Sabbath and Same-Sex Marriage, Part 4
by Kendra Perry
Previous Articles in the Series:
Sabbath and Same-Sex Marriage, Part 1 Introduction
Sabbath and Same-Sex Marriage, Part 2 Separation of Church and State
Sabbath and Same-Sex Marriage, Part 3 Gays and the Church
Interlude: Galileo’s Uncertainty
Dear Church Who Walks With Each Other,
We are gathered today in this space to prayerfully consider marriage and sexuality in Scripture and in the lives of our friends who find themselves attracted to the same sex. Please join me in pausing for a prayer.
God, we come to you through the blood of Christ, keenly aware that only through him do ANY of us dare to approach your throne. As we seek your face today, give us Spirit-filled wisdom and clarity as we think, Christ’s heart as we love, and a sense of the Father’s everlasting arms holding us all together. Amen.
Let’s review briefly. My original article in this series linked the Sabbath and same-sex marriage through the lens of religious liberty: As Adventists, we do not want others’ religious beliefs to either dictate or limit our civil right to keep Sabbath according to the dictates of our own conscience. I proposed that, in this vein, we should also discourage religious involvement in the civil matter of marriage, letting those of many faiths (or no faith) marry according to the laws of our land as they see fit.
A subsequent article clarified that religious liberty should also mean that no church should be obligated to perform same-sex marriages if it takes a conscientious position against them.
My next installment invited readers to move out of the civil arena and consider how our LGBT brothers and sisters fit into the body of Christ. Discussion raged hot on all the columns, leading me to my most recent installment, a brief despairing plea for us to Walk With one another in the love of Christ as we puzzle out this difficult topic.
Today I would like to look briefly at marriage and sexuality in the Bible, propose an approach for straight Adventists (or any Christian, for that matter) toward our LGBT friends, family, and neighbors, and then move on to other topics in my next column.
In addition to being linked by the potential religious liberty issue I mentioned in my first column, Sabbath and marriage also share the distinction of being institutions established in Eden before our first parents fell into sin.
Advocates of a traditional definition of marriage look to this Edenic ideal to point out that God established and sanctified marriage between one man and one woman. This IS true, and we must honor Scripture by noting this. However, we must also honor Scripture by taking it as a whole — not piecemeal. And so we must also note that, in Eden, God clearly declared that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). In other words, the companionship of marriage — not only the sexuality — is an essential piece of our ideal way of being in the world.
If we would take Paul seriously in his exhortations against same-sex intercourse (none of which, actually, in the original language, probably refer to the type of same-sex relationships we see most commonly today), we must also take him seriously when he says that “it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9).
God did not ORIGINALLY design us to be in same-sex relationships. Nor did he ORIGINALLY design us to live in permanent single celibacy. Both are a violation of his Edenic ideal for humanity.
And for me as a heterosexual married woman to claim that I know whether a committed, monogamous [consensual] same-sex relationship [with a peer] or life-long celibacy is closer to that Edenic ideal for another person? Well, that’s just the height of arrogance. I don’t go to God with my conscience about this because I am happily married to a person of the opposite sex. My only interest in the question is somewhat academic and theoretical, and because I wish to support my LGBT friends in their walk with Christ.
In other words, I DO NOT HAVE A HORSE IN THAT RACE. I can say for certain that a promiscuous lifestyle of either orientation is outside of God’s will. Beyond that, I trust my LGBT friends to get right with God on their own and follow his leading in their hearts and lives. And I will support them in that. Some feel that he is leading them to celibacy. For them, I (and the church) must do a better job of providing a social support network and a substitute family. Some feel that he is leading them to a committed, monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex. For them, I (and the church) must do a better job of reflecting God’s love and acceptance in the same way we would toward a straight couple living outside of God’s Edenic ideal (say, in a premarital cohabitation or divorce/remarriage situation). No, it’s not ideal — BUT GOD STILL LOVES THEM.
Speaking of straight couples living outside God’s Edenic ideal, let’s talk about heterosexual privilege for a moment. Please look around in your own home church. Chances are good that you have someone in leadership who has been divorced, or even divorced and remarried, and possibly even divorced and remarried NOT on biblical grounds. In other words, you probably have church leaders who are living in serial polygamy. Most churches have come to terms with this. The thing is, no matter how scandalous the circumstances leading to divorce and remarriage, after a while a divorced and remarried heterosexual couple starts to look just like all those other heterosexual couples who have been married the whole time. Meanwhile, the gay couple who were virgins when they got together and never have strayed from each other will get singled out every time JUST BECAUSE THEY LOOK DIFFERENT.
What’s very interesting to me is how Ellen White handled these divorce and remarriage situations. If you look at Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Divorce, and Adultery, chapters 31-34 cover how to deal with unbiblical marriages. Basically, Ellen White says that once the unbiblical marriage has taken place, no one should try to undo it because it usually makes the situation worse. Meanwhile, she said, “I advise that these unfortunate ones be left to God and their own consciences, and that the church shall not treat them as sinners until they have evidence that they are such in the sight of the holy God. He reads hearts as an open book. He will not judge as man judgeth” (p. 218). Under this advice, there is certainly room to accept people in same-sex marriages into membership in the church, even if the church declines to actually perform such marriages.
These chapters offer example after example of Sister White telling the zealous “make it right!” factions to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE and let them work it out on their own with God. She advocated accepting people into the church even in disastrous and clearly wrong marriage and parenting situations because God accepts them that way. She repeatedly rejects attempts to undo the marriages and somehow repair the damage in that way, stating that undoing the present marriage will in fact cause more harm than it could ever possibly repair. I think much of this advice can be adapted to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in the church and who come into the church. We can point them to Christ and otherwise LET THEM ALONE with our meddling ideas of how to make their situation “better.”
