual perversion or heterosexual perversion for that matter, as many cultural liberals (progressives) do, is an abomination to God and an open insult to the price that Jesus paid on the cross for our sin.
Ps 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
Having a goodwill gesture towards those who are disobedient to God may have it's place; but to stand in their way, preventing or obstructing them from coming to Christ for salvation tends to display a kind of self righteous love which is offered without the cross. There is only one remedy for sin. Homosexuals can also come to the cross like everyone else and experience the joy of salvation. John 3:16 offers this to us and it comes as a result of God's love for the sinner.
♥T
Trevor Hammond wrote: The bottom line? Condoning sin isn't the same as loving a sinner".
This is exactly the point. And, as I posted in my comment above, the Bible states that by loving one another deeply we will cover a multitude of sins, and whoever turns a sinner from their evil ways will cover a multitude of sins, therefore loving one another is equivalent to turning a sinner from their evil ways, not supporting them in their sin.
You make the automatic assumption that a LGBT person is disobedient to God's will. In fact, the statement, "I am gay" makes a person neither more nor less a sinner than someone who says, "I am straight." It is the choices one makes about how to live out their attractions that determines obedience or disobedience. I trust that my LGBT brothers and sisters have spent time with God seeking his will for their lives and are doing their best to follow it, just as I am. I will continue to encourage them to do so, but the lifestyle they feel God is leading them to is between them and God, not me and them.
I have also observed that compassionate encouragement is often a more effective method of dissuading people from negative behaviors than self-righteous condemnation. See also John 8:1-11.
Maybe that assumption results from the way the subject is usually presented. Sympathy is expressed for people in these lifestyle, but little is said about helping them leave these lifestyles. These people need help, not affirmation. Much as I disagree with Focus on the Family on many issues, I do admire them for their work among homosexuals. Homosexuals who have been converted and left that lifestyle conduct a ministry to help rescue others from it. And it is not done in a spirit of condemnation. This put to shame Kinship, which claims to be a ministry to SDA homosexuals, but which, in reality, only affirms them in their lifestyles.
Does Mr. Butler have any problem with affirming the lifestyle of heterosexuals?
I find it telling that an increasing number of "ex-gay" ministries such as Exodus International and Evergreen International now warn those seeking change therapy that they cannot definitely eliminate all attractions to your same gender, nor can you definitely acquire heteroerotic attractions. Virtually all major mental health organizations have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public against treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.
Those pieces of information in mind, I think it is all the more imperative that we show love to those in the GLTBQI community rather than concern ourselves with letting them know they need to turn from their sin as it is something most are likely to struggle with all their lives.
And while we're at it, the Bible demonstrates a pretty clear stance on divorce. If we spent even half the energy we spend condemning homosexuality helping married couples avoid divorce, or alcoholics recover, or workaholics find balance between work and family, I think society would be the better for it. Quite frankly, I've seen far more families severely impacted by divorce, alcohol, and workaholism than I have homosexual relationships. And the ones that have been affected by homosexual relationships have been married couples where one partner entered into a heterosexual marriage in an effort to "cure" themselves.
I also wish to thank Kendra for her excellent article. As we might have expected, Trevor and one or two others reacted in their usual I-know-whats-best-for-everyone and lets-call-sin-by-its-right-name manner. On one hand, it is so sad to realize that we have fellow church members with such views. On the other hand, I'm glad that Adventist Today has a free and open access policy for comments so we can all read in their own words how modern Pharisees express their opinions, e.g., "I thank God I am not as one of these . . ."
Show me the quote where one of has said, "I thank God I am not as one of these . . . " I'm just as hard on the right wing wackos who march with signs that say "God hates fags," as I am on those who would try excuse the lifestyle on the basis that "that's who they are." Do we give that same pass to thieves, liars, or murderers?
Horace,
Or, do we learn to love them as God does so we can look past their behaviors and attitudes and touch their hearts with His love?
Love "rejoiceth not in iniquity . . . . " Love says, I don't condem you, but, "go and sin no more." Loving someone is not the same as affirming them in their sinful lifestyle, whether be the current topic or some other destructive behaviour. And love cannot look beyond behaviour that is destructive to the individual. It seeks to rescue the person.
But those who appear to condone this lifestyle and behavior are quick to demonize those of us who wish to call it what it is. Funny that we are never demonized for speaking out against drug abuse, murder, adultery, or other destructive behaviours.
Let's look at the whole passage you're quoting:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. … For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, 12.
One of the most important expressions of love (short of sacrificing one's life for another) is to see, listen to, acknowledge, and affirm a person's existence and experience. This can only be done on an individual basis. Any blanket statement that lumps an individual in with a group and makes a determination about their character is inherently unloving.
Just as we as Adventists wish to be known and understood for our individual (and widely varying) experiences and beliefs rather than lumped in with "those Adventists" or "those conservatives" or "those liberals," so LGBT indivduals wish to be known and understood for their unique experiences, beliefs, and values.
Whether or not we agree with ANY person's beliefs, philosophy, or lifestyle choices, we can certainly be patient, kind, humble, and protective in our interactions with them. We can take the time and effort to see each person as a unique individual, loved by God, and treat them with the same respect we desire.
Horace,
Ah, the inconsistency with which we view sins! That is how some sins have become more socially acceptable than others.
Let's not forget that God first forgives and accepts a person before empowering them to follow Him and learn His ways. The first resonse I so often see to particular sins is to condemn and demand complete obedience without first forgiving. Learning to forgive first, to look past their sins and behaviors to touch their hearts has transformed my ministry from theoretical to effective.
The honourable Dr. Taylor informs us of the 'free and open access policy for comments'. I wish to point out that it is not as free as he would like us to think. Take for example the deletion of some of my comments and I think I did also notice the removal too of some others who come out in support of traditional Adventist views. The Pharisees were more inclined to this type of behaviour…
On the other hand, I would definitely give credit that such a position as pro gay support would gain immense popularity within such a CULTure but will always only reflect a form of godliness which denies the power thereof. The power of God unto salvation: that is.
♥T
I believe this comment may be off topic.
Mr. Hammond's comment is certainly off topic. But he probably can't distinguish what is on and off topic very well because he usually has some cliche he wishes to share with us as is the example above.
Are we saying in all of this, that homosexual (GBLT) practice is an acceptable part of a Bible based Christian Lifestyle and that cultural/political liberals, or humanists, within the church want to force this position on the SDA church as a whole? Secular society is allowed to do as they please even though they often encroach on the Church via the secularization within the church in the form of liberals. Ok. Secular society remains separate from the church for various reasons so now they have opted to legalize GBLT practice. I don't think that under these circumstances that the church can do much except accept society's decision to do so – the church, with regret though, will have to accept such trend but is not obligated to condone it. This however, shouldn't be imposed on the church. Anyway, while the church and state may be separated from an earthly perspective, one CANNOT separate God from all of this. He identifies what sin is and HIMSELF makes adequate provision to remedy it – by (in Christ) dying on the cruel cross of Calvary in order to reconcile us to Him. The death of Jesus also shows the wrath of God for what sin which is a direct result of disobedience. Whilst love and mercy abounds in God, sin has to be dealt with by Him and what a price Jesus paid for all of us: including those with a disposition towards homosexuality. God’s call is for ALL sinners to repent: including GLBT.
Take for instance 'repentance' – which is an intricate component of Righteousness by Faith. We all go our own separate ways as sinners, in DIFFERENT directions, whatever; together with the many, many sinful habits and practices we are all susceptible to. When we repent (μετανοέω metanoeo) – it signifies a change in our thinking, habits and practices; but in the opposite direction, in obedience to God by Faith in Jesus Christ. Heterosexuality on God's terms is NOT sin: whilst homosexuality (GBLT) is – the Bible is clear regarding this and the church therefore CAN DO NO OTHER. As hard as this may be to accept and come to terms with there can be NO compromise with sin. The spiritual warfare we engage in is NOT against 'flesh and blood' and homosexuals but the powers of darkness and spiritual wickedness. Yeah, so the church will AWAYS advocate loving the SINNER but NEVER the SIN. There is no grounds to conflate the two…
♥T
Thanks, Kendra for modeling a compassionate approach to to our LGBT brethern.
I grew-up in Lewiston ID and Clarkston WA. The one bridge crossing the Snake River bore both the cross-town traffic and US Hwy12. On the Lewiston side, for several years, there was a mentally ill man, who would say "repent" to every car as it came by. Fortunately he was usually quite intent on this task and while walking by you could hear a steady, though fairly quiet: repent — repent — repent —repent… (engaging the man in any kind of conversation was risky and unpredictable)
I think general calls for repentance on an open blog like this are equally useful. Such deeply personal issues need to be addressed in a deeply personal way. The blanket condemnations issued in these blogs might convict someone of sin, but they don't really offer salvation. In the begining of the letter to the Romans Paul asserts that the "unnatural desires" he saw in Roman society were the result of people having abandonded God. If we want to change that we must help them rebuild a relation with God and assure them of His love for them even as homosexuals. Only that relation could ever change them and any effort bring about the change ourselves, however infintesimal, simply undermines the work of God in their lives.
If you can't in good conscience condone homosexual relations, don't. But comdemning them does no good, better to concentrate our efforts at revealing the love of God to those arround us and then let God do the condemning at the end of time.
Kuni (transgendered)
Kuni,
Thanks for speaking up! We've got a lot to learn about loving instead of condemning. I pray that you are growing in God's love.
I'm puzzled by Timo's comments. I must have missed the posts that said anything about not loving sinners (homosexuals or otherwise). And I missed the part about anyone wanting to throw stones at them. There is no excuse for sin. What applies to one sin applies to them all: they must be overcome. What many of us object to is the attempt to aid and abet sinners by making excuses for them. And since it seems that more attempts are made to excuse homosexuals than with many other types of sin, that is the one we often focus on. If SDA's were trying to make excuses for bank robbers we'd be on that one, too.
I wish I could write as well as Mr. Onjukka. So focused on the important point (which I assume that Mr. Hammond will never get).
Why must we look at people and merely identify them by their gender orientation? Do we look at someone and say "He, or she is gay?" That seems to be the one and only label yet we do not do that with heterosexuals. Is sex the most important part of all humans?
A gay or lesbian person may be a highly-skilled physician, teacher, engineer; in fact in all professions. Do we first admire their professional skills, or do we dismiss them as being a homosexual? There seems to be an inordinate puerlism about people that borders on one's own sexuality. To those who are so concerened about other's private lives, I say "Get a life of your own and stop worrying about other's." It is between them and their God and God has not given anyone the job of judging.
Good points. But the problem is not that we are concerned with others private lives. If they would keep it private we wouldn't be so vocal about it. But too many of those in this lifestyle are trying to cram it down everyone else's throats. They don't want tolerance or even acceptance; they want affirmation, and if that isn't given, the label "homophobic" is attached to whoever disagrees with them. I don't want to know what they do in their private lives. When someone announces that they are homosexual they've told me more than I wanted or needed to know. I don't run around announcing that I'm heterosexual. It would sound stupid.
Horace,
It is your choice whether or not to respond and speak about what you see, or to keep silent. I suggest holding your tongue and asking God to give you understanding of the person so you can know how to point them to Jesus for redemption.
I know a number of homosexuals, and rather than "cramming it down one's throat" they try to remain very inconspicuous and have not ventured to announce to anyone their orientation. Have you found SDA attendees who are anxious to "cram it down your throat" or are you referring to the gay pride marchers? Surely, they should not be all placed in the same category.
Do engaged or married couples "cram it down one's throat" or is it merely acceptance of their situation? When couples, whether same or opposite sex walk into your church, how can you make an instant determination as to their sexual orientation? How many have come up to you and made an announcement of their sexual life? Why is it anyone's business how other people choose to live? God will decide.
Elaine,
Well said.
One big lesson I take away from my reading of Romans is that we are all equally guilty of sin in God's eyes and in equal need of redemption. There is no basis for me to condemn someone because they steal, are proud, lie, break the Sabbath or are homosexual. I can't say I'm always consistent about doing it, but God has taught me to look at others and not be offended by what they do. Instead, He has taught me to view them as human beings whom God loved enough to die for so they could be saved.
In contrast, condemnation, whether by highlighting a person's particular sin or painting them with a label making it sound like they are defending sin, drives people away from God. How I wish those who condemn could see their true nature and understand how much they are doing the work of Satan and how deluded they are when they claim to be doing God's work! The work of God is redemption that is a simple as 1-2-3: One, I forgive you for what you've done. Two, I offer you the power to depend on me for the strength to overcome. Three: Seek me each day for this power and let me teach you how to live in that empowerment moment-by-moment as you meet temptation.
Ms Perry,
Ma'am, are you saying then that a monogamous homosexual relationship is equivalent to a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Do you have Biblical support of such a doctrine? Loving someone of the same gender and the disposition of some who lean towards homosexual behaviour does not give one license for marriage. The secular state may allow this as marriage and err in so doing but nowhere in the Bible is such an abomination taught. The cultural/liberal faction within Adventism has erred in this regard. Wrapping sinful acts up in so-called 'love' is just a weak attempt to provide a man-made salvation by works doctrine. This is not the message of the Bible. Perhaps I will mention some verses should I post again. Traditional Adventism has bent over backwards to love sinners, including those from the homosexual community. Maybe just loving them isn't enough: they need the power of God unto salvation in order to become 'over-comers' just like we do to. Maybe we have dishing out too much of the cultural Adventism glasses which have been much tainted with worldly secular compromise which has even distorted how we view God's love too.
What I see here is a classic case to the challenge to love people and baptise the sin rather than the sinner. I think there in an infinite chasm between the two. May I say here too that no-one is advocating gay-bashing either…
♥T
I believe that gay marriage is clearly outside God's ORIGINAL Edenic plan. But it seems to me that the Bible allows room for God to lead and use people who are outside this original plan as so many of us are in this sinful world.
God used Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon in powerful ways even though they married multiple women, remained polygamists throughout their lives, and even despite the chaos that their decision to practice polygamy brought to them, their families, and their country (in the case of David).
Again, I see this issue on a continuum instead of as a dichotomy. If heterosexual marriage between two individuals is the ideal, a committed monogamous homosexual relationship is closer to that ideal than a promiscuous lifestyle of either orientation. It may even be closer to the ideal than heterosexual divorce and/or remarriage situations.
Trevor,
Some sinful behaviors are more obvious than others. However, making that observation does not authorize you to condemn it.