And speaking of undoing marriages and causing harm — do we not cause harm when we urge our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters to deny their real identity and enter into a straight marriage? I know several families in which the mother or father later acknowledged an LGBT orientation and then had not only self and spouse to deal with BUT ALSO CHILDREN! How much better if the actual orientation had been acknowledged and dealt honestly with from the outset, rather than repressed? For this reason alone, we must create a safer environment in which teens and young adults can feel free to be honest about their sexuality within the church.
So here is the standard I hope to reach in relating to my LGBT brothers and sisters, and which I invite you to consider adopting as well. I will always display God’s love and respect for them. I will always refer to them with love and respect, in both their presence and their absence. I will get to know them as people, not just as their orientation or gender identity. I will strive to make myself known as a safe person to talk to, so that young people who are questioning will have someone in church to whom they might feel they could turn. I will recognize the limits of what I can offer counsel on and find appropriate resources for topics I can’t legitimately help with. I will point them to Christ and respect their walk with him enough not to judge the conclusions they reach with undue harshness. And I will always, always seek to portray the everlasting love and unfailing kindness (Jeremiah 31:3) with which God draws us to himself.
Because that is what I would want someone to do for me if I found myself in such a difficult and heart wrenching life situation. And I believe that is what Jesus would do (except he would have all the answers!). And it is time that we made a significant effort to reach this largely unreached people group with the message of the love and grace of our soon-returning Lord.
Hi Kendra
Is there any form of homosexual practise that is sanctioned by the bible. I have not read anywhere in the bible where a monogamous homosexual relationship is allowed or even permissible? Is it possible to exhibit a love that is foreign to the bible which is nothing more than emotional sentimentalism? I know people want to be politically correct and fear being called homophobic but I read my bible and in ALL instances where homosexuality is mentioned, it is mentioned in a bad light. It is good to treat all individuals with love and respect but I feel you are being preferential in your application of that love. In my country homosexuality is illegal, so asking me to treat homosexuals with love and respect is like me asking you to treat rapists, paedophlies with respect and love. I am not comparing homosexuality to the others but I want to put it into context what you are asking me to do.
Do you view homosexual practise as sin? Because I do so it would help if we are on the same understanding because If you do not view it as sin , then our concept of love towards them would be vastly different. While God encourages relationships there are many relationships which he forbids. Unequal yorking, friendship with the world, All homosexual relationships and the likes. Soif we are to take the biblical consensus we should also be cogniscent of the relationships God hates.
Hello Kendra,
This is absolutely the best article I've ever read from an Adventist in defining the real issue being faced. Thank you for your straight forward explanation and discussing the pitfalls and hypocrisy in judging others. Your last paragraph of your plans in going forward with this church problem has already been adopted by the world: all my family (raised SDA) and my friends and acquaintatnces have long ago adopted this position. Sadly, the church in its judgmental attitude has become a mark of hypocrisy for all to see and Christianity and the Religious Right are considered the same in the stance against this and many other issues.
"Sabbath and marriage also share the distinction of being institutions established in Eden before our first parents fell into sin."
I cannot agree with your exegesis of Genesis as there is nothing in the entire chapter that sabbath was instituted at Eden. (If I am mistaken, please offer the text.) The story of creation that is considered the oldest makes no mention of God resting, and in both accounts, there is nothing whatsoever of man being given a "rest" day without previous work. (It follows the Babylonian creation story which also records that on the seventh day when the gods had finishind creating, they rested.)
In the later story (Gen. 1) the only command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. It is only an assumption that they maintainted mongamy for many hundred years, but their children not only were incestuous but practiced polygamy in many of the patriarchs which we know, and they were probably following the culture around them–which was a fulfilmment to multiply.
Tapiwa,
Do you believe there is such a thing as "platonic love"–without sexual intimacy? The Bible mentions love many, many times, and not all were sexual love. David loved Jonathan more than the love of women. It is not unusual today with increased longevity, to see many elderly people remarry and it is likely that at least some are living as celibate companions. If heterosexuals don't marry just for sexual intimacy, companionship, mutual interest in many things make a happy marriage, and why should homosexuals be confined to loneliness and without companionship? (I presume you are a married heterosexual?) What did Paul say about marriage was better than burning?
Elaine
Firstly Homosexuals are not being confined to loneliness or are prohibited from companionship, that is a strawman argument. What is being prohobited is the companionship of a homosexual marriage ( some believe this is an oxymoron) There are many types of companionships that are different from marriage and I do not think homosexuals are prohibited from having friendships or as you say platonic relationships but what is prohibited is a relationship that is akin to a heterosexual marriage.
As it happens, I do also believe that God calls us to treat rapists and pedophiles with respect and love (and firm boundaries so that their victims are safe, but definitely respect and love).
It is clear to me that a promiscuous lifestyle of either orientation (gay or straight) is sin; I remain agnostic about the "sin status" of committed monogamous homosexual relationships. Since it's not something I'm tempted to engage in, I don't feel compelled to wrestle with God over whether or not it's a sin. At the very least it seems to me that God worked through people who lived outside his marriage ideal in the Bible, so he probably can still do so today. Furthermore, I am keenly aware of many behaviors of mine that definitely DO fall into the sin category, making me the last person who should be casting the first stone at a homosexual or anyone else.
I'm curious how you would advise that I should respond to a homosexual, a pedophile, or a rapist who wishes to attend my church?
"Is there any form of homosexual practise that is sanctioned by the bible."
What homosexual 'practices' do you mean exactly? See my post below asking this queston.