What many Christians do not understand about the homosexual condition is just how conflicted it can be. They don't ned condemnation. The need redemption. Unfortunately the predominant Christian view is that redemption begins with showing someone how sinful they are and to worsen the condemnation. That is not how Jesus treated sinners. Often the first thing He did was relieve people of their guilt so they could begin to see that redemption was more than desirable, that it was possible. Was the transformation immediately complete? No. It began immediately, but they had to learn day-by-day to live in God's love and to depent on Him for the power to overcome temptation.
Just a question; how did Messiah overcome His urge to engage in any form of sexual activity? This is my view on the life essentials=> love, air, water and food; without it we will die. A lack of sexual activity is not life-threatening. Neither did Messiah die for a lack of sexual activity, nor did He lay down His life for the purpose of proving a point that without sex a person will surely die. In fact He mentioned that there are ppl who are eunuch by choice. Besides the ones who, for whatever physical reason have to refrain from sex. And there is no such thing as as a "homosexual" gene. Sexual behaviour is an adopted behaviour, when one responses to certain feelings; which do not totally depend on hormonal secretion; a person is way more than the sum of his/her hormones. Shalom and God bless in Jesus' name
But surely we can agree that even if one is able to overcome sexual desire, the desire to be in an intimate emotional partnership is very powerful? Being single and alone is also not in God's original Edenic plan.
So, again, if celibacy is the only option available to LGBT individuals, it seems that the church should acknowledge the very painful losses that entails and provide EXTRA support and encouragement to people facing this difficult dilemma.
Deborah,
Excellent question! The Bible does not give a specific answer that I can point to. Still, it says that He was "tempted in all points" like we are, yet without sin. Add that everything Jesus did was empowered by the same Holy Spirit who is offered to us today so that we can overcome temptation and become empowered to minister His love to others. So I think it is consistent to assume that the Holy Spirit empowered Jesus to be in such control that He could remain completely focused on the purpose for which He came.
Any comment about Jesus' lack of sexual activity is probably off-limits because it would bringi up such sensitive issues that any rational discourse would be impossible. However, if one believes that Jesus was 100% human (as all of the historic creeds of the church insist), let's not be so sure about something which was never addressed in any of the gospels probably for very good reasons.
Is there a heterosexual gene? How can one be so certain that there is a gene for sexuality, as each individual has either xx, or xy, for females and males. This says nothing about the orientation. If someone says he has always been gay, who has the ? omniscence to question him? Who lives in his skin but that individual? Is it perfectly natural and O.K. to have heterosexual feelings but not homosexual? People will not die without sexual activity, but it enriches their entire life and longevity.
Who should be able to deny another person's most intimate choices?
There was no understanding in the time the Bible was written of sexual orientation. The texts spoke of "abominations" and that is seen in both hetero and homosexual promiscuity. Is there no difference between promiscuity and monogamy? Does the Bible ever address homosexual monogamy? If so, why did David love Jonathan "more than the love of women"? Did they have to engage in sexual intimacy or could they truly have experienced love? Or, is it appropriate to love someone of the same sex but only becomes sinful if physical intimacy is involved?
I agree that it is essential to listen to and respect the experiences of individuals. Every LGBT individual I have spoken to feels that they have been that way, if not from birth, at least from earliest conscious memory.
Elaine,
The "homosexual gene" is something the gay community has long sought with little result. From ancient times we have inherited the concept of gender as strictly male-female with little or no variance. Still, increased understanding of genetics has shown us incredible variation in the human genome. Why is it that tall parents can have a dwarf child, or vice-versa? That a person with severe learning disabilities can have a child who is a genius? That certain diseases like breast cancer or physical "defects" are linked to genetic predispositions? While the rate of occurrence as a part of the total population is low, there is considerable variation in gender. Growing up the limit of gender variation I learned about in science class was limited to hermaphrodites, who were described as some varied combination of male and female. Over recent decades as I've sought to understand the gender community, I've learned since that medicine recognizes dozens of variations in the human genome that are evident in a range of gender-related behaviors and physiology.
The sum of this is that, to my knowledge, there is no identified "homosexual gene." Still, the frequency of genetic variation means that we are as likely to meet someone with a visible physical deformity as someone who has one of those genetic gender variations. So the sooner we get over being offended and condemning and get focused on redemption, the better we can do God's work of redemption.
I decided to see the latest on AT. My computer crashed a few months ago and I just got around to getting it rehabilitated so I have not commented on AT for a few months. I needed a breather anyway. Some subjects, especially this one, can get really heated up at times.
First I want to thank Kindra for the thoughtfulness she put into this blog. Myself, I have felt torn between two worlds all my life. My sexual orientation is definately gay, even though I forsook the lifestyle 30 plus years ago, married, fathered 3 children and have no plans to leave my wife of over 28 years.
Someone commented here that it would be easier to overcome homosexuality than alcoholism, smoking and the like. Believe me when I say that is NOT the case. When I came back to the church in 1980 I quit drinking. I was definately an alcoholic, in most part because I couldn't cope with the fact I definately had attractions to my own sex and acted on it for several years. Alcohol numbed the pain and guilt. Were it not for a compassionate pastor and this one family in the church who loved me back to God and didn't reject me because I was gay, I would have killed myself. That was back in 70's when if you were found out to be gay, the rejection was overwhelming.
When I quit drinking, I struggled with a desire for a drink for a time, but my thirst for the booze completely vanished eventually. Alcohol prompts no response in me now, but only repulsion if I see or smell it. For years I thought that my attraction for my own sex would do the same. I even fell in love with a woman and for a time thought I was "cured". But after a time thoughts and desires came back to haunt me.
I have been faithful to my wife all these years, but let me tell you unless you have lived with this inside you you can't begin to understand the full dimensions of it all. I am one of the fortunate ones. The track record for mixed orientation marriages is not good, but in some cases like mine it can be done. I am not sorry for a moment that I married but I would not recommend that someone gay think they can change from gay to straight by getting married. It will give you no end of sexual frustration. It is sort of like trying to write with your left hand when you are right handed. You may be able to write something with some semblence of legability after trying hard enough, but it just doesn't come as natural as using your right hand.
I hope that all made sense. I'm convinced that you can change behavior but changing sexual orientation is quite another thing. Change therapy which claims to make one straight from being gay is a cruel hoax. I tried it twice, the last time just 3 years ago and I had a nervous breakdown over it all. The only ex-gay there can be is in lifestyle changes, but not sexual orientation.
Understanding this is vital to the church responding with compassion to people who struggle with homosexuality. Too often folks see the strident gay pride in-your-face gays and automatically think that represents the rest of us. It doesn't. Please understand why when some of you say that gays are looking for special treatment in the church and liken us to drunks, adulterers and the like it is really offensive.
Having traveled this road and struggled I can only tell you that love will win when censor and rejection will only contribute more conflict in the life of someone who is gay, and drive them away from God.
I don't have all the answers, but I know the One who does and I believe that only a full committment to Him is the answer. I'll leave it up to Jesus to sort it all out and lead in each ones life, as he sees fit and in His time.
Tom,
Thank you for being courageous and speaking out as you have! Your's is a voice of real experience amid the volume of the loudly and strongly opinionated.
Tom, thank you so much for your willingness to share your experience in a public and potentially hostile forum. I believe that hearing and trying to understand the experiences of individuals is the only way that those of us who don't face these issues can begin to grasp the struggle.
The commitment of people like you to Christ and the church in the face of prejudice, ignorance, and even outright hate truly amazes and humbles me.
Tom, you speak for many silent gays who are fearful of speaking out. Your pain is palpable and those who so causally dismiss it are ignorant and know not whereof the speak. It's akin to a single person telling a parent who's lost a child "I know how you feel." No, you cannot know unless you've walked in their shoes. It's so easy to condemn
OPS (other people's sins) than our own.
Sir, I have no grouse regarding your views above but just want say that God can use all sorts of people and avenues to speak to us (He even used a donkey once). I know of a dynamic preacher who told us that he learnt about Jesus love and the salvation freely offered to believers from the preacher's 'drunkard dad' (just as he told us). His drunken dad would call his family for worship and sing, preach and pray with them. The preacher became a believer as a direct result of this. (I can just picture all the 'christian' tipple revellers going yippee hallelujah!) … but does this excuse the drunkeness? I respectfully say no to both drunkeness and homosexual behaviour no matter how virtuous they may be perceived.
♥T
Love and condone are NOT synonyms. Check your dictionary for the proper use of those words. To love does not mean to condone. You love your children, always (hopefully), but you may not always condone their behavior (that, too, would be unusual). Is it possible to believe that a prostitute could be in heaven (how about the woman taken in adultery?). God's love is so much greater that humans.
Maybe you know someone who is perfect and in no need of being forgiven. When will that time come? God overlooks our sins, not approves.
Thanks Elaine for the affirmation. I still want to meet you in person sometime and swap some good stories over a glass of lemonade, but I haven't been south of Sacramento all year.
Trevor, I think I know what you are trying to say, but have you ever considered how it sounds on this end, the way you express it? You just don't get it, like a lot of others, and it is wishful thinking for me to even expect that of some people.
I don't believe that being gay is a choice, who would be dumb enough to want to be something that is the bane of so many fellow christians. Neither do I think it is some God given gift. How absurd to think that God deliberately made someone gay. At the very least it is an aberation of the natural order of God's created intent that should neither be celebrated nor shamed. It is just the way it is with some of us. It matters little to one like me why I am attracted to my own sex. All the studies, arguments, so-called scientific evidence on both sides of the great divide over this issue, only adds to the anxiety and doesn't change what I am, or make me feel more loved.
Those who ask questions like does God love pedophiles, terrorists, prostitution,etc. really don't care about ministering to gays or help lift their burden in a winsome way. I won't go so far as some do and say they hate us, but any lip service about loving every one is supperfiscial at best. With a finger in the face the directive to GO AND SIN NO MORE is given with a trumpet blast, while "neither do I condemn thee" is either skipped over or begrudgingly whispered and unheard as an afterthought.
I believe that Jesus gave the more pronounced emphasis when he said "neither do I condemn thee" to Mary Magdelene. Obviously he didn't follow that with a "you can go back to work now…" His words, "now go and sin no more" was an invitation to a better life than that of a prostitute. He uplifted this used woman in a desparate moment of need and made her feel like something more than mere filth, and it won her heart to Him.
This brings me back to the questions as they were posed by Trevor. Hey pal, can you see what I am talking about now? Don't automatically assume the worst of a gay person and equate them with filth.
Thanks for the invitation, Tom. I do get to Sacramento a number of times a year as there are more family members there now than in Fresno and Sacramento is such a beautiful city and the northern foothills where some live that it's always a short and pleasant trip–seeing loved ones.
How can one claim to accept God's love but reject it for others? If their expression of God is true, why would anyone want to know Him? It gets more tiresome all the time to hear such expressions of gays, comparing them to pedophiles and prostitutes which exudes such a Pharisaical attitude that repels the average person. Such a representation of Christ is actually a repellant to all but the cultic personality.
"God loves everyone and so should we. But we do not affirm the lifestyle. The purpose of the church is to help lead sinners out of their sinful lifestyles, not aid and abet them like Kinship and some other "Christian" organizations are doing."
Right on good brother. Why do the practicing gays seem to be deserving of such excessive attention? It's likely the gay lobby which may have infiltrated this site, the Spectrum site as well the Episcopal church, the Armed Forces ad infinitum. Isn't it possible that much of the concern about AIDS has made many very concerned about the sexual practices of gays? Some sins have a much more deleterious effect on the human race than others.
This article does not specify practicing or non-practicing gays. Part of my point is that we need to stop assuming that someone who is gay is of necessity participating in sinful behaviors. They may in fact be celibate, or even monogamously married to someone of the opposite sex (as Tom very poignantly points out).
The bottom line is, whatever anyone's behaviors, they are PEOPLE just like you and me. They are in need of love, acceptance, and yes, a Savior. Approaching anyone in an attitude of love and humility is, in my opinion, more likely to help them meet that Savior than an attitude of condemnation and arrogance.
Truth Seeker,
People behave in particular ways for identifiable reasons. The gay lobby is vocal in seeking recognition and legitimacy because they are not finding it and they are seeking to minimize or avoid the social and moral condemnation that accompanies their behavior.
The voice of Christianity has been loud on the topic and quick to condemn. Christians in North America are known for being anti-gay and anti-abortion. We are not know for being FOR anything. Our challenge is to stop condemning and learn redemption for ourselves so we can be seen as being FOR the power that can relieve their guilt and give them peace.
If God is for us, who can be against us? If we are FOR the redemption of sinners and have truly experienced that power in our own lives, how can we not be seen as FOR the fallen sinner and seeking their redemption?
"Excessive attention" is a most subjective opinion. The armed forces is finally admitting that gays should have no more, nor less equality than all heterosexual soldiers. If that is "excessive" then surely the previous position of "don't ask, don't tell" was calling excessive attention to their differences; now it is simply applying equality to all the troops. Is there a problem with equality?
Was it churches who initiated AA? Or, did they turn their collective backs and proclaim them sinners? Ditto for divorces: ignore and maybe it will go away? Is there a more deleterious sin than domestic abuse? Something the church has long turned a blind eye and pretending that Christians could not be involved. Is there a church without sinners?
Is there a hierarchial list of sins in order of worst to least offensive? Has gossip been dealt with–a pervasive condition in judgmental churches.
Hmm, I don't remember saying anything about affirming a "lifestyle" of anything but that of a christian. I have already said I am not in the league of the in-your-face gays. As for Truth Seekers claim of the excessive attention of gays, he's right, homophobes do give excessive attention, negatively that is. Some folks are clearly uncomfortable that we even exist. They would just as soon we stayed locked in a closet of fear, so they can pretend we don't exist in the church.
Asfor gays serving in the military, the late legendary conservtive Senator Goldwater said, "you don't have be straight to shoot straight," when the subject of gays serving in the military was debated shortly after Clinton was in the White House. You are right Elaine, AA was not started by a church.
I appreciate the article.
"Since we can not know what is driving a person from the inside, what the reasons are for his or her behavior, we aren't capable of judging fairly. When we criticize another person, we are only passing sentence on ourselves."
Just knowing 'truth' does not change a person's heart. History shows that those who claimed to know the most about God often were the cruelest and most evil. Saying you are a christian but not acting like Jesus gives God a bad name.
What a curly ball: God loves gays and so should we. (I like it!)
As for me, I still believe in the healing ministry of Jesus. He came to restore the whole man: mind, body, soul and spirit. The only question I would ask is: Why don't we see healing ministries in the church? We have all sorts of interesting stuff on vegetarian cooking and natural health remedies etc etc…but where are the supernatural "gifts of healings" that Paul talks about (1 Cor 12:9)?
If restoration was Jesus' goal, I'd say we need to take another look at the ministry of Jesus, with all of His grace, love, and power to heal the broken, the sick, and set the captives free!
Matt,
Why don't we see healing ministries in the church? Simple: we're not seeking the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Everything Jesus did was empowered by the Holy Spirit. He told us to seek the Holy Spirit and that he would be present with us only through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the first revelation of God mentioned in scripture and the last. But we're largely ignoring Him. Why?
Does the fact that Jesus healed blind men mean that the church is failing if there are still blind people in the world? Jesus also healed many people with physical deformities. Should the church be healing all of these?
Kendra,
The Bible promise is that believers would be empowered to do a number of supernatural things, including physical healing. So I believe the Biblical answer to your question is a definite "Yes!" Whether it is you doing the healing or me is not the issue so long as we are both ministering in the way God has giften and empowered us.
Matt, such a suggestion has been tried before–check the success rates. "Change therapy" is, to be blunt, a colossal failure. Believing is like wishing–it won't make it so. Are all those who are born with anomalies of all sorts "cured"? Did God ever promise to heal all those who needed healing? "Supernatural gifts of healing" are just that–supernatural and rarely seen. Where are the examples of one who was born gay who became hereotsexual–not in behavior, but in complete gender orientation? To pray for a turn-around orientation is to tell God he made a mistake, isn't it?
After reading through the article and thread, the main idea that I think Kendra and others were pointing out was that we should try and understand before judging…if we are to judge at all. (I think that would be a no.) It is not an easy answer.
I do feel like living in a sinful world has caused many issues in genetic make-up, and also has impacted God's original plan for families and couples. I also think that the Bible is clear on what sin is…sexual immorality is rampant in our world in every possible way you could imagine. The Devil has preverted it so much, far from God's original plan. We should all be praying for God to take sin out of our lives, and purify us for His purpose, and asking Him to use us to glorify His name and lift Him up.
God does want us to encourage each other and help each other if we are stumbling spiritually…but I also think that I'd be much more receptive to Sister Matilda knocking on my door to discuss an issue of concern in my spiritual life if she had first established a caring friendship with me.
That being said, the issue of homosexuality is still difficult. I can say it is a wrong practice based on the Bible, along with fornication. As Kendra implied, I don't see too many people being pulled aside in the church and counseled on their sins of fornication. (I've always noticed the blatant difference in many people's strong feelings against homosexuality vs. fornication.) Think about it, sexuality is a very private issue, and who would really be comfortable discussing it with a random church member??? Maybe this is an issue that should be discussed and worked through with one's Heavenly Father, and a close circle of supportive, loving friends and family.
Why couldn't our church be that family? I've often noticed that when someone has a "bomb" to drop, the place they are most afraid to discuss their issue is in the church. The church could be that loving, supportive family, where people are not afraid to share their deepest fears and struggles. It starts with building that loving relationship, and then allowing God to use us in each other's lives according to His purpose. Isn't that what family is for? 🙂
Amen!
Margaret said:
"Maybe this is an issue that should be discussed and worked through with one's Heavenly Father, and a close circle of supportive, loving friends and family.
Why couldn't our church be that family? I've often noticed that when someone has a "bomb" to drop, the place they are most afraid to discuss their issue is in the church. The church could be that loving, supportive family, where people are not afraid to share their deepest fears and struggles. It starts with building that loving relationship, and then allowing God to use us in each other's lives according to His purpose. Isn't that what family is for? :)"
I love this. Yes, yes, and yes.
Hi Kendra,
In my Bible it reads that "Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people" (Mt 4:23). A short list is then given: "… and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them" (Mt 4:24).
I find in Jesus ministry, he had power to heal bodily disorders, mental disorders, emotional disorders and spiritual disorders. Nothing was beyond the range of His grace and power.
Jesus gave the early church this very same "power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease" (Mt 10:1). I believe God wants the whole church to have the same power (Ac 1:8).
I grew up in the church and suffered from "closet" sins as I suspect most of the church does. (I say closet because of the shame and fear of condemnation if they were shared). However, after God got me and things turned around, I received a lot of personal healing. Some friends and self decided to pursue the ministry and lifestyle of Jesus (Jn 14:12). So, back in 1996 we organized time at the end of our home groups meetings to pray for people regardless of the need. I have to say the gospel of Christ still possesses the same power from when it was first preached. We have had blind eyes open, fused back disks healed, Rheumatoid arthritis healed, emotional and mental disorders healed (insomnia, depression etc) sexual disorders healed (homosexual orientation included). It is hard to describe the grace (where people felt comfortable sharing with a couple of folk) and the power that was released in our meetings. I guess you would have to see it to believe it!
Like I said, I still believe in the healing ministry of Jesus. By and large the church still believes in the third person of the God head, but rejects much of His power and presence by the unrenewed mind (Rom 12:2). Paul mentions that the carnal mind (unrenewed) is in fact at war with God (Rom 8:7). Now going back to Jesus' message: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mk 1:15).
That word repent actually means "change the way you think". We don't think "Kingdom". That would be a good place for the church to start!
One may be able to "change the way he thinks" but where did Jesus promise to heal or cure all our conditions? Can someone pray to be cured of heterosexuality (for some that might be a relief!)? Are only homosexuals to pray for "cures"? Should someone born with a physical anomaly from birth pray for cure? At what point should we accept that God created us and we are in his image? Are Down's syndrome folks in God's image? Why aren't homosexuals from birth not in his image?
Elaine,
Please consider Paul's "thorn in the flesh" in 2 Corinthians 12. He doesn't say what the problem is, but he thanked God for it because it kept him humble and aware of his need of salvation. I struggle with a particular weakness to sin that used to be the cause of great spiritual despair until I let God make it my "thorn in my flesh" and use it to keep be depending on Him. When I did, the despair left and was replaced by the confidence of salvation. Have I completely overcome or been healed? No. Still, looking back I can only believe I would have been ruined spiritually if that problem had been removed. Instead God is using it for His glory and I have a gift-based ministry that is strengthened by knowing my weakness and need of God.
Hi Elaine,
I don't recall saying that men and women aren't created in God's image. But I would say, that image is somewhat distorted (since the fall). My understanding is that the Gospel is all about restoration. Satan is the destroyer, God is the restorer. I used to think (like yourself) that people are born this way or that way ect. But since I embarked on this journed with the great Holy Ghost, I have now come to believe, that nothing is impossible for those that believe.
I don't know too much about Jesus promising to heal all our conditions but I have read that the believers "will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover" (Mk 16:18).
I have also read that it is "with his stripes we are healed." (Isa 53:5; 1 Pet 2:24). But then again, that is the Gospel.
Yes, God has promised to restore us, but not necessarily in this life. Most will be fully restored in Heaven. Until that time, we should exercise humility and less judgment and accept people as God created them. Habits can be changed, who they "are" cannot.
To hold out "nothing is impossible for those who believe" often ends in a cruel hoax. Be very slow on such promises. Only God fulfills HIS promises, not man.
Kendra, I very much appreciate your column. Have you all already discussed the 7 or so verses that speak to the idea? What are the hebrew and greek translations of the few references concerning such?
We have not, and I am not an expert in the original languages. Can any language scholars help us out?
In effort to promote at least a few positive comments on this article, let me post a question for reflection. (This also helps satisfy my English teacher inclinations).
In what ways have YOU seen "the works of God" displayed in the lives of LGBT friends, family, or acquaintances?
As I said in my comment to Tom above, the commitment of my still-churched LGBT friends to Christ and the church in the face of prejudice, ignorance, and even outright hate truly amazes and humbles me. It challenges me to keep my focus on Christ rather than perceived slights I may receive from other church members.
One of the basic revelations of God in the OT comes from Exodus 15:26. "For I am the LORD who heals you." [Hebrew: Jehovah-Rapha] More succinct – God the healer.
David reminds himself to not forget all God's benefits: "Who forgives all your iniquities,
Who heals all your diseases" (Ps 103:2,3).
My point being: I believe churches are to be healing communities where the presence of God dwells bringing healing and restoration to all people regardless of their background and state of being.
There are some good ministries out there (outside of our denomination) that are bringing sexual wholeness to gays and lesbians. One in particular that I have visited personally (in 1999) was Desert Stream Ministries at the Anaheim Vineyard, California. I enjoyed hanging with these folk. This ministry was started by a former gay called Andrew Comiskey. He has written several books but the one I highly recommend and maybe the most popular is: Pursuing Sexual Wholeness.
It would be nice to see churches transformed and receiving everyone in their midst with no judgment, fear, shame or condemnation. It would also be nice to see healing ministries flourishing bringing restoration to the whole man.
Maybe Kendra Perry might like to investigate such ministries (I have listed but one) and spearhead something in our tribe…Just a thought.
Matt,
It is refreshing to see your desire for more ministries in churches. While it is hopeful to see churches transformed by such ministries, I am not hopeful of seeing such a change happen. While there are a wide variety of situations in different congregations so there is potential, my observations have been of most Adventist churches I have visited being deep into the defense of particular doctrines and traditionalism instead of seeking the renewal of the Holy Spirit. Expecting a new ministry to take root and grow in such a situation is like expecting a tropical plant needing frequent watering to survive in the Sahara desert.
Fortunately I have the blessing of being part of a congregatin (Grace Fellowship in Madison, AL) that was established with the objective of helping each member discover their giftedness and developing that giftedness into ministry. The results have been nothing short of amazing. Our formation was more of a church division than a church planting. We came out of a tradition-bound church where ministry innovations were short-lived and died miserable deaths. But there were enough of us living on the west side of the county who shared a desire for gift-based ministry and freedom from traditionalism that we formed a new congregation. What is most amazing to me is watching how the Holy Spirit grows new ministries and how those ministries contribute to the harmony and fellowship of the church. I am far closer to my fellow church members than I have been at any other church where I have been a member. We share bonds of love that I never knew were possible. We are one of the fastest growing congregations in the conference– all without holding traditional evangelistic crusades, passing-out literature, etc. It is all the result of the Holy Spirit.
So if someone wants to pursue the Holy Spirit and grow new ministries, but they are trapped by tradition, I suggest they start a new congregation.
Matt,
I don't dispute that God COULD change someone's sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but I also know that there are many good, devout Christians who suffer from seemingly inexplicable physical, mental, and emotional impairments throughout their lives despite prayer, laying on of hands, and the search for miraculous healing.
I don't feel called to start a ministry such as you suggest, but if you do, please go ahead. What I feel called to do is to make God's love visible to those around me. Some of those people happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and these are my thoughts on how I personally, and other individuals in the church, could best make God's love visible to them.
Hi Noel,
I agree whole heartedly. I have had my fair share of working within traditional church "frames". I did not touch on that in my former post as it might of been a bit overwhelming for some folk (I don't want apear critical). I'm glad you brought it up. I believe, new congreagations with fresh expressions of Holy Spirit creativity and power, with a Christ-centred Kingdom focus will release heaven on earth…and that is what I pray: On earth as it is in heaven!
Glad to hear what God is doing in your corner of the planet.
Blessings
I too believe in an all powerful and healing God. He used 3 specific people, a pastor, a husband and his wife in the church to minister and show me the love of God and convince that I wasn't just fuel for the fire of hell because I was gay. Yes he healed me from living in a self induced hell of hating myself and a destructive pattern of looking for love in all the wrong places. He resuced me from alcohol, the gay bars and bathhouses. He changed my life, He even brought the one and only woman in my life that I could have ever loved enough to marry.
But as one that has "been there, done that" I could never pray the gay away. Change? After 25 years of struggling and wishing I would just wake up straight some morning, it never happened. For what ever reason changing sexual orientation is a myth propagated by folks who think if you just pray hard enough, or have hands laid on you. demons cast out, filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit, and a host of other notions, that God will miraculously make you straight. Many of us have clung to some of this snake oil spirituality to our utter dispair and come up feeling more burdened than ever. I know, I have been there.
I am not trying to make excuses, just telling it like it is from my experience.
When I finally unshakled myself from this thinking, I came to see it more as a thorn in the flesh that God has chosen to leave, so that I will rely more on Him. My love and committment for Him has deepened since I have come to that kind of acceptance of myself. That doesn't give me license to leave my wife and go and do the things I haven't done in over 30 years now.
Not every gay persons experience is the same so I would never want to make my experience the template for every gay person. Neither do I want Andrew Cominsky (psuedonym), who claims to be so completely ex-gay that he has absolutely no same sex attraction anymore, the poster child for reparative therapist and many religionists claim that one can become totally straight, even in the realm of temptations. I met him at the conference on homosexuality at Andrews in 2009. After watching and listening to him, let's just say I wasn't convinced that he was straight, as in completely changed to heterosexuality.
As I see it, the burning question in most gay people's mind who are christians is, "will the church love me if they knew?" Let me tell you, the secular gay community is out there with a big welcome mat and plenty of affirmation, for those who feel rejected by the church. People naturally gravitate where they feel the most love and acceptance. I would rather the church be the safe haven where gays can be spiritually nurtured and feel that God loves them.
Tom said,"As I see it, the burning question in most gay people's mind who are christians is, "will the church love me if they knew?" Let me tell you, the secular gay community is out there with a big welcome mat and plenty of affirmation, for those who feel rejected by the church. People naturally gravitate where they feel the most love and acceptance. I would rather the church be the safe haven where gays can be spiritually nurtured and feel that God loves them."
Absolutely. This is my key point, stated much more clearly than I was able to.
Kendra,
That issue of where and how a person feels acceptance should be at the heart of everything we do in God's name. As is well illustrated in the book "Unchristian," modern christians are know first and foremost for being anti-gay and anti-abortion. I already instinctively understood that but reading it still was a startling confirmation. So I like to turn the issue around with some questions: "I see what you are against. Now, what about God and redeption are you FOR? Do people know you are for that? Or are you just assuming they know it?" It makes people think.
Thank you, Tom, for sharing with us your very real person experience. You have led your life in a most admirable way. If it gives even a little understanding to some, it will be well worth your effort. It is hard for me to understand the brashness of some on this subject.
I wonder if some of the change therapies have found success in those who are bi-sexual or have a lesser degree of desire. I once heard there are different levels of homosexuality and that even "straight" people could experience it to some degree. I haven't heard this recently, so maybe the idea has been disputed.