There is not one same-sex marriage or same-sex relationship condoned by God in all the Bible (in both OT and NT) no matter how hard we may try and spin it. It just isn't there. In the gazettes of government perhaps but not one in the Bible. Changing the Bible may help for those who don't believe – but if we really care and want to see sinners saved in God's Kingdom then we should tell all sinners, including those involved in sexual immorality, the truth about why Jesus came to die – and He didn't die to establish same-sex marriages or relationships. They still remain sin.
Neither is incest, polygamy, taking women as wives in war, but the Bible faithfully recorded human actions. Does whether the Bible condemns or condones give credibility to practices today? Give one text where God condemned polygamy. Is it only civil law that should be followed? The Hebrew Bible records few marriages: most men simply "took a wife."
No SDA and no Christian is called to practice either polygamy or same-sex marriage But it is the height of hypocrisy for a church that fears a Sunday law, to protest a law that would never affect them or the practice of their religion .No sabbath obervant Adventist would be required to be in a same sex marriage, and no homosexuals would be prevented from marrying. Legally, Adventists have no standing in any court unless they are able to prove a distinct damage.
Religious liberty either works for everyone or for no one. If we wish the liberty to obey our conscience and wishes, we must willingly cede our personal convictions to the government by allowing others to follow their own personal convictions. If you disagree, please present both religious and constitutional reasons.
Hm. I think we may have a different understanding of why Jesus came to die. I believe Jesus came to die in order to reveal the depth of God's love for ALL sinners.
Why do you believe Jesus came to die?
I just saw a great advertisement public-awareness add called 'Is it ok to be left handed.' It is a very clever campaign about homosexuality by making an analogy to being born lefthanded.
It came on as an add in the cienemas when I went to a movie yesterday. It is put out by an Australian not-for-profit organisation beyondblue.
Check it out on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM2J7nOp3nU
Or at their facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/beyondblue
Rather than getting bogged down in doctrine about homosexual behaviour, the add can't help but make one feel sympathy for someone with homosexual orientation. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. I submit on a cold-hearted person could watch it and not feel some compassion deep inside their hearts.
The word "sinister" was once used to describe one who was left-handed. It was like a curse, which is how many view homosexuals today.
And I would love to know if any of those who think homosexual orientation is a sin in the Bible likewise think left-handedness is also a sin? It wasn't that long ago they use to force kids to write with their right hand because left-handedness was considered unnatural – to use Tapiwa's point about certain 'abnormal behaviour' due to orientations being outlawed.
The Bible contains at least 25 unfavourable references to the left-hand – that seems to be more than the number of unfavourable references to homosexuality (Ecc 10:2; Matt 25:31-34,41; Gen 24:49; Gen 48:14 etc.):
http://www.theworldofstuff.com/lefty/
Some argue that we can't take those derogatory references in the Bible about the left hand so literally. But who says we shouldn't just read it literally? It seems easier to read left-handedness literally than say discuss homosexuality, given how complex the issue of human sexuality is.
Admittedly Ehud the Benjaminite (Judges 3:15) was left-handed, but he was indeed chosen because he was a killer. Moreover, there were the clan of 700 Gibeah-Benjaminite warriors (Judges 20:16), but these were very evil men who raped, killed and mutilated a woman (Judges 20:6), wiping them out (Judges 20:35). Hardly models of virtue.
Therefore, I am wondering if other readers and posters would consider joining me in lobbying the GC to issue a new public statement or guideline, perhaps to be discussed at the next GC Session, condemning left-handed orientation. In my respectful view, after reviewing the biblical evidence, it is clear having a left-handed orientation is contrary to biblical principles of family values and the Christian lifestyle. In my view, the Church has failed to stand up to modern political correctness of Western culture, which now sees left-handedness as 'normal', rather than something to beat out of our children in childhood.
Who is with me?
And I'd be interested on what people think about how succesful the old programmes of 'curing' left-handedness were in the good old days, before 'culture' says we shouldn't beat children into writing with their right hands?
Stephen
Firstly you are positing a strawman firstly I am against homosexual practise in any form. Orientation is not a sin as being tempted is not a sin. I can also ask the question is paedophilic orientation a sin? In my country both paedophilic and homosexual PRACTISES are illegal, in your country only paedophilic practises are outlawed. I think you posit a false analogy when you compare lefthandedness to homosexuality. For interest sake did you know polygamy has a stronger theological case than homosexuality. Contrary to your false assertions that there are practising polygamous african adventists to which I am yet to see here in Africa you have to provide evidence and avoid racial stereotyping. Logically if you support homosexuality then you also have to support polygamy and consensual incest.
"Orientation is not a sin as being tempted is not a sin."
Tapiwa, I think it is good that we can at least agree on that part.
Tapiwa,
You don't understand this mindset. Left-handedness is just like homosexual orientation, not because there is any logical link, but because those making the argument care so deeply. Kendra began this column with prayer for Spirit filled wisdom.
They don't realize how manipulative and condescending all of this is, because they are so focused on the LGBT propaganda. You will not persuade them, because they are not here to be persuaded. We are not here, we are told, so that we can persuade one another. We are here so that we can "all listen to each other."
You can demonstrate that you have listened by agreeing with them. Everything else will be met with more opportunities for listening. Just trying to save you grief.
You can demonstrate that you have listened by accurately re-stated something someone has said to you; you are free to continue to disagree with it.
Yes, Tapiwa, you are free to disagree. But kindly do not express it effectively, since that would demonstrate a lack of compassion on your part.
I wasn't aware that "snarkily" had become a synonym for "effectively."
Just tryin' to save a fellow traveler from unnecessary grief. Every culture has its own unwritten rules.
*restating
"God did not ORIGINALLY design us to be in same-sex relationships. Nor did he ORIGINALLY design us to live in permanent single celibacy. Both are a violation of his Edenic ideal for humanity."