Thank you, Kendra, for presenting the issue in the way you have. Unfortuantely this is not being done in church papers and the misunderstanding continues. What bothers me the most is that when people hear someone is homosexual, they jump to the conclusion that they practice it. If we were to do this with all single people, we would believe all of them as being sexually active.
Yes. The term "gay" or LGBT is absolutely loaded with assumptions, many of which I have found are completely false. I think people can only speak in broad, judgmental generalizations if they do not personally know someone who has this life experience.
A sociology course in gender, sex and sexuality would prove useful for many who want to join this debate. Much about homosexuality – including how many homosexuals there are – depends on how you define 'homosexuality'. Both sides tend to choose definitions and statistics that suit there agenda. It is rarely as simple as either side in the debate would like to believe – real life rarely is. Dividing those who are homosexual from those who are heterosexual may prove to be as simple as dividing those who are black from those who are white, and just as pointless.
This is also very true, Kevin. I have lumped LGBT together here as one general category for the sake of starting a very simplified conversation, but even the four separate categories lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have widely varying life experiences, not even taking individual variation into account. This is indeed an extremely broad and complex topic, but often not presented that way.
And we have not even begun to pretend to try to address issues such as genderqueer or intersex. So, yes, lots more ground to cover.
Dividing homosexuals from heterosexuals is not as easy as dividing those who are black from those who are white. Where would one put President Obama, who is a combination of both.
The Kinsey scale of 0-6 with complete heterosexuality, with no sexusal feelings toward the same sex at 0, and a 6 for those who are exclusively attracted to their same sex. There are a lot of people who fall somewhere in between those exclusives. They may never act on homosexual attractions, but it is there nonetheless to varying degrees. I believe that sometimes, boys who have been sexually molested, by sn older male, at an early age, become confused and gravitate toward homosexuality even though that is not their dominte orientation. Andrew Cominsky says he lost his innocence at the hand of another man at age 11.
The ongoing sexual trauma fixated in his mind that he was gay and for a time as an adult he embraced the gay lifestyle. He claims to now be ex-gay totally. Many church members use his testimony and point the finger at other gays and say "see it can be done". The notion is hinted, if not downright stated, that gays don't want to change. In reality what it is considered change in sexual orientation, is really someone who wasn't gay in the first place, but more likely acted homosexually because of early molestation trauma.
Perhaps what I've ventured into here is not the purpose of this blog, but I am just trying to give some possible answers to questions Ella posed
Quite honestly many of these studies on both sides of the great divide over this issue, are a source of further anxiety at times. Remember we are people not laboratory rats in some big experiment.
Kevin Riley wrote: "A sociology course in gender, sex and sexuality would prove useful for many who want to join this debate. Much about homosexuality – including how many homosexuals there are – depends on how you define 'homosexuality'."
And this is the problem with sociologists and other researchers. They would like to define something to the n'th degree. And by the time they have examined the issue and categorised everything they have been corrupted by the behaviour they have been examining.
God, on the other hand, states things very simply: don't lie with a man like you would lie with a woman, and don't exchange the natural use for the unnatural one. So, what God is saying is, don't do man-to-man (or woman-to-woman) what should only be done man-to-woman. There doesn't need to be any more detail than that. Otherwise we have to get into detailed definitions and semantics and might end up like Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman", which he "technically" did not have according to some people's definition.
So "don't do man-to-man" what should done "man-to-woman"? What a novel way of expressing a most intimate physical love expression! Are such moments simply what we "do" to someone?
Seen that way, all sex becomes what Augustine described:
"if it was good company and conversation that Adam needed, it would have been much better arranged to have two men together as friends, not a man and a woman. Whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in a woman."
The letters of Jerome teem with loathing of the female and Tertullian wrote of women as evil temptresses, an eternal danger to mankind. Is it any wonder that all sex became an evil that only should be permitted for procreation? Or that this fear and hatred of women could lead to closer relationships between men? Can there be love between opposite or same sex without sex? Can two same-sex people live together without being suspect as to their sleeping arrangements? Whose business is it? When we can allow other to make their most intimate decisions and trust they have sufficient ability to do so without our aid, we will be less encumbered with judgmental duties which God has never given us and learn to accept and love people who may not be just like us.
BTW: "God says" is the usual biblical writer's ensuring that such admonitions will be obeyed. Did God actually say that or did man choose to do so? What part of the Bible did God write?
What part of the Bible did God write?
All of it, using human hands!
Elaine, what does early church fathers' loathing of women have to do with anything. Sometimes it seems like you ramble on just because you can.
I think we need to be candid and admit that this ain't just about God (and us) loving 'gays'. The article also strongly alludes that homosexual behaviour should be accepted as 'normal' sexual behaviour even to the extent of accepting it as the closest thing to the Edenic ideal. In other words, is it better to be in a monogamous homosexual relationship than any other sexual immorality? Question is: "Did Jesus teach this? Does the Bible teach this?" Or is it just but the overwhelming dictates of a liberal culture within a society that has lost its way? A society that cannot discern spiritually between truth and error; right and wrong; light and darkness; and which has its constricting tentacles right within the church just cannot be trusted – the word of God will have to suffice: always. Extrapolating sexual immorality to be the equivalent of what constitutes biblical holy matrimony is clearly a secular cultural (even socio-political of late) worldview rather than a biblical mandate (in my opinion of course). I admire the sincerity of Ms. Perry’s article and the charge to love others which I will wholeheartedly concur with; but to be asked the Church compromise biblical truth in its quest to love, just ain’t on…
♥T
I am not SAYING any of these things. I am asking questions. If some of those questions lead you to think that gay marriage might not be out of the realm of possibility for a Christian, well, there you go.
It is still entirely possible that celibacy is God's will for his LGBT children. Again, I DON'T KNOW because this is not an issue God and I have to work out together.
But if celibacy is the only road, all the more reason for love, compassion, and acceptance in the church.
Another point to also consider in all of this is paraphilias. These may also be characterized by claimants who may say they were ‘born’ this way. Much of this sexual immorality and perversion is ironically accepted wholesale by modern society. Such immorality stands diametrically opposed to a biblical understanding of sexuality, sex and the sanctity of holy matrimony which clearly refers to a relationship between a man and woman. I found a list of paraphilias in a medical journal article on Psychiatric disorders found among some of the aged.
Mind you, much of these paraphilias are accepted as normal among many in western society. (Incidentally the disorders found among the aged were exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishism and voyeurism). My question is: "What if those who practice such claim they are ‘born this way’ too" – just like the gblt constituency does?
As an aside: “Homosexuality and Bisexuality were listed as paraphilias ("sexual deviations" in the original terminology) in early versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and were removed from the third version.” [wikipedia]
♥T
Trevor,
The claim "I was born this way" is most often used as a convenient excuse to shift blame onto God and divert attention from dealing with the root issue. As Christians we know the root cause of the problem is sin. The problem we as Christians have with the issue is that the defects sin has cause in us include genetic variations where there are real situations where a person can legitimately claim that they were born that way. These are no different than other genetic variations that we see as color blindness, baldness, physical deformities, etc.
Any discussion of "God made me this way" really is fruitless unless the person is willing to recognize both that they have a problem and allow God to transform them from within. This leaves us to deal with the problem of judgemental Christians who define redemption as another person being instantly victorious over whatever sin they are accused of having.
Kendra,
Not sure I understand how your comments are the churh's stance on the subject of gays, etc. Is your stance what our church stands on and it's belief? I must first tell you that I admire you for putting your name to such a contraversial subject, I don't feel I have the knowledge to write such an article. I can onlly say from my perspective I cannot point an accusing finger at anyone – as I have so many faults of my own. My opinion is that people who are a part of what you called as a group: LGBT is solely a choice of those people as individuals. I, just like all people will solely have to answer to God. I must say it seems hard to believe that our SDA leadership would in words "condone" a lifestyle that is without question Not in harmony with my understanding of God. Jesus loves the sinner, and hates the sin is what I understand. It would appear that this subject, just like that of La Sierra having to defend the position of teaching creation in our college. Taking into account that I 'most definetly' do not have a place at all to judge others does not mean I cannot feel the human emotion of anger towards the pastor of the Fayetteville, NC church – Pastor Huskins as he swept the dirty little secret of my ex-wife's adultry under the rug, and subsequently divided the church. So you see, I have my own demons and faults to work on. I can only imagine that many would condem me for my 18+ years of service to the U.S. Army in the Rangers and Special Forces. I'm so glad that God is in control, and I'll admit that I need his mercy and grace every day. Robert T. Wooster, Sr.
This is NOT the church's official stance on homosexuality or same-sex marriage. These are my independent and individual thoughts.
Official statements voted by the church can be found here:
http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat46.html (Homosexuality)
http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat53.html (Same-sex marriage)
Rngrbird,
You show that you don't have any knowledge on this issue, as you stated, when you admit that your opinion is that being gay is "solely a choice of those people as individuals." You make it sound as if it was as easy as choosing whether to turn the hot or cold water faucet on. It isn't!!!! If it was I would have chosen years ago not to have been gay!!!! I would go even further than that. I would have just about paid any price to not be so. As it was I spent a considerable sum on change therapy, only to find it was a waste of money.
Why is it that some folks can't accept the fact that some people are born that way? When I finally accepted that as a possibility, if not in fact a probability, with myself, I was finally able to salvage at least a little self esteem and peace of mind. It didn't change my behavior, which I have already stated was continued fidelity to my wife of 28 years, inspite of the sexual frustrations I live with on a daily basis.
"As for love the sinner, but hate the sin," that is a tired worn cliche forced from the lips of someone who can't muster anything better to say because they are uneasy about this subject. It's what I call lip service love. To gays it's more like a guided missile closing in on a target, than a genuine gesture of love.
My personal opinion, not subjected to professional study, is that all dark-skinned people have chosen to be that shade. If they were unhappy with that condition they should have undergone therapy to have a change of color.
My personal opinion is that people who have no understanding of what it's like to be other than themselves, show an ignorance of human beings that is extremely sad. I chose to be female and all those who are male simply chose their sex, also.
Can a leopard change its spots? I guess with enough bleech anything is possible. Look at Michael Jackson whose skin seemed to turn from black to white over the years. I get your point, Elaine, and I agree. However I have never seen a cat turn into a rat. But I have seen a few people turn into rats, figuratively speaking that is. I did have a cat once that liked cheese and dog that drank milk. So I guess one can say that behaviors can be changed or modified, but the orientation remains the same. Marrying a woman did not make me straight anymore than standing in a garage made me a car.
Tom, well said! Spoken from personal experience, which few can claim. Advice is often freely given from those who have no understanding of what they speak.
Why are you attempting to create undue, overly sympathetic feeling, as well as making excuses for homosexuals? Not once did I read a single line that says the homosexual sinner needs Jesus for deliverance from sin just like everyone else does. Why? Coddling any type of sin and those who engage in these sins, may simply lead to the eternal death of the person(s).
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
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.
The real message of love to the one who breaks the Ten Commandments is the one that leads to Jesus Christ—His forgiveness as He absolves the repenting sinner and encourages him/her to “go and sin no more’ as the Holy Spirit provides power for obedience. Overcoming all sin through Jesus Christ leads to everlasting life in the soon coming kingdom of God! Making excuses for any sin is the message of hate—please brothers and sisters, let’s not give those for whom Christ died that message.
1Jn 5:12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.
Steve,
I take hope in Paul's declaration that God is able to save "unto the uttermost ALL who come to him." How far is "the uttermost?" How inclusive (or exclusive) is "all?"
Are not homosexuals also sinners whom Jesus died to save? I think your concepts of salvation and God's power to redeem need some expansion.
Perhaps someone can furnish the commandment condemning homosexual orientation. Is it a "sin" from birth? Jesus clearly stated that neither the cripple nor his parents sinned.
For anyone who is heterosexual to condemn a homosexual is denying that he or she needs to walk in another's moccasins first, before condemning. Jesus said he did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save the world. "Who is without sin cast the first stone." Does someone here claim to be sinless? Only he who is sinless should cast the first stone.
This is something new: associating homosexual practice as a 'cripple condition' rather than what the Bible calls it —> sin.
♥T
You are persistently conflating ORIENTATION with PRACTICE. Elaine clearly says ORIENTATION in her post, yet you respond to her talking about PRACTICE. They are NOT the same.
No one is being asked to condone homosexuals, but there is a command to love one another and to be kind to others is God-given. How can one be insensitive to others without necessarily condoning? Must someone be questioned on his actions and beliefs before he is accepted as one of God's children? Who has been asked to judge others? God is the judge and man has not been given that task. Let God be God, in the end will not God do what is right?
Has a homosexual asked you to condone his actions or orientation? Have we not sufficient problems in our lives that we can begin worrying about others? Why the puerile interest in other's private lives?
Must an adulterer be questioned on his actions and beliefs before he is accepted as one of God's children? How about a murderer?
The word "Lord" implies a master-servant relationship. We are willing servants of Christ. How can we call him "Lord" if we refuse to obey Him? Try telling your army commander "yes, you are my commander but I'm refusing to obey you!"
Who has been asked to judge others? We have.
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 1:10
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
1 Corinthians 2:15
I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?
1 Corinthians 6:5
Then you shall again discern
Between the righteous and the wicked,
Between one who serves God
And one who does not serve Him.
Malachi 3:18
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Isaiah 8:20
“I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
Revelation 2:2
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
John 7:24
Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours?”
1 Kings 3:9
Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem;
See now and know;
And seek in her open places
If you can find a man,
If there is anyone who executes judgment,
Who seeks the truth,
And I will pardon her.
Jeremiah 5:1
Elaine asked the question about which commandment condemns someone for a homosexual ORIENTATION. Some of you folks commenting here are so uncomfortable with this subject, you can't see a gay person but for sexual acts. You are long on coming down on sin with a capital S, which yes God does. But first he loves the sinner beyond anything we can even imagine. The church has not done a very good job ministering to gays. It has only recently made some small steps to try and understand it all.
I put my pants on one leg at a time like any other man. If I am damned to hell just for having a homosexual orientation, then I might as well put in my order for ice water now. Me thinks folks in the amen corner of the church who cheer on with a "let those gays have it" with those few clobber texts, may want to put in their order too before it's all sold out. They are certain to get a ring side seat in the hot spot, too.
Would any of the "straight" men on here understand this better if they put themselves in the place of a man without a wife in today's world and no chance of marriage? Would they have no desires? Would they be lonely? Would they long for human touch? How would their lives be changed? Would they be happy? Would they struggle with their desires? Hopefully they would be celibate–but would it be easy? I don't think so. And if you met a woman and fell in love, yet could not marry, how would you feel? Or if your wife were around but you could not touch her and it would be considered a great sin if you did and it would cause people to persecute and even hate you? Does this make some sense to you? If it does then I suppose you could relate to this condition of homosexuality. Until you can understand that you were born this way as a heterosexual, you cannot understand these others' trials and pain.
I am not a man but a happily married woman, yet hope to help the "judges" here to have some sensitivity. My plea is on the behalf of the few men I have known or heard from over the years who suffer the pain of this affliction they came into this world with. "Let him who has not sinned pick up the first stone."
I think these are very powerful and apt analogies. Thank you for sharing them.
Thank you Kendra for dealing with a very sensitive area in your blog. Thank you Tom for sharing your experience. I appreciated reading all the responses.
It seems that some blog responders consistently accused Kendra (and anyone else who urged that love and compassion should be extended to those who are gay) of condoning sin. They seemed deaf and blind to the distinction that was repeatedly made between orientation and practice, and to have condemned both. After reading all the responses, I do not recall a single one that condoned the practice. Kendra and perhaps Elaine and others did point out that homosexuality is not the only sin, and is no worse than many other sins. But then so did Paul in the latter part of Rom 1, so they are in very good company. (According to EGW, if there is a priority list, pride is at the top).
Though I have had little contact with gays or lesbians, I believe from what Tom and others have said that while the gay lifestyle may be a choice, the orientation is not for many gays. Someone denied that there is a gene for being gay. But is not the tendency toward sin–sinful human nature–passed on through the genes? If not, where does it come from? Why cannot it include a tendency toward homosexuality in some people? Then too, what about the effects of possible unknown pre-natal influences or sexual abuse in early years? I think there is great deal of evidence to support the idea that many are born with a constitution that predisposes them toward a homosexual orientation, or develop it very early in life.
Apparently God does heal some people from gay desires. But does He heal all? Will He heal everyone of every disease that comes along–including aging itself, which in a sense could be considered to be a kind of "disease?" Will God remove sinful human nature and all of its genetic consequences from all who truly believe in Christ before they die or before He comes? Or is it rather that He gives increasing power to overcome the effects of sinful nature, and that victory comes not through changed human nature but through a consistent, living, growing relationship with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I would be particularly interested in seeing answers that the more critical blog responders would give to some of these questions.
I am so glad to see that someone is reading carefully!! I would also be interested in hearing the responses to those questions.
It really saddens me to see how some people pick apart clear statements of God against sin, and the sin of homosexuality. It also saddens me to see how some continually repeat trite, well worn, excuses to defend the indefensible; it also saddens me to see how some cannot see how many Adventists love all people, including gays; as if the majority of us hate gays!! If one does not warn gays of their sin (as we warn other non gays) who will do it? Kendra? Do we love the philanderers and hate gays? Of course not. We love them all, for such were some of us. However, we have the God given mission to kindly talk to gays (as we talk to others) about their lifestyle. If it is not done then their blood will be on our shoulders. Finally, just look at the gay agenda for our society and you should think twice and control your feelings! Never give the impression that to be gay is okay. There is no gay gene! The Swedes tried to prove it unsuccessfully; one is not 'born' gay no more than one is born an adulterer. Every sin is wrong, and that includes homosexuality.
BEING gay does not make a person any more or less a sinner than BEING straight. Philanderers are those who have engaged in a behavior outside God's will. Knowing that someone is gay tells us nothing about their actions.
Ron,
Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but you are still not making a distinction between homosexuality as a condition and the practice of it. As stated here, you are judging people rather than the behavior. That is a big part of the problem in the church–people are being stereotyped by the way they were born rather than actions and lifestyle.
When you talk about the practice outside the church, however, you need to recognize that the marriage or partnership of one person to another borders on civil or even religious freedom. Like polygamy in some countries, a missionary does not come in and start condemning the practice, first they start with Christ and His love for us before getting into cultural practices. And I do not see that one of these sins is worse than the other. I think adultery is more pervasive and deadly to more people. It is usually when the polygamist decides to be a Christian that they need to make a decision about their lifestyle. The same goes for co-habitation.
Ron,
Where in scripture do you find greater condemnation of homosexuality than other sins, or that one sin is more despicable to God than another? I find that God is against all sin, that we are sinners and that He offers His power to redeem us from whatever sin we battle.
In my ministry I have never hated gays; nor have the members of my churches. I hear that there are a lot of people who hate gays, yes, just as there are a lot of gays who hate non gays, do not kid yourselves about that. Why Kendra and others think we mainly hate gays is strange to me. Who does not know that God does not hate gays? God came to die for gays as well as fornicators. But both will perish if they continue in their sins after being warned. I fail to understand how a guy with a great desire for women is any different form a guy who has a great desire for men. In no way should they be positively reinforced in their sins. Just as the Christian who is struggling to keep his desire for women under control through God's power, so must the Christian who is gay in his thinking, control his abnormality as well through God's power. Whether it is the abnormal sin of homosexuality or the abnormal craving for women, it is still sin on both counts, and both need a Saviour, and indeed have one. Will they accept him? It is there choice. And someone has to introduce him to them. Again I say, you do not seem to know what the gay agenda is for our society; go to Europe, especially the UK, just look at the governments of Canada and other countries and you should tremble. As a minister I would be arrested in my home country, the UK, if I preached on homosexually from the Bible. I am allowed to preach about other forms of immorality but not homosexuality. They would like to make homosexuality as just, and good, and pleasurable for all to follow. Our children from kindergarden are indoctrinated in that. So when we talk out it is not hatred; people must be warned for their own good or they will be lost if they continue in any sin, including homosexuality! Someone must stand up for God and preach the clear Word, calling men from their sins, and yes, the sins of homosexuality, for heaven is for transformed homosexuals as well.
You assume that all gays are practicing. They are not.
I don't think that anyone here is preaching hate, or at least as I define the term. But there is a great deal of insensitivity, misunderstanding, and downright ignorance displayed toward gays in general here. Walk in my shoes for awhile and you might see just a hint of what I am talking about.
For the record, I was never molested as a child, I was raised in a loving home by two parents, attended church weekly, went to church school, and was surrounded by straight people. I didn't even know anyone who I might have remotely thought was a homosexual, yet as far back as I can remember, I found myself oriented to my own sex. Imagine the frustration, fear and loneliness of a young boy who thought at the time he was the only one with feelings like this. Imagine the confusion swirling in my young mind trying to make sense of it all and wishing and praying it would go away.Why is there this insistance on the part of some that if they admit that some people are born this way, they are soft on sin and want to promote lifestyle choices that go contrary to biblical teachings.
For me it is a difficult enough burden to bare, without hearing constant reminders from folks who, figuratively speaking, look at a gay person through prejudicial eyes, point the finger and loudly proclaim "unclean".
I admire and respect your willingness to continue taking part in this conversation, and thank you so much. Those who are willing to listen to and actually try to understand your experience have the opportunity to learn a lot, and to demonstrate the love they continually claim to have for "non-practicing" gays.
"sin of homosexuality."
So now it's come to homosexuality being a sin! Where in all of scripture is the condition of homosexuality ever called sin? Those who are so certain it is sinful have also admitted that they really don't personally know, or have talked with any, so they are now able to judge? Should homophobia now also be a sin? Why not?
Please spare me your self-righteous manner: "Thank God, I am not one of these." If that's Christianity, spare me, also.
Like Elaine and several others, I have been waiting for many weeks for those who seem to be so sure that know what the Bible says on so many topics to quote a Biblical text that says that homosexual orientation is a sin. I know what Jesus is recorded as condemning – religious pride, religious hypocrisy, an outward show of how orthodox (“straight”) one was, an attitude that “I’m glad I’m not like certain other people.”
Adventism resurrected Pharisaism. Perhaps it never died.
Thank-you Erv and Elaine for acknowledging what so many people in the church just can't see or refuse to. They see a news story about a gay pride parade, complete with provocative photos, and they conclude the worst about all of us. Oh well, the Jews in Christ's day had no use for the Samaritans, which makes Jesus parable about the good Samaritan all the more compelling. Maybe it's time to update the characters a bit for contemporary times. Imagine telling an all white church in the south this story fifty years ago and the one who showed compassion was a black man, or today that he was gay. Better yet what would be the response of some religious folks if the one who had been robbed, beaten and left half dead had been a gay man? I suppose there is some degree of prejudice in everyone. Jesus was crucified because He dared confront hypocracy and prejudice. We all should take note, be aware and act accordingly, of what divides the sheep from the goats in the end.
Kendra – Many thanks for the sites w/official statements. I respect the rights of others to exercise the freedom of speech that ( I, my oldest son, and many others) fought to protect!!
Tom – As a Veteran I will set you in your place: "At-Ease in the harness". I fought to protect your freedom of speech. Don't point the finger at others saying they don't have the knowledge! Be very careful as I'm not soft on sin, YET I will tell you straight up, I gave you your rights to express your opinion – Not to lash out at others. Again, since I paid the price for free expression – YES, it is a choice, and this "born this way" is B.S. Do I need to pat you on the head and tell you how nice you are to have had 'continued fidelity' to your wife for 28 years….. poor boy.
As I've already expressed, Yes I do believe that it is my duty – As someone who is trying to be a Christian = as a Christian is someone who is Christ-Like…. Sorry, didn't say I was, but rather trying to be. I do believe that we are admonished to love the sinner and hate the sin. Don't strike out saying that "that is a tired worn cliche"… By far, I'm not uneasy with the subject – IT'S WRONG – PERIOD. Well if you feel like it is a guided missile – then, buckle up.
Want to hear something that has hurt me to the core, and I don't even know if it was true to this day ????
My younger brother, Sidney was murdered in Bakersfield, CA in August of 1981 along with his boss Jack Blankenship on a dirt road, at about 21:30 hrs., and yes I've got the 8×10 color glossy's of the scene – and I can see the path where my brother crawled while the 4 bullets bleed his life out of him. Ok, the murderer, William Robert Tyack shot and killed Sid and his boss Jack – as they were going out to talk to a man about listing his property with the realestate firm. Mr. Tyack said: "I aimed to kill those 2 gay guys —– How dare you tell me I don't know anything!!!!! Mr. Tyack spent a few days in a half-way house, So would you like a little of my rage directed at YOU ???? Like I said, At-Ease in the harness, you self-righteous, holier-than-thou "whatever you are"……….. Nuff said.
Hey Rngrbird, I lost a brother in April this year due to cancer and a first cousin of mine was brutally murdered a few months thereafter by a known assailant (the case is still in progress). It is so tough to lose loved ones, more especially I assume, when one doesn’t have all the answers to have full closure. May God give you the peace and comfort for your tragic loss of your brother back in 1981. ♥T
I ask myself if the only sinner in this world was a homosexual, could have Jesus die only for him/her to saved. The answer is YES, YES, YES.
EE (Elaine and Erv) are waiting for and passage of the bible expressing that homosexuality is a sin.
“For the wages of sin is death”
The OT and NT is pretty clear: an abomination, result is death
“ If a man also lie with mankind…both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”.
Looks that abomination (which includes homosexuality) is placed among other conditions, that will result in death.
Christ died for homosexuals, liars, murderers, unbelievers, idolaters and as well hypocrites including SDA. But the power of GOD produces a change in a life; the liar becomes to be honest, an unbeliever in a believer, and a so on.
I know this is not going to help David. But he might want to look up what the Old Testament text he is quoting actually is addressing. Also, stringing texts together as he has, even if they are totally out of context, is a favorite strategy in this discussion. Let's all just leave each other to follow their own presuppositions. Kendra's original blog made an excellent point. It's too bad that David is not capable of understsanding that.
David committed adultery, many of the patriarchs said to have been the faithful have committed grevious sins, including murder. If they are entitled to heaven, which of all the sins will keep one out of heaven?
Adultery used to be considered on-going if a divorced person remarried, it was not a one-time sin but he or she was a sinner until death. How is that different from homosexuality? Please explain the rationale. Any sexual act outside of marriage was also the sin of fornication. Are homosexual acts more sinful than fornication? Both are common today, including Adventists. Are they kicked out of the church? Should they be? Or, is it a program to winnow down the some 13 million members down to the proper number 144,000 to ensure the Lord's coming?
There's going to be a pretty big bonfire.
Elaine you asked for a text biblical that homosexuality is a sin, the evidence has been shown.
Mark the church I assist is full of sinners, I’m one of them, but I saw the changing power of GOD. Thieves becoming to be honest persons, adulterous becoming to be faithful husbands, liars becoming to be credible, yes even homosexuals changing their past habits. I believe that grace of GOD and his power is greater than any tendency or sin.
As a hospital is for sick people the church is for sinners, but in both places we expect people to get better.
David,
You are still saying that "homosexuality" is a sin instead of the practice of homosexuality, and I object to that. I can understand the "practice" being sinful but not the orientation.
On the other hand, was polygamy considered a sin in the OT? They seem similar taking into account the cultural context. Such may be the case were marriage allowed for the homosexual. (I am not saying this would be true in the church setting.)
If homosexuals can change their past habits, why isn't same-sex marriage allowed? This has been the best method for heterosexuals for most of the world's history: marriage prevents promiscuity (although, not always). If heterosexuals were never allowed to marry, does anyone believe they would always be celibate? Paul said it is better to marry than burn, and humans, regardless of sexual orientation, have God-given sexual desires. Monogamy should be permitted for all couples who desire to remain faithful to their spouse. Such a position never occured in Christ's time as all sex outside of marriage was a "sin." Does anyone ask a heterosexual couple if they are being intimate? Why should homosexuals be asked such questions? Are they considered legitimate targets for questioning?
What if the church simply accepted everyone who wished to worship? For those who are second or third-generation SDAs, should these people, suspected of such behavior, be questioned and then disfellowshipped? Many SDA young people growing up only discovered their attraction to the same sex in the teens or later. Is someone prepred to carry out a questionnaire? How many church members do you know who have confided in you that they are homosexual? Are you required to then report to the church board? Why the prurient interest?
Say, BURR UNDER THE SADDLE, how does being a a veteran give you the right to stand on a pedestal to set me straight? Cool your jets man!! As for your trying to be christian, you better stop trying so hard, 'cause it ain't working. If being a christian is being Christlike, your response to me was anything but that.
Oh well, I'm not going to let it ruin my day. Your post is ample evidence of some of what I have been trying to say here, about how some christians show little tolerance or compassion for someone who is gay.