Very much agree. The same Jesus were referred to the importance of hetrosexual marriage the Eden principle, 'in the beginning', in the context of marriage (Matt 19:8), then went on to endorse an abstinence from non-sexual marriage (Matt 19:12):
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
As you rightly say, Jesus' 2nd statement appears to contradict His first within the context of endorsing a position contrary to the Edenic direction for man not to be alone, and the similar Edenic direction to go forth and multiply. Thus, although that must have been God's 'original plan', Jesus notes that in a sinful world that human sexuality has been altered. Not only has it been altered, but altered in some sense for the kingdom.
It is easy to work out who the eunachs who were made that way are – castrasted men. But who is Jesus referring to in the eunachs that are born that way?
"Chances are good that you have someone in leadership who has been divorced, or even divorced and remarried, and possibly even divorced and remarried NOT on biblical grounds. In other words, you probably have church leaders who are living in serial polygamy. Most churches have come to terms with this."
Over the last decade or so, there have been several instances in my local Church where the leadership has felt it necessary to make examples of young people who are not living according to the 'Christian lifstyle'. This has usually been focused at the evils of pre-marital sex and cohabitation, which don't get me wrong, are certainly not ideal and shouldn't be encouraged, although one needs to be a little realistic when young people have been dating for a number of years.
However, what always gets under my skin, is that many of these same leaders are themselves divorcees! When I once raised this in a meeting that perhaps this was a little hypocritical, it really stired the hornets nest.
The Bible is 100% explicit about divorce, and the Church has a whole chapter about it in the Church Manual. I do believe homosexual acts and cohabition are sinful, but the Bible is pretty vague about them, and the Church Manual has about 1 sentence. Yet the leaders of the Church do nothing to enforce the former whist continually going on about the evils of the latter.
Jesus was silent about homosexuality, and yet decided to devote several long passages to discussing divorce and remarriage. Likewise, whilst He knows the woman at the well that she is in a cohabiting relationship, and tells her as such, He doesn't press her any further. There is notably no 'go and sin no more' phrase in there. Why do people think this is so – what does that tell us about Jesus' priorities as to 'the weightier issues of the Law?'
If we want to talk about family values, homosexuality doesn't break up families, nor does pre-marital sex, beacuse in most cases there are no children involved. By contrast, divorce really does destroy families – socially, emotionally and financially.
Thus, I do seriously question the morality of homosexual actions or pre-marital sex according to biblical standards. But those are splinters issues really, and there is a whole plank of divorce that is destroying families. It would be great if the Church could perhaps focus on the plank and not the speck.
And finally, I do want to challenge the myth that says all sins are equal – they clearly are not – not even under the Mosaic Law. They all deserve eternal damnation without Christ, but not all sins wound God as each other. I would submit something that hurts more people, and hurts children, such as divorce, far exceeds other supposed indiscretions.
Stephen
I agree somewhat about the stance on divorce. I actually believe that the curch should alter its stance on divorce. But simply because divorce is overlooked does not give homosexuality any legitimacy whatsover again if you know how the current stance on abortion came aboout, I would bet ( i don't believe in betting bt work with me) that those who were in favour of the current divorce status quo are also in favour of WO and maybe even homosexuality!
There are no studies that show people are born gay but even if they were, the bible tells us of grace that can allow people to overcome. There are many ministries in the Sda that help Lgbt conquer the orientation and there are actually many success storiies but you will not hear any of that on Atoday. Daneen Akers and co do not even support the work that these ministries do and sometimes are actually sometimes diametrically opposed to them. They want homosexuality to be a part of seventh day adventism which most of us understandably oppose.
Kendra tells us to treat them with love to which I agree but as long as we have different views on whether it is a sin or not then our concepts of love will be vastly different.
How will our concepts of love be different in the two situations? Can you give me some examples?
I don't dispute that God's grace and power *could* change someone from being homosexual to being heterosexual (or removing sexual desire altogether); however, I am not aware of any cases in which this has actually happened. I personally know lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals who deeply wish(ed) to change and tried desperately to do so with God's help. They were not able to. In several cases, they became suicidal and came to the conclusion that their only alternatives were to live authentically as an LGBT individual or to kill themselves. Which would you consider the greater sin?
Even Exodus International, the foremost "conversion ministry" in the 80s and 90s, no longer claims that it can create this type of change in a person. Dr. Robert Spitzer, the scientist who published research suggesting that such ministries worked, recently retracted his original publication and stated that it was not done with appropriate scholarly research methodology.
As we have discussed before, if we assume homosexual orientation is a result of sin, as it was not part of God's original plan, then yes technically God could grant a miracle in changing one's orientation. But that is probably as likely as God 'curing' someone with Down Syndrome.
Why isn't hypocrisy the worst sin? Jesus seemed to agree. Hypocrisy has no moral standing when hypocrites excorciate others' sins. Isn't it a paradox when sins are written about it's nearly always "OPS" Other people's sins"? "I thank the Lord, that I am not like that homosexual over there. Both my first and second wife agrees."
Agree. As I said above, Jesus had a lot to saw about divorce, religious perfectionism and regulatory minutae, prayer etc. He didn't have anything at all to say about homosexuality (other than possibly the 'born eunuch' comment). Jesus also didn't have much to say about de fact relationships, other than merely noting the fact to the woman at the well, but interestingly Jesus did then push her about it.
A big point get lost in all this, which I believe Kendra is trying to point out, then yes assuming homosexuality is a sin, do we treat it as an 'unpardonable sin' rather than any other moral failing? Moreover, do we treat it far worse than say divorce; whereas, divorice arguably is far worse than homosexuality, in the way it breaks up families and affects children?
Why has homoexuality becaome an 'unpardonable sin' in our Church culture?
"Why has homosexuality become an 'unpardonable sin' in our church culture?"