Some church members already think they are bending over backwards for gays, when in fact the church has for the most part turned a cold shoulder to so many. Kendra has shown a charitable attitude. She has put out the welcome mat so to speak and opened this blog for discussion. I have tried to put a face on all this with my experience, but not hold myself up as the template for all gays. Perhaps I shouldn't use the term gay because it conjurs up so many negative feelings with some. Would same-sex-attracted sound better?
Either way people are going to think the way they want to, and look for texts that support their feelings on the matter. I ask the question, am I an abomination for having the attraction to my own sex, even though I haven't engaged in sex with the same for 3 decades now?
.
Let me make it clear, I am not looking for sympathy, only understanding and a willingness to show some compassion. The only time I am a cry baby is when I sob over the stories of gay teens who have committed suicide rather than face a seemingly unending life of harrassment and hate.
The attitude expressed by some here is not far from being happy when another gay young person has committed suicide because of the sentiments written by some of those posted here. If this is not realistic, feel free to prove why it isn't.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: "There's a fear that someone, somewhere may be gay." Where should they go?
Where are the Bible texts which advocate and condone homosexual relationships or the marriage of same sex persons? I suppose to cultural adventists the Bible isn't paramount in such a discussion. The 'out of context' defense of homosexual orientation and homosexual perversion/behaviour is a strawman in terms of the Bible's clear teaching against such abomination and shows how we as a society have lost our way in becoming a society devoid of a sense of shame.
Now let me get this 'straight' (pardon the pun). Dr. Taylor and Mrs. Nelson request Biblical text to substantiate the sin of unnatural sexual perversion (although they don’t present the same to justify such practice). Before I indulge them, I have got the unambiguous impression from other comments that they aren't Bible based believing Christians insofar as the inspiration of scriptures is concerned. They defend much of their arguments not on scripture but on cultural trends and non-faith belief systems. Not posting any bible verses was intentional on my part and maybe some others. There is a reason for this. The Bible as we all know unabashedly condemns sin in all its forms. That is a no brainer. Homosexual acts however are specifically mentioned, among others, as specific sins which anger our Righteous and Holy Creator who is Christ the Lord. By His word were ALL things created that are created.
The Bible condemns sexual perversion and it specifically emphasizes the sin of homosexual perversion which is clear and in no uncertain terms. To lie to the homosexual community that their ‘ways’ are ‘kosher’ and Bible based is a terribly misleading sin itself and a direct insult to God’s love as seen on the cross of Calvary. Yes Jesus died for the homosexual too. God would have even spared Sodom and Gomorrah had there been only a few who were faithful. God eventually destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire for their sinful unrepentant ways which includes sexual perversion. The Bible also warns of the consequences of this course of action; and very strongly at that, I might add.
The Greeks and the Romans with all their ‘enlightenment’ in the arts and culture as a so-called civilized society, were very much into such debauchery which was in many instances practiced legally and openly thereby exposing a society devoid of a sense of shame: just like today. Nothing much has changed in this regard except now there are factions even within the Christian community (of all people) who come out in defence of such sin against the Almighty Creator by openly abusing the love He has unconditionally bestowed upon us sinners on this planet. Orientation, practice, whatever: God CAN provide VICTORY in and from ALL SIN through Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!
♥T
Erv at least be honest and curious, go and see what was the original word in the Hebrew bible: shakab שָׁכַב. The translation to lie (of sexual relations) b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c. (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
Maybe this can help you
Erv here is the text leviticus 20;13
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable ( abomination). They are to be put to death.
You and Elaine were asking for a biblical text. Now that is has been produced don't play with words
I have friends and family a member that are gay I love them and pray for them I hope some day they will accept the grace and power of GOD.
If AT wanted to exclude me so be it. that will not change the realty
Cultural Adventists/ex-Adventists are so predictable. Now some are trying to sensationalize this topic by alluding and acusing others of hatred and harshness towards homosexuals, and accusing them also of inciting suicide by their posts here. Come on grow up! Falsely accusing those who believe what the Bible teaches is bad enough; but even worse, is to assert and preach that the Bible actually condones and supports such perversion (as the Bible calls it) is really what is so sad.
A 15 year old teen sadly committed suicide Thursday past just after her dad scolded her for something which obviously didn't go down well with her. Does that mean that all parents are guilty of promoting suicide when they admonish their kids for something they do wrong. Come on! I thought that a rational discussion was on the table but obviously it seems not. No Christians I know get happy when ANY teen takes their own life for WHATEVER reason. To assume otherwise is purely a malicious attempt to GET BACK in a below the belt attack at opposing views and is not reasonable.
♥T
"Orientation, practice, whatever:God can provide VICTORY from and in ALL SIN through Christ Jesus."
Trevor, I see you make no distinction between orientation and practice. After all I have said here, you still just don't get it, and probably never will. What you see as one and the same, and probably disgard as hair-splitting, is quite different if you were in my shoes. Go back and reread some of my posts and you may see what I mean. It would redundant for me to repeat it all. Also, if I understand Elaine correctly, her comment about some folks rejoicing when a gay teen commits suicide, was probably one of her tongue in check remarks, and not serious. But I will let her speak for herself. I have observed at times she throws a little fat in the fire or water in the face to jar folks a bit into thinking outside their neat little box of pat answers.
When one looks on another and declares it an abomination, how can it not be an accusation against the individual at whom it was directed?
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the dark, but anyone who loves his brother is living in the light…unlike the man who hates his brother and is in the darkness, not knowing where he is going, becaue it is too dark to see" (1John 2:9-11).
David, since you appear to be obsessed over homosexuality as abomination, I suggest you use a concordance and give us a list of everything in the Bible that is called an abomination; eg., touching a dead body is an abomination; even the proud of heart ("God, I thank thee I am not like them").
Is anyone innocent, given the many abominations that can be committed?
"To hate your brother is to be a muderer" (l John 3:15).
Elaine my participation in this blog was limited to answer you challenge (to show if homosexuality is a sin in the Bible). It was presented few passages to show it. They are many other actions that are abomination too (see your concordance). I ‘ll finish repeating that the grace and power of GOD is greater than any sin. If he was able to forgive me and change my life He could do for anybody. That is his amazing Grace.
"She was a model student and a star athlete – an honest young woman in her final year at a private Christian high school, The Master's School, in Connecticut.
But when school administrators asked her about her sexual orientation, she answered courageously and honestly that she is a lesbian.
And then those same administrators told her to withdraw or she would be kicked out.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students across the country are back in school, many facing bullying from peers. The last thing these students need is a school administration that refuses to protect them from unfair treatment."
From today's Human Rights newsletter.
Is this the Christian's attitude?
Hello folks, i`m new here but old to the bible. Now let me see if i have this right, Kendra said lets pretend that Jesus used the word gay insted of blind. If the man was gay insted of blind i dont think he would have done anything, in Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 it says tho shalt not lie with a mankind as with a womankind, it is an abomination, it later says that a man that lies with another man should be put to death. There is a lot of differance between being blind and being gay. BUT Jesus can heal anyone with this disease, man was not created gay, he has achoice about that like he does about everything else in life. I am not saying we should shun them but we should pray for someone in this condition, if they dont want to change then have nothing more to do with them. God created man perfect, satan has brought sin into the world and now this is one that people are trying to teach our children, some as young as 6 that it is alright to have feelings for someone of the same sex, this is a lie straight from satan, if you cant see it than you cannot expet to understand your bible. Dont say that this was in the old law of Moses, if it is an abomination with God punishable by death then it is still the same today, our Creator says, I am God, i change not, neither does his word. We need to put a stop to this awful sin and teach our children moral values of a christian home, but to many people are to busy to have anything to do with their children, no bible studies, no conversation, no time spent with them at all, they are all left up to fend for them selves and no one knows this better than the RCC. This is their doing and they are antichrist. DO NOT pity the gays and lesbins, all they want is to suduce your children…
Brothersdown:
May I assume that you are heterosexual? May I also assume that you chose to be heterosexual? If so, can you tell us when you made that decision and what led you to that choice? Is blindness a choice? What is the meaning of the words of this song:
"I once was blind and now I see"? Is there a blindness of the heart? (Eph.l 4:18)
Who knows what goes on behind the bedroom doors of other people? Why should any of us care at all, as long as what is occurring is consensual? And, what if what someone else does is not what you or I thinks of as appropriate? Basically, it is none of our business. If God does or doesn't approve, let whatever is going on be between God and the individual or individuals involved.
So, who among you is prepared to cast the first stone? I think I see several hands raised….
Can't you just accept God's love and grace and quit the quick & insensitive condemnation?
Too many Adventists are Seven Day Voyeurists. Why, oh why, are you so curious about what goes in the privacy of people's homes? If you are straight, are you seeking congratulations? Is there some special honor for celibacy? In the Roman Catholic system there is, but does Adventism also have such requirements?
If this was just a bedroom private topic then why was it brought up on a public platform? Nobody is throwing stones or been insensitive or condemning for that matter. Neither do we want to snoop into homosexual bedrooms. Some may have been caught up in the sensational exciting side of such activity and are intrigued so much by it that they support its practice in order to satisfy their curiosity by encouraging homosexuals. Perhaps there are many who get a kick out of talking and supporting sexual immorality and immoral living. The SDA church has a scriptural basis for our belief and it is clear that God does NOT approve of such behavior even if we may find some cultural socio-political basis for this practice. Warning sinners who are trapped in sinful living (including all types of sin) by showing them love and calling them to repentance in Christ Jesus is what the church does or at least should be doing apart from its many other objectives. Those who are standing in the path of sinners, please put your hands up! Wow! There are many …
It's a long shot but should we then just change the Bible like some churches have done so that sin can be accommodated and practiced? Well some are suggesting that here…but don't expect or try to force or manipulate the rest of us into such a voyage of destruction. We just can’t let sexual excitement rule over the standards set forth in scripture. Homosexuals have to come to terms with this just like I had to let the Lord deal with my addiction to dope and tobacco and alcohol and sinful living. The blood of Christ has power indeed for every single shortcoming and sin.
No one has even mentioned the high risk among the homosexual community of contracting HIV AIDS and other STD's which they too are very susceptible to and about how many of us have seen the devastating effects on homes and family's as a result of loved ones who have died of AIDS's related illnesses and complications. What about loving the many orphans on our planet who have lost their parents to HIV-AIDS? We as a Church are loving these children too. So our love as Christians is broad based and not limited only to homosexuals. Shouldn't we love them enough to tell them enough, just like we as a church do for others who are trapped in an orientation towards sinful living or even those practicing sinful living. Isn't the love of Christ enough to for all of us? Apparently from some comments here there isn’t enough power in the previous Blood of Jesus Christ. Maybe we have it the wrong way ‘round: perhaps we should first surrender our lives completely to Him and allow Him to work repentance in us, the old school way – the way of the Cross.
The mistake we have made here is to assume that to love means to condone. This is a misrepresentation of God's love. We have to admit too that just like the governments of our world have through their systems of education forced non-empirical evolution theory on society, they are now forcing social disorder and cultural sex as a normal part of sexuality which is been taught in school and promoted in the media. This is what the Greeks and Romans did when they chose to embrace sexual immorality. Seems Rome still rules much of our world today and they seek to hand homosexuality on a platter even trying to force the practice on the church.
♥T
Elaine stated, “Too many Adventists are Seven Day Voyeurists”.
Could provide the source of that observation? Was ever conducted a survey to find out the “too many”? or is this just your unfounded impression? It good to remember the 9th commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor(s)”
The Adventists that I know are not interested in such sick perversions.
Timo,
Preach on! You are so right that Jesus came to save sinners, including you and me. I have been richly blessed by the fellowship of believers who are willing to be open about their weaknesses, pray with and encourage each other in times of temptation, and celebrate the victories God gives.
Somehow we've come to expect a greater degree of perfection in our leaders than is credible or possible. The sooner we recognize they are human and embrace that weakness in the fellowship of grace, the better we will all be for the experience.
There seems to be such an interest expressed by some posters here who are intent on diagnosing and prescribing expulsion for private behaviors. If this is not voyeurism, please give another definition than Merriam-Webster:
Voyeurism: A prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous.
Elaine here is some definitions of voyeurism . Also to use the words “too many” is inappropriate. It will be more honest to say “I exaggerated… my apologies” than defending the absurd.
“In clinical psychology, voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other activity usually considered to be of a private nature” (Hirschfeld, M. (1938). Sexual anomalies and perversions: Physical and psychological development, diagnosis and treatment)
“Voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder in which a person derives sexual pleasure and gratification from looking at the naked bodies and genital organs or observing the sexual acts of others. The voyeur is usually hidden from view of others. Voyeurism is a form of paraphilia”
“the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively”
One only needs to read the many comments here to see that there are some who have an inordinate interest in people's private lives; suspicion that they may be committing abomination. Question: have you observed such abominations with your own eyes? Either you have (which is certainly voyeurism) or there is a suspicion. We should always believe the best of others, especially when we have no absolute evidence, and then, why condemn them? Let God speak to them; we have not been asked to do that.
Elaine your phrase: “Too many Adventists are Seven Day Voyeurists”. Is unsustainable. No matter how much you wanted to avoid it. Take your own medicine “We should always believe the best of others, especially when we have no absolute evidence” .
Erv, I know what I think and I’ll post it any time but first you answer to my questions that you never responded. Well now you have again the opportunity to do so. The street goes both ways! You want me to refresh you the questions?
RE: abomination:
God said it… I believe it… and that settles it for me!
No need to 'see' sin to know sin. God's instruction on what constitutes sin will suffice any day as a credible source of instruction.
♥T
I haven't seen one post here on this blog where anyone has proposed the church sanction gay sex. But that seems to be the automatic response from some folks who seem to have their skin crawl whenever the subject of loving gays comes up. I won't even give the dignity of a response to the guy who said all we want to do is seduce children. Some people's minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set. Trying to convince them otherwise is a waste of time and effort.
To try and elevate the discussion a bit and cool the hot pokers jabbing back and forth of late, I'd like to ask WWJD? There is no biblical account of Jesus ever talking directly about homosexuals, but there is one concerning a prostitute. Since some of you automatically put gays down there with the prostitutes, I'll use this for an example. The story is in John 8.
A prostitute, caught in the very act, was drug before Jesus. Her accusers stated that the law of Moses said she should be stoned. so they asked Him what should be done to her. They were trying to trap Jesus. Only the Romans could invoke the death penalty since the Jews were under their rule. If He told them to stone her, they would rush to the Romasn authorities and accuse Him of usurping their authority. If He refused to tell them to stone her, than her accusers would go tell the Jewish religious leaders that He was disregarding the law of Moses. The catch 22 insured consequences whichever way he answered.