It has been very prominent in the news with same-sex marriages and repeal of DOMA so has become the Adventist "sin du jour."
Tapiwa
Actually the church did promote these change stories at first. I am old enough to remember them and how they came to embarrass the church when they failed along with their leaders. I think this is the reason that the church no longer supports these. Further research would need to be done on them and reported, or maybe it has.
You are wrong about stereotyping people. I am opposed to abortion and divorce; but I think we have no right to tell other people how to live when they are not in our belief system. However, divorce is better than suicide or abuse no matter what the religion! Women have always been the most mistreated group since the fall. It is only in recent times they have made progress, and Christians should be in the forefront.
" I remain agnostic about the "sin status" of committed monogamous homosexual relationships."
Scripture is clear on the subject; it leaves no doubt as to the sinfulness of such a relationship. Spin and spin but the Bible condemns all such liaisons.
I think we need to desconstruct this a bit.
First of all, are you distinguishing homosexual orientation from homosexual actions? Whilst the Bible arguably says the latter is a sin, the homosexual orientation is no more a sin than any other temptation, and temptation is not a sin. I am attracted to other women other than my wife, but that temptation without action isn't a sin.
Second, what do you mean by 'such a relationship?' Is there any sin in two people of the same sex loving each other? Obviously not, as say David and Jonathan had an extremely strong bond – love was involved. So again, we are only talking about the sin of homosexual action.
Third, what homosexual actions are we talking about? Without getting too grossed-out (sorry not trying to be offensive but actually discuss the thing professionally). Are we talking about holding hands, hugging, kissing, fellatio, masturbation, anal penetration (for gays) and vaginal penetration (for women)?
On what Bible basis are some of these acts ok and some of them sins? I would honestly like someone to tell me.
It is important because human sexuality is not clear-cut. My understanding is that even hetorsexual men with hug, kiss and hold each other's hands, and might love each other with a deep love.
For homosexuals (from having some very close homosexual friends), not all gay and lesbians do the same stuff. For example, some gay and lesbians in committed relationships don't actually engage in any 'hard core' sexua acts at all other than say kissing and hugging. For a whole section of gay men they engage in masturbation and fellatio but won't have anything to do with anal penetration, which technically means they aren't committing sodomy. For lesbians, they can't engage in any penal penetration at all, which might account for the fact that the OT has no texts at all condeming lesbianism.
Again, I am not trying to rude or offensive. I am trying to point out that whilst we make these broad generalisations about 'homosexuality', I am not sure if we even all know what we are talking about here. When people say the Bible condemns homosexuality, what exactly is it condemning – same-gender love, any sort of physical act or just sodomy?
And another question – and I am not trying to be rude or offensive but professional about the thing – if homosexual 'actions' are condemned by the Bible, are they still a sin if performed by hetrosexual couples? For example, is anal sex (i.e. sodomy) a sin if performed between a man and a woman? Is homosexual 'orientation' even relevant at all, because in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah it was hetrosexual men who were trying to rape other men.
Again, I ask this because there is a lot of talk about saying the Bible is supposedly clear in condemining homosexuality. But is it really? What exactly is the Bible condemning? What sexual acts is the Bible saying constitute sinful behaviour?
"if homosexual 'actions' are condemned by the Bible, are they still a sin if performed by hetrosexual couples?"
I know this appears to be a really important question, and it might be except for one thing: 'homosexual' means male/male or female/female. and 'heterosexual' means male/female. So by definition no heterosexual action can be homosexual, or vice versa. However, this sort of confusion is par for the course in this debate, where 'rights' can be conjured out of thin air, and Humpty-dumpty's definitions rule the day.
The question of whether the Bible condemns certain consensual actions between a husband and wife is far too subtle a topic when simple definitions are ignored or confused.
One example: "in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah it was hetrosexual men who were trying to rape other men."
Actually, we have no evidence that they were heterosexual. They refused the offer of female sexual partners. The only actual evidence we have is that they wanted the visiting men. Does that mean they were homosexual? Bisexual? The only answer that reflects the evidence is that we don't know. But for advocates of homosexual marriage, it's convenient to assume they were heterosexual.
There are many such errors, but the denizens resent them being pointed out. This is not a place for discussion, but for assent to the prevailing opinion.
Male rape was the worst form of male dominance: this is what is demonstrated in prisons as the form of domination and once acted on, the power of the rapist is demonstrated to all around: he will not be crossed. This is the most reasonable explanation for the men who wanted the visitors given to them: to show that as men of Sodom, strangers had to know who was in charge.
Lot was trying to buy them off by pimping his daughters as the middle eastern code was that anyone entering your tent or home must be protected with your life, and he was willing to give his daughters to get the men to leave. Ezekiel explains this when he writes that the sin of Sodom was their "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness….neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing. With male sex, "seed" was wasted and was contrary to God's command to be fruitful and multiply and they were frustrating the natural results; just as lesbians were barely mentioned because there was no frustrating reproduction.
So "the most reasonable explanation" for a story from a fertility worshiping culture in the Mideast ca. 2000 B.C. is the reasoning from a 21st century agnostic based on 21st century prison behavior.
Maybe it was just an early example of capitalist oppression of undocumented aliens.
Ed, if you want to have a civilized conversation here, that's fine, but this isn't it.
As a friend of mine tells me, my syllogisms are a little too tight.
Christians have always had problems with sex–the history of persecution, extending to the first settlers to America that persecuted a kiss between two married people on Sunday! Paradoxically, the Jews felt that Friday night after sabbath had begun was especially for sex!
Ferguson-
You have a point. First no one knows absolutely whether gay tendencies are nature or nurture. You can argue until the cows come home but that is a fact.
Gay intimate relationships are very precisely forbidden by Scripture. That is enough for many of us. And Christ speaks about lust in Mathew chapter 5. Read it again as it's clear. With respect to Matthew 5 it's incumbent on women *not* to dress provocatively.
Thanks. Yes, but when you say gay intimate relationships – what do you mean exactly? The Bible says Jonathan and David loved each other (1 Sam 18:1). Thus, I take it you are not literally saying that the Bible condemns male-male or female-femal intimate relationships?
I take it you are saying certain sexual acts are condemned by the Bible? If so, which ones? It isn't that clear is it? When I travelled through the middle east, men would often hug, kiss and hold each others hand, including in public, and that was socially acceptable – irocnically often such intimate displays of affection with a woman, including one's wife, would not be. However, in the West, if we saw two men display such intimate affection for each other we would think that wa perhaps unacceptable.
Even as an Australian, we on the whole can at times think you American men are a bit effeminate, given you seem to hug each other a lot, something likely to arouse funny looks if you did it here – at least where I am from. So you see and again, what same-gender 'intimate relationships' are we talking about?
At one extremes, arguably the Bible is condemning anal sex (i.e. sodomy). However, as I already noted, not all 'practising' homosexuals engage in sodomy. The Bible is even more confusing as to what type of 'intimate relationship' it condemns lesbians for in the NT (incidentially it doesn't condemn lesbianism in the OT).
It we are going to condemn people for a 'crime', one that in effect is an 'unpardonable' one in our Church, we all need to be clear on what exactly we are talking about.
Kendra – What is your reaction to the 5 paragraph new policy statement regarding homosexuality coming from the GC this week? Homosexuality is no longer a "disorder" – they have softened the word to "disturbance". For those who wished to soften disturbance, the GC theologian Ekkehardt Mueller stated we need to"take a stand for what is right…we need a clear identification of homosexuality which is necessary in this context"
Taking this position out to the churches and how everyone deals with it makes me want to cry. Think of the harrassment that has brought our country up to full attention and horror. We are talking about how we are going to teach our children to regard those who are of a different sexual orientation. And then to advise not to discuss this full topic until college is unconscionable. What about earlier where the harrassment gets started?
The three-paragraph statement on homosexuality (found here: http://news.adventist.org/images/uploads/documents/position%20statement%20on%20homosexuality.pdf)is substantially the same, with the addition of some additional words on compassion. I have no major issues with this statement as written, only as [not] practiced.
I think you may be referring to the revised statement on same-sex marriage? This 5-paragraph statement can be found here: http://news.adventist.org/images/uploads/documents/position%20statement%20on%20same-sex%20unions(1).pdf
Homosexuality is not called a disturbance, but a "manifestation of the disturbance" caused by sin in the world. Again, I don't particularly have an issue with it being characterized this way. I don't disagree that God originally created humans to live in heterosexual monogamy.
I do wonder, though, why there's no similar statement speaking out so strongly against divorce and/or remarriage which would also seem to violate the sacred marriage bond in a much more profound way. At least in homosexual marriage, there is a consensual, monogamous, life-long commitment.
The direct quote I was addressing stated the word disorder was changed to disturbance. Some people objected but GC theologian Mueller insisted disturbance had to remain to "take a stand for what is right".
Regarding your comment on divorce and marriage – they involve choices whereas homosexuality is like being left-handed – it's in the genetic/DNA makeup.
Same-sex unions are, of course, a choice like divorce and remarriage. There are two separate statements issued by the GC.
And I think if you would read the word "disorder" or "disturbance" in context in the statements, you would find them less offensive than they seem when taken out of context. They are not used in the way one might imagine they are.
Perhaps I should also clarify that I see a vast many things in the world as "manifestations of the disturbance" caused by sin. Including a vast many things that are part of my life on a daily basis. So to me, this verbiage is not singling homosexuality out in any particular way (other than we have an official statement designating it as a disturbance, whereas there is no official statement for, say, the 24-hour drive-through at Taco Bell). Others may view it differently.
A church that refuses to recognize that people are not perfect, will always attempt to make rules that does not allow for any event in the lives of its members that does not conform and perform to the perfect standard. When many situations and events in people's lives are beyond their choosing, to call them "sin" is identical to calling earthquakes and tornaodes as sin–which cannot be controlled.
Most divorces are not simple decisions but there are as many problems in some marriages as married people. The church has apparently arrived at that decision and no longer interrogates the individuals and sets in judgment to rule on whether has "Bible grounds," whatever that meant.
The church is about half a century behind modern medical knowledge in calling homosexuality a choice: they are not basing their statements on recognized experts who several decades ago removed it from their diagnosis, but prefer the Bible writers of more than 2,000 years ago for medical diagnoses in defining it a "sin." It is no more a sin than Downs syndrome, or congenital and familial conditions (many being discovered every year).
Homosexual actions have been part of humanity since record-keeping. But there is nothing in the Bible that homosexuality was known as one of the human anomalies expressed in many ways. To call it a "disturbance" is still only a slight improvement over previous charges.
It should be noted here (in my opinion) that all four of these blogs promoting the acceptance of homosexual behaviour, practice and orientation (or whatever one may call it) have no real scriptural basis. In fact, every one of these blogs makes no reference to any of the scriptures which warn, condemn and forbid homosexual relationships – including the practice of it without any distinct reference alluding to it. These verses also do not imply any differentiation between practice and orientation or behaviour. Seems that we have here a classic case of cultural trends becoming accepted by society and eventually finding way into its legislature which in turn is forced on the Church. This goes against the teaching of scriptures forbidding and warning against this 'abomination' (not my word) as the Bible calls it. Somewhere in the whole issue of homosexuality is the word sin. Is it not? Then why is this been circumvented?