Jesus foiled their plot by saying, "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." As they one by one left, after seeing Him write their sins in the sand, he then asked her where her accusers were. "They are gone," she answered.
He didn't issue some long winded lecture to the woman about her sordid lifestyle, quoting biblical passages declaring she really should be stoned. No, he simply said," neither do I condemn you". By those words He didn't let her off and tell her "you can go back to work now." He followed his non condemnation by saying, "now go and sin no more."
I believe that Jesus greatest emphasis, the thing that gave this woman hope and a feeling of being loved were those words, "neither do I condemn you." This woman probably was treated like dirt and was looking for love in all the wrong places as a result. His following that with "go and sin no more" was not a qualifier for the first, but a follow up invitation to a better life.
If only we could look at others and their actions (or what we may think they have done), and recognize that they had their own personal (usually quite private) reasons for feeling as they feel and doing as they do. We attribute this ability to God, so S/He would be able to understand and show compassion where it is warranted. It is quite clear that we have no such gift of looking into a person's private reasons for being who they are or doing as they do. Shouldn't we act accordingly? Isn't this the basis of our charge to treat others as we would wish to be treated, and to judge not that we be not judged?
I think we can all agree that sexual identity, sexual orientation, and interpersonal relationships, are all very complicated and very private and personal, regardless of outward appearances. Every person is worthy of our respect and due consideration. Do I need to tell you this? Who am I that I should do so? Fortunately, Kendra has put it just right in the title of her essay.
How will we relate to these people as our neighbors in heaven? Who are we to bar them?
Who is baring them from entering heaven? Some would very fast type the answer as SDAs…….but if we see Paul on Mars hill…..the lesson is clearly there that God has revealed his purpose through many ways and LGBT in their heart sure know what is to be done morally i guess…….but the problem is more with the so called LGBT advocates who think they are the voice of the minorities and the tradional Adventists are just someones who try to rip the LGBT of their human rights………THERE ARE SO MANY INSTANCES in the SCRIPTURE implying God's desire that we abstain from immoral sexual practise. Some would pop out the issues and when the scriptural references are provided they would take the Word Advocates as inhuman etc but then 'WE ARE TO CALL SIN BY ITS RIGHT NAME…..does that mean we are trying to banish them or so and so……..well there was this sermon preached once in my local church where a new convert came to attend and while the pastor was sharing the message on sinful attitudes such as stealing, lying, cheating etc this man gets up and asks the people 'how come he knows so much about me'…….well the word of God speaks a volume………by the way most of things are clear in this thread through the statement of someone on'Sexual perversion' and with the textx from the Bible to support what actually is sexual perversion………but some would just not take it ,,,,such is the diversity hahaha atleast in the AT land ….all for ……all for……well you all know may be…..
Thank You Kendra! Thank You Tom! We need to have a more heartfelt understanding of this issue. We musn't let anything distract us from the Gospel. Jesus was not afraid that sin would rub off on Him. He came and dwelt among us so that we might all be saved! Sin can and will be left behind, Jesus can and will help us all overcome anything it is His will for us to overcome. It is not my place to judge another's heart, only God can do that. I must look on each of my fellow human beings as potential members of God's kingdom and treat them ever and always as such. Let's lift each other up and encourage each one to choose life and follow what God leads them to do. He wants us all to be pure and holy and will give us the grace and power to be so if we will let Him. What exactly that means to each individual is not my place to say. We each have our own sins to struggle with, let's encourage each other in love. "..I may understand all the secret things of God and all knowledge and I may have faith so great that I can move mountains. But even with all these things, if I do not have love, then I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2
All the "Apples of Sodom" are SIN (Adultery, Fornication, Lust, Self Abuse& Homosexuality).
Christ would have died for even one sinner, even a homosexual. But that's the point. Their homosexuality is SIN. All SIN (unrepented of) will keep us out of Heaven.
“If God loves XYZ so should we” is a practical way of being imitator of God. There should be little disagreement. Being imperfect human how to love XYZ becomes the essential point. God loves by saving souls through repentance. We should love by compassionately empower fellow sinners to repent and be fully under the grace of God not as judges but as fellow sinners. The worst form of cruelty is to love by smoothing fellow sinners’ way to hell. It is the worst way to hate XYZ.
Why is it that whenever someone suggests loving gays that their is an automatic response in the minds of so many that doing so is automatically included to mean "smoothing fellow sinners' way to hell?" It is sad that so many are so uneasy about just plain loving people, including gays, they can't resist getting a wedge in there that clearly defines them as uncomfortable with unconditional love. As I said here before, no one here on this blog has spoke in favor of gay sex, so are we to conclude that if one isn't speaking out against it they are automatically saying it's ok? Some are only comfortable with this subject if they can proclaim with a trumpet, "GO AND SIN NO MORE" while "neither do I condemn you." is barely heard above a whimper, if at all.
Some folks are too busy seeing OPM (other people's sins) and become expert in identifying them in the correct order. Never mind that Jesus said not one word about homosexuality but much about loving our neighbors. What one has uppper most in mind, exits via the mouth.
Tom, you are very courageous. You have lived monogamous to your wife for 3 decades. Yet you have the courageous to bare your soul here, to tell us of your utter heart wrenching, gutteral pain; so that we will be kinder and maybe save the life of a suicidal teen. You are letting yourself be vulnerable, to save a life of another. You are laying your life open, laying it down, for even strangers. May God bless you, lead, guide and comfort you and your family. Jan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PPP7wk1VWw&NR=1
It is amazing to see how the story of let the sinless cast the first stone being used as a rock to smash the alleged stone throwers. One may assume a moral high ground by referring to the story but its application is often no less judgmental.
The man was born blind from birth not gay from birth.Sin is sin.Sodom was burned down and gays will not get in Heaven Jesus came to save us from not in our sins
How can we be so sure that any of us will be in heaven? What would happen if we were there and found gays there, too? Ask to be let out? Refuse to have one as neighbor??
Herein lies the problem. The Bible is clear, unless one is born again, there will be no going to heaven. Likewise it also says that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom. There is a short list of catagories of lifestyle issues that will keep anybody from making to heaven in 1 Corinthians 6:9.10, which includes sexual sin, gay or straight. But there is an answer: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11 ESV) Titus 3:3-7 tells us that washing comes by Christ thru the Holy Spirit…
Christianity is not about God accepting us as we are, and leaving us as we are. It is giving to whomsoever will the life of His Son, Jesus. There is far more to this then the historical Jesus, but the Jesus that lives in the life of each believer who would follow Him, and let Him live out His life in them through the Holy Spirit.
There won't be any gays in heaven, nor will there by another other sinful types either. The only people who will inhabit eternity are the redeemed who've let grace do its much more abounding work in them. Which starts here by loving those that Jesus loves and came to save… sinners just like me… the gays… and the rest of the lot of humanity.
When Jesus comes He will separate the sheep from the goats. As I read the last section of Matthew 25, how we treat others will have a great determination in whose is and who isn't in the kingdom of heaven. Ones sexual orientation is not what matters, but whether you have allowed the kingdom of God to live in your soul, and been washed and cleansed with the blood of our Savior.
I believe when Paul lists several sinful behaviors and then says in ICorinthians 6…"and such were some of you, but you have washed…" he is not talking with respect to homosexuality that once you were gay, now you are straight. The "were" has to do with behavior not sexual orientation here.
When some people here make statements like " gays will not get into heaven" it comes across that unless you are straight even in orientation you just are plain going to hell.
I believe that no one is beyond redemption for the kingdom of heaven. God's power is able to "save to the uttermost" Hebrews 7:25 " all those who come to Him."
That some marks of the sinful nature remain in this life , this side of the kingdom of heaven, give me hope. I look forward to the day "when we will changed in the moment, in the twinkling of an eye, when this corruptilbe puts on incorruptible…" 1Corintihians 15. The remaining scars of the sinful nature will be forever removed. If there are no gays in heaven, then it will be only because God has restored us, at his coming, to His original plan when he first created man, and not because we didn't become straight before that time.
Tom,
As far as being in God's everlasting kingdom, it was not my intent to isolate gays from any other segment of society in terms of everlasting life. You agree with you when you said, "I believe that no one is beyond redemption for the kingdom of heaven." I was in no way implying that you had to be straight to be saved.
I'm not sure as to how to place my self in relation to the term "orientation." In my simple mind, temptation is temptation, sin is sin… catagory / thought / act. I have no problem with the concept that because sin dwells in our members, and the associated weakness (s), can be / are handed down generationally (which is not to imply that one's perceived / realized gayness is hereditary). In the light of what you have openly shared with us about your own personal experience (thank you for that), to me, having an attraction to the same sex does not necessarily equate being gay. To a certain degree, I believe that is more of a social stigma. (Now I'm not closed minded to any / all futher and necessary clarification (s). ) And just to make my point, when you were attracted to other males, was it because of an orientation, or a temptation? The reason I ask is that I'm not clear as to what the pull is that is due to the attraction, an orientation, or a temptation?
Please understand, I do not say these things in a SDA bubble / vacuum. My cousin who was 6 months older then me, shot himself to death the day before his 22nd birthday. He couldn't reconcile his affections / attractions for male / female. His sister has / is in a same sex relationship.
To all of this I would like to repeat that which I believe you can agree with me about: "The only people who will inhabit eternity are the redeemed who've let grace do its much more abounding work in them. Which starts here by loving those that Jesus loves and came to save… sinners just like me… the gays… and the rest of the lot of humanity. "
Tom,
I would like to ask your forgiveness if there was any appearance of insensativity… It was not my intent. I was simply trying to answer a question by Elaine.
I do appreciate your candor and honesty.
Needed correction: 1st reply,
"I agree with you when you said…."
Why do we always ask God to step out of the judgement seat so we can have it to judge others ?lets worry about our salvation and pray for others, and let God be the judge of all..
For a straight person to imagine he can understand someone who is gay, is like saying that a Caucasian can understand what it's like to be African-American, or that a man can understand what it's like to be a woman.
Elaine,
There's more to people then what you read.
laffal,
To answer your question about orientation. I believe from expeerience that sexual orientation, gay or straight, is what someone is not what they do. Having a homosexual orientation is not a choice someone makes, what they decide to do with it is. Marrying a woman and being faithful to her for 30 years, did not change my orientation from gay to straight. I am still predominantly attracted to my own sex through no conscious choice of my own, but difficult as it is I choose to not act on it.
I don't expect most people to understand it all, but I do believe we should love all people equally and not preempt God as the judge. If people who truly want to love others as Jesus loves them, they would be at least a little more sensitive in the way they approach this subject. That is not to say that we shouldn't call sin sin, but just keep in mind that there are many young gays out there who may read these comments,who are tryingto sort through their feelings and make some sense of it all, who desparately need some kind of hope to hold onto and not another salvo of condemnation hurled at them.
Perhaps some further clarification is needed on this issue of orientation and temptation. Keep in mind that mere attraction is not sin, or for that matter temptation. Men are more sexually attracted by sight than women. It is the way we are wired. Lust, however, is THINKING IN YOUR MIND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IN YOUR BODY. Oftentimes a man is attracted to someone, let's say the opposite sex, and they start to condemn themselves for lust when it is really only their God given hormones reacting naturally to a sight stimulus. To never be attracted to someone opposite or same-sex means you are either blind or brain dead.
This is important to understand because mere attraction, be it to the opposite or same sex is not sin. Orientation has to do with how you are sexually wired. Temptation has to do with desires to indulge sexual appitites, gay or straight, in sinful ways.
Tom,
I do appreciate the time / thought / effort to clarify the terms and your understanding of them. Again, from a personal standpoint, the term orientation is not one I'm ready to use / agree to in terms of "how" one "is sexually wired." From what little I have read on the term itself, it's primarily a physological term, and from that standpoint I find my ambivolence. It's nothing personal, as far as those who have that specific struggle. It's just me trying to work it out in my own mind.
The Bible is clear, we are to love the way God loves… for the purpose of redemption / reconciliation / restoration. I am as much in need of this love as anybody else.
Thanks again for your time / thoughts / testimony.
laffal,
Thank-you for the civility with which you have responded to me. It is greatly appreciated. In the realm of the use of the word sexual orientation, it simply means in the case of a homosexual orientation that you are attracted, through no conscieous decision of your own , to those of your own sex. A heterosexual orientation is one who is attracted to those of the opposite sex. Either way the sexual feelings seem natural to either side. Although it is an insufficient comparision, right and left handed people naturally use the hand they are oriented to. There are no moral decisions when it comes to right and left handedness. but in the realm of choice, people don't make one when it comes to right or left handedness.
So no one misunderstands me, I am not trying with this illustration to argue a case for moral equivalency, as some do, with respect to homosexuality, claiming it is no different than heterosexuality.
While I have come to the conclusion that some gays, maybe not all, are born that way, I don't believe that God intends it to be so. Why God allows it to happen and why he doesn't completely change those to heterosexuality, who earnestly pary for such change, I just plain can't answer. While I have finally made peace with myself after years of spiritual frustration over it all, I believe I was born this way, because I don't fit the scenario so many people use to come up with a reason why some boys are homosexuals.
Bear in mind that there are many gays who have suffered stigma and shame for so long, that oftentimes when they finally feel acceptance in the only place where they feel they can be themselves, the gay community, gthey swing to the opposite extreme demonstrated in gay pride. Now they have come to the belief that God deliberately created them gay or they simply want nothing to do with God and religion because it caused them so much internal pain.
If christians who are prone to lay it on the gays, claiming biblical support in doing so, would stop to think beyond their prejudices, they would see the damage it causes. It drives away the people who need God's saving grace and comfort the most. The church should be the first place that a gay person should seek out for love and support, but regrettfully it is usually the last, and for good reason. Who wants to be a glutton for more shame and punishment?
I
Unfortunately the same is true for many people, not just for gays. It seems odd that an organization that is so insistent it is 'a hospital for sinners' is also so good at giving the impression 'no sinner need apply'. I am not saying it is intentional, but that is the impression those outside the church get of the church.
What is sad is that many who "used to be" Adventists are completely turned away from a church that refuses to accept "certain" sins, while ignoring "thou shalt not bear false witness" and turns to those with normal sexual urges and looks askance at them. The church has long had a distaste for anything where sex is involved, beginning with the earliest Christian fathers, some who castrated themselves to be relieved of a very natural sex drive. With this, came the disdain of women as the cause of all those "evil sexual urges" and she was portrayed as a temptress like Eve. This view is still pervasive today, now mostly directed to the homosexuals among us who are our brothers, our sisters, our children. For shame to call oneself Christian when Christ never breathed a word on this subject.
http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=14
The link above has an article on homosexuality with some interesting perspectives like this excerpt below:
There are Dangers in Accepting a Genetic Origin for Homosexuality.
1. The argument implies that homosexuals have abnormal genes and are either defective or diseased. This is discriminatory and derogatory.
2. If genes are the cause of homosexuality, and abortion on demand is legalized, prenatal testing may influence parents to abort babies likely to carry homosexual genes. Indeed, the gay lobby in the USA has already expressed fears about this.
3. Genetic research discoveries are unlikely to stop. What if pedophile genes are found? Would the Church reconsider its ordination policies in the light of such new discoveries?
4. If homosexuality were genetic in origin it would mean that the condition is unchangeable.
I thought we had long ago moved past the either/or position?
We all have defective genes of some sort … or are they just different? It must be boring to be 'normal' – if anyone is 🙂
Keep looking, Trevor, and you can always find articles to confirm your assumptions.
As long as we're sharing articles, here's one I really appreciated:
http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html
Single Dad Laughing has a phenomenal follow-up to the post I mentioned above. It's called "The Nine Words that Just Might Fix Us All," and I think it does an amazing job of summing up what I'm trying to get at here.
Be sure to read all four pages. It's worth every last second you spend on it.
http://www.danoah.com/2011/12/the-nine-words-that-just-might-fix-us-all.html
And a couple of excerpts from the Desire of Ages:
"In His act of pardoning this woman and encouraging her to live a better life, the character of Jesus shines forth in the beauty of perfect righteousness. While He does not palliate sin, nor lessen the sense of guilt, He seeks not to condemn, but to save. The world had for this erring woman only contempt and scorn; but Jesus speaks words of comfort and hope. The Sinless One pities the weakness of the sinner, and reaches to her a helping hand. While the hypocritical Pharisees denounce, Jesus bids her, 'Go, and sin no more.'
It is not Christ's follower that, with averted eyes, turns from the erring, leaving them unhindered to pursue their downward course. Those who are forward in accusing others, and zealous in bringing them to justice, are often in their own lives more guilty than they. Men hate the sinner, while they love the sin. Christ hates the sin, but loves the sinner. This will be the spirit of all who follow Him. Christian love is slow to censure, quick to discern penitence, ready to forgive, to encourage, to set the wanderer in the path of holiness, and to stay his feet therein." ~Desire of Ages, p. 462
"In the work of redemption there is no compulsion. No external force is employed. Under the influence of the Spirit of God, man is left free to choose whom he will serve. In the change that takes place when the soul surrenders to Christ, there is the highest sense of freedom. The expulsion of sin is the act of the soul itself. True, we have no power to free ourselves from Satan's control; but when we desire to be set free from sin, and in our great need cry out for a power out of and above ourselves, the powers of the soul are imbued with the divine energy of the Holy Spirit, and they obey the dictates of the will in fulfilling the will of God." ~Desire of Ages, p. 466
Oh, and also:
"It is no part of Christ's mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas.
Every human being, in body, soul, and spirit, is the property of God. Christ died to redeem all. Nothing can be more offensive to God than for men, through religious bigotry, to bring suffering upon those who are the purchase of the Saviour's blood." ~Desire of Ages, pp. 487-488
Homosexual behaviour may have climbed up the civil and social ladder but it still remains what it is: sin. To cover-up such as much as we would like with cosmetic quotations is a desperate attempt to seek to baptize the sin rather than the sinner. Those who do so will have to be accountable for allowing government legislation and the perverted cultural norms of the day to dictate what constitutes sin in opposition to obedience to God. Cheap grace at its best? It clearly seems to me that many have been 'groomed' over the years to either practice or support such lifestyles which God has warned against. Jesus called those he loved to repent: this would include those trapped in sexual immorality – from both sides of the divide. Let's not get carried away here!
Hmmm, that's interesting. I would say:
Pride and gossip may have climbed up the civil and social ladder, but they still remain what they are: sin.
To cover up such as much as we would like with cosmetic quotations is a desperate attempt to seek to baptize the sin rather than the sinner. Those who do so will have to be accountable for allowing religious bigotry and the perverted cultural norms of the day to dictate what constitutes sin in opposition to obedience to God.
Cheap grace at its best? It clearly seems to me that many have been 'groomed' over the years to either practice or support attitudes which God has warned against.
Jesus called those he loved to repent: this would include those trapped in condemnation and self-righteousness – from both sides of the divide.
Let's all acknowledge our need of a Savior here.
The church changes, very slowly, and not as soon as society.
Years ago, remarriage was impossible UNLESS an investigation revealed that one party had committed adultery; if no adultery was in the history, no remarriage was possible.
Did the onus of adultery change? Now, there a many divorced people who are members in good and regular standing. There is realization that not all broken marriages are caused by physical infidelity, but can be many other reasons. No longer are divorced people dismembered or viewed as "sinners."
This will happen one day with those who are homosexual; when the church finally recognizes what physicians, psychologists and psychiatrists all know: homosexuality is NOT a choice, but that there are many people born with this just as some are born with blue eyes, dark skin, and other genetic differences, just as one time it was believed that black skin was the "curse of Cain," and that still in many cultures females are given up to die as unwanted–and that the father was the only one that passed on genes. For those who refuse to recognize scientific knowledge, the Bible is their source for all answers–except when a terrible diagnosis is made, then they seek the best medical advice, not the Bible's answers.
Would someone explain to me just how one repents from what they are, as opposed to sinful actions they may do? It seems to me that there are some people who believe that gays need to repent for just being alive.
Excellent question. If, as some seem to be claiming, a person who feels attraction to the same sex but doesn't act on it is sinning by simply having the attraction, what would repentance look like?
There is no indication whatsoever that when the Bible was written there recognition of was same-sex monogamy: everything written in the Bible is describing promiscuous behavior of both homos and hetero, which were condemned equally.
That many homosexuals have married certainly indicates that they are willing and eager to be monogamous as heterosexuals. To deny married homosexuals the same benefits of heteros may well be unconstitutional. As stated above, eventually the church will accept this just as it has accepted many other societal ideas long after those ideas are widely accepted. Examples: adultery, divorce and remarriage; wedding rings. Make your own lists, but in the past 50 years, Adventism's confusing behavioral standards have silently faded away.
Elaine, while adultery hs become less grevious in the eyes of society and even the church, it it still not an accepted practice in the church and is still grounds for church discipline. I don't ever expect the church to embrace same-sex marriage, nor do I think it should.
Same sex marriage opens a Pandora's box of other thorny issues that will have long range constitutional consequences, not the least of which is a church's religious liberty. The more militant activists are jumping at the chance to cram this down the throats of unwilling churches with threats of civil lawsuits.
So, of course, everyone has an opinion on this…. Me too.
It seems to me that a legal marital partnership between two consenting adults is a matter
to be established in a secular governmental setting, through licensure and signing a legally
binding contract. That is, it is a civil matter.
To the extent that any couple wants a religiously sanctioned relationship and/or ceremony,
they should be able to have that–within the constraints of the church of their choice. If
the church they choose is unwilling to recognize their union, they are free to argue and
protest that decision. But the church has no place saying they cannot have a civil union
that is legal and entitles them to all the legal rights of a married couple.
Now, churches can decide whether they will be inclusive or exclusive (intolerant). If
they want to throw people out they can. And by doing so, they deserve what they get.
So Joe, If as you day, "a legal marital partnership between two consenting adults is a matter to be estqblished in a secular government setting," than if the secular government decides to limit it to one man and one woman, shouldn't that be okay?. The secular government outlaws polygamy, marriage between bloodline relatives.
I see this entire debate about same sex marriage a legal red herring to punish churches who don't go along. In this age of so prevalament co-habitation why all the hulabalu about two people of the same sex insisting they be allowed to marry? I see it as a attempt to punish those,especially churches, that don't fall into line. You asmuch as said that yourself, Joe, with your closing sentence.
Currently, the TV program "Sister Wives" is in the news. The state is claiming they are committing polygamy; yet the husband is legally married to only one woman and the other women have all voluntarily become "sister wives." This is a conundrum for the state as their laws do not cover such arrangements, any more than the law does not, nor cannot control couples, whether straight or gay, from living and cohabiting together. There are fewer marriages today than ever before and many simply choose to live together, for which there is no legal prohibition.
Society recognizes changes far earlier than the church. If a couple is legally married in one of the 8 states where it is legal, what becomes of their status when they move into another state that does not recognize the marriage? Should they be prosecuted? Under what law? Even the law is behind societal changes and the church yet further behind.
About adultery: Most of the churches I have attended in the past 40 years, did not question those who remarried; whether before their membership or after. There are so many reasons for divorce, and many are not because of physical infidelity. Should the SDA church have a canon law like the Catholics to decide annullment? Should there be an inquisition held to determine the "guilty party" as was once the case? I personally know a number of couples who divorced for non-physical infidelity. Infidelity is in many forms.
Regardless of anything else, there is a need for some legal protections for people who live together in any configuration. Presumably, any configuration of people should be able to form a contractual arrangement establishing their rights relative to each other. But there are laws about inheritance, pensions, insurance, social security, visitation in hospital, responsibilities, etc., that are already codified to apply to married couples. Extending all these to same-sex couples is not much of a stretch. BUT, the people who are obsessed with the correctness of others have told me this would serve as an incentive for sin. The reasoning is basically the same as the reason for opposing easy access to birth control or the morning after pill.
It all boils down to people who are obsessed with avoiding sin wanting to ensure that other people don't sin either. Of course, in my opinion, it is none of their business. And I feel the same way about other group marriage sorts of things AS LONG AS THERE IS NO COERCION or pedophilia. What happens behind the bedroom doors of others is none of my business.
Elaine you are missing the point. I am talking about adultery not divorce and remarry. If someone steps out on their spouse for an affair with another person, that is adultry as I see it and grounds for church discipline. Just because society seems to turn a blind eye to sleeping around, doesn't mean the church should too.
What are we looking for, the lowest common denominator in race to the bottom for cultural norms?
Marriage was traditionally a secular ritual. In the Bible you never find a priest involved. The church first got involved in recording marriages (priests often being the only literate persons around), then in blessing them, then they moved from home to the church -but not in the sanctuary itself. Finally – and more recently than I would have thought, marriage became a religious ritual in the church. Except now many people (I believe about 75% here in Australia) no longer have church weddings, and over 50% have a civil celebrant. So, marriage has ceased to be a religious ritual in most western countries already. Many couples never marry in any formal way. To argue that gay marriages cannot happen because marriage is essentially religious is neither historically nor contemporarily true in most of the world. I personally support the idea of a civil/legal ceremony that all must take part in for a legal marriage, then a voluntary religious ritual for those who want it. Or we could do as Britain has done and recognised the right to a religious rather than civil marriage, while recognising the religious institution's right to refuse to conduct marriages that don't meet their requirements.
Sooo, let me see if I have this right. You think that whatever happens behind bedroom doors is none of anybodies business, including the church. So in your world, I can carry on an affair with another guy while I am married to my wife and it's none of the church's business. I should be able to remain in good and regular standing. Somehow that doesn't sound right. Maybe you think that being married to a woman is unnatural for a gay person like me, so you think I should leave her and get married to a guy. Situational ethics with no moral absolutes really creates a dilemna, huh?
Tom, I think what you do is up to you. It is up to you to make moral and ethical choices. In your example, you need to be considering who you may be harming. You may be harming no one other than your self when you act against your own standards. You may be harming your spouse. You may be harming his spouse or significant other. There are plenty of reasons not to sleep around, or to be true to one's spouse or vows, but fear of being disciplined by one's church is pretty far down the list. At some point one should grow up and take responsibility for one's own behavior.
Fear of being disciplined by the church for unfaithfulness to one's spouse, while it's apoor reason for not sleeping around, isstill nonetheless a consequence. While I agree that some of the church's code of conduct is overdone at times, there is still a standard for marital fidelity that needs to be upheld.
But whose job is it to uphold the standards? Is it not up to each individual to internalize standards of ethics, morality, and conduct? Is the the church to act as one's parents? I think this is another "locus of control" problem. Each person is responsible for his or her own conduct. Behaving irresponsibly has consequences, whether or not one's parent or church or boss attempts to enforce standards individuals have not adequately internalized.
While it may be up to each person to internalize standards of ethics, morality and conduct, What is to be done in a church setting when there are those who don't? No man is an island, you know. Is the church to set no boundaries? There is a biblical model for the church and it is found in Matthew 18, as well as other places. The church as a body votes on matters where church discipline is to be considered for an erring member. that it has not always been followed without pariality is no reason to just throw up our hands and let each individual make up there own code of conduct.
I'm sure you know that the church does not currently, and probably never has, let individuals make up their own code of conduct. Much effort is made, through education and sermonizing, to convey understanding of what is right and what is wrong. When people err, the matter is often private. When that is the case, it is up to the individual to settle things with himself, anyone else involved, including God (for believers). If you are talking about flagrant and wilfull public violation of group (church) standards, of course the group must have mechanisms for correction and enforcement–and setting such in place needs planning, descretion, and fairness.
We concur that the church must have some way of disciplining open and flagrant violation of ethical standards as decided by the church as a whole. I never meant to give the impression the church was to pry and drag people before tribunals for private sin unknown to the church at large. In any case, private sin is a touchy matter we all struggle with in some degree or another.
In any kind of church discipline the aim should be redemptive and not punitive. I dislike the position of some who self righteously declare that people should be "dealth with" to "cleanse the camp of sin." Such persons are more focused on pulling up what they see as weeds, rather than cultivating and nurturing the plants.
Matthew 18 is actually a very interesting passage because Jesus outlines a procedure to follow when someone is offending you (presumably either by personally offending you or offending the community by persisting in open and flagrant sin).
His outline for this process is preceded by the story of the lost sheep, describing how the shepherd will go to any lengths to bring home the lost. It is followed by the story of the unmerciful servant, describing how we should show mercy to each other since we are all sinners with an unpayable debt to God.
And in the middle of Matthew 18, he says to treat erring people who do not respond to 1) personal conversation, 2) small group conversation, and 3) large group intervention "as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (verse 17).
And how did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors? He ate lunch with Zaccheus. He called Matthew to be his disciple. He ministered to the Syrophoenician woman and the Roman centurion by healing their children.
So even Jesus' description of church discipline has love, mercy, and reconciliation at its core.