Try these for starters:
Matthew 7:1-5
Luke 5:29-32
Luke 18: 9-14
It would seem as long as the policy regarding homosexuality is couched in less offensive fluffy words – the body of the church goes merrily along. I wonder what the gay community's reaction is regarding the 5 paragraphs with the new softer word (disturbance). The GC stated the need to "take a stand for what is right" – quoted by the GC theologian (not being taken out of context). That phrase indicates something must be wrong. But sin????
As a healthcare individual, I can only imagine the cringing going on in health sciences and the whole of academia. I had never seen this policy – heard some rumblings but never believed anything so preposterous. Interesting there is not more reaction – must be that this policy is wildly accepted. So goes the golden rule.
I know this is not discussing same sex marriage but I don't see how we can separate the two because it seems it is woven together. Help me out.
When you have ignorant statements from a world church to the vast majority of members who will be totally ignorant of this official proclamation, there shouldn't be an expectation of more reaction than what is expressed her.
Note: Neither the leaders nor members are ignorant (a word derived from "ignore), but have chosen to ignore the unanimous position of the medical community.
There is nothing worse than active ignorance: deliberate choice to ignore.
Kendra,
I've been on a Maranatha project and recovering for several days after that so I have only now taken the time to read your latest posting.
I could not agree more with your conclusion. Doing that requires that I be comfortable in my relationships with my spouse, with others and, most of all, with God. Only then can I be fully accepting of and respectful to others in a way where I can encourage their connection with God so they can grow spiritually as God has been doing with me. God has not called me to condemn the sin in others, but to help others connect with Him so He can deal with their sins in the intimate and personal way He has been dealing with mine. Seeing how He has been working with me gives me confidence that He is wants to work in them, is capable of doing it and powerful enough to create great change in all who come to Him by faith.
William, I think that's the key shift. It's so powerful when we move from condemning to supporting a connection with Christ. He can and will do all the transformation he wants to — at the right time, in the right way. We don't need to worry about it.
William – Your philosophy and the way you live your life is what the golden rule is all about. In our marriage/family – I called it my "heaven on earth". What complicates this is to be a member of a church that has such a harsh policy on issues, in this case homosexuality. When we are members, people assume that we automatically believe what the church hierarchy says must be true. I believe this is the moment to go beyond our senses and tap into our 6th sense (go with our ethical gut, obey what our mind is whispering to us if something doesn't seem right, and not blindly believe just because it happens to be church policy.
Bea,
Your lines speak volumes of practical experience! Too few of us really know either what the church teaches or the scriptural basis for it. I have met many over the years whose faith was founded much more in nebulous concepts of what EGW may have said on a topic instead of their study of scripture and their relationship with God. Finding myself in an situation where my faith was tested severely was not easy, but the results have been wonderful because I now know God so much better. What is more, what the church teaches has become a distant second priority after what God teaches.
Hi All
I agree that we must show compassion to all those who are struggling with sin ( aint we all). But 1 aspect that we seem to misuderstand is that not all homosexuals are the same or are suicidal or have the same struggles. Some homosexuals are proud of their orientation and practices, some are not. The way I would relate to them would be different. I fear that many would conflate these situations. Ed Dickerson perhaps unwittingly highlighted I could show compassion by agreeing with homosexuality. That is what I disagree with where endorsement is misconstrued as love.
Kendra who is gracious as usual asked me how I would personally relate to homosexuals. It would depend on the individual homosexual, some are gay and proud some are struggling with suicide so it would depend on the individual. Jesus treated the pharisees differently from the harlot and the saducees and even his disciples. I guess I would have to be a safe place for homosexual to approach but at the same time make my biblical standing clear. I will be the first to admit that I need God's help.
Ed also highlighted that I should not express my diagreements effectively lest I be seen as harsh or unloving. I admit I may come off as not loving as many would desire but there are some on this blog who infer that homosexual practise is compatible with adventism those are who I am against not neccesarily homosexuals.
The mistake most of us make, both conservatives and liberals is that we mix the sinner with the sin. Some hate the sin by hating the sinner whilst others love the sinner by loving the sin or endorsing it. Very few I know strike the balance of loving the sinner and hating the sin.
Kendra was honest enough to admit that she is a agnostic on whether homosexual practise is a sin or not but I would urge to come to a position, hopefully the biblical one or she will be incapable of showing biblical love to homosexuals. She would either show malice to the individual or find herself endorsing sin. Both of these positions are unbiblical. Thats why I said that If we cannot agree that homosexual practise is sin then our concepts of love towards them will be different.
Tapiwa,
I am not sure what group you are talking about: Homosexuals in the church or outside the church.
I don't see our church performing such marriages; I'm sure you are against that. But your acceptance of a nonbeliever would be different wouldn't it? Jesus socialized with sinners. I don't think you mean you would reject them would you? Or treat them differently. What my problem is that our country should not pass a law or amendment outlawing marriage between homosexuals. That seems unconstitutional and deprives these couples of their civil rights and marriage benefits.
May I suggest the following advice:
Love one another.
Treat all others as you would wish to be treated.
Do not assume that you know things about the behavior and relationships
of others that you cannot know.
Be aware that within the scope of sexuality, whether heterosexual, homosexual,
autosexual, or abstinant, there are practices that range from harmful or cruel to
transformingly sustaining–in other words, sexual practice can be "sinful" or
"spiritually" fulfilling or a mosaic of wonderful and not so wonderful.
We would all do well to focus our concern with "sin" on ourselves and our own
relationships, and let others do likewise.
How to love one another is the million dollar question.
I would say that we can love each other by showing each other the love that Jesus showed us: hopeful, redeeming love that sees the best in each of us.
I think you are right that one can't give an across-the-board approach to any group of people; however, again and again, Jesus' strongest words were for those who claimed to be *religious* and on the right path. He minced no words in calling them out on their fakeness, pomposity, hypocrisy. Ellen White tells us that "tears were in his voice" when he did so, but his words were strong and direct.
For those who were known to be sinners, on the other hand, Jesus spent time with them. Again, from Ellen White (Ministry of Healing, p. 143): "Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Saviour mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, 'Follow Me.'"
So, I would submit that the first step in reaching anyone whom one considers to be a sinner (who isn't claiming to be a religious person without fault) would be to show sympathy for them in whatever ways you can, minister to their needs, and win their confidence. In other words, become a genuine friend.
Kendra,
"in reaching anyone whom one considers to be a sinner". ouch.
I'm not sure that any human has any right whatsoever to "consider" another person a "sinner". I wonder that the million dollar question will be answered when we consider everyone without the barriers of "reaching" them, or judging them a "sinner". I'm not sure that genuine friendship can ever be built on such a foundation.
I for one appreciate your blog and its aims. Yet, I think while we entertain the pejorative terms like "reach" and "sinner" we are at risk of continuing to just play with words and fiddle with the edges of biblical interpretation and theologies, and mask our own prejudices.
Thanks for your comment. Please read my comment in context! I'm responding to someone who feels it imperative to alert sinners that they are sinners. I'm trying to address that concern.
Of course those who genuinely use Christ's method will quickly come to realize that we are all just sinful people, and that they are making genuine friends with all those people, and that the love of God is flowing back to them just as much as it's flowing from them. That's the beauty of the gospel.
Allow to differentiate the Love. Christ loved sinners because he saw them as prisoners of sin and had compassion on them and I fully concur with this. The love some might be unwittingly advocating is endorsement of the sin. I still posit and maintain that unless you see homosexual practice as sin you will be incapable of biblical love. Many on this site love homosexuals as people who face undesirable consequences from society and that is good but that is not biblical love. When you love them as people who are prisoners of a practise that God hates, as people God desires to set free, that is biblical love. If you do not see this as sin you are incapbable of Godly love. You can be compassionate, civil or even favourable but that is a legalistic approach and is not biblical love if you do not acknowledge it as sin.
"Sin" has become the one denominator of all Christians. Their lives and concepts are all built around that one word which is used in thousands of ways: as an action; of sickness or death that cannot be explained (that is, after we have commented "but he was never a smoker," or "always a vegetarian;" of all sorts of disasters in the natural and modern world which we long to understand. "Sin" is the most used word and has as many definitions as people who include that word in their vocabulary.
What if we tried to talk with and relate to people without ever using that word? If we could remove it from our vocabulary, it would not be so often found in our thoughts. Simply view people as we view ourselves (unless we are masochists), who offer excuses for all sorts of actions that we do not extend to others.
It is the tragedy of the church that sin has replaced love as the common word.
A question for Kendra Perry: "Is homosexual practice or behavior a sin?"
I believe she said she was agnostic on that front
Please be accurate! I said that a promiscuous lifestyle of either orientation is clearly outside God's ideal plan. I am agnostic on the sin status of a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship.
If it is a sin, I feel that it is no more or less a sin than polygamy (concurrent or serial), and that God clearly used and uses many people who commit(ed) that sin. There are biblical examples as well as contemporary ones.
Therefore God can clearly work in the life of someone who is living in such a homosexual relationship equally well. We should step back and let God do the judging — and the working.
When trying to differentiate between behaviors and sins we typically are trying to substitute human philosophies for the principles on which God's rule is based. A far more profitable question to ask is: "Are we living in the manner God desires us to live according to His character?"
Timo
As usual you have mistated, misrepresented my position try reading my posts a little bit slower next time. You have created a strawman and boy have you knocked him down! As usual again you label those with whom you disagree "self righteous." Sometimes I wonder If I should dignify your posts with a response …………..
*sigh*
Nowhere In my posts did I advocate malice, or being uncompationate to gays. I believe you misread the logic of my last line. I said you maybe courteous but that is not biblical love if it does not recognise the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.
You correctly said "love is not endorsement of sin" and I completely agree with you endorsement of sin is not love which was my point all along. You further added that failure to love is sin to which I also agree but that also includes those you "self righteously" point to as self righteous, Ted Wilson, conservatives etc True Love is not preferential
I agree with the sentiments and observations of Tapiwa Mushaninga. I've noticed that too.
I'll agree that we seem to have become more sin conscience than love conscience too often. but that doesn't mean we should drop sin from our vocabulary. Were it not for sin we would not need a Savior. Jesus died to save sinners, which none of us are exempt. Some want to turn such a blind eye to sin that they just want a love in where about anything goes.
It is not a matter of tit for tat, that if presumably God didn't punish polygomy in OT times, that somehow that gives us a green light to embrace same sex relationships today. But this has been argued over and over on numerous blogs and no minds seem to have been changed so why even bother with subject anymore. It is getting redundant.
On the matter of whether homosexuality is a disorder or disturbance, all I can say is that it is a least an aberation from the normal order of nature, something I have lived with all my life and wished I didn't.
Do I see myself as some abomination? No. But I do think the Bible has laid some very plain verses that tell me what type of behavior to avoid. I believe that Jesus gives me an extra measure of grace to cope with it all and stay true to Him.
As I've said before, I feel so sad that you've chosen to live your life this way, embracing this self-loathing and hatred for who and what you are.
The truth is that you are not sinful, have not sinned, and that you do not need salvation. You are who and what you are, and so long as you live your life doing unto others as you'd have done to you, like anybody who believes in the golden rule, you needn't ever feel ashamed for that.
There is no invisible magic space creature judging you, and if there were, it wouldn't be condemning you for what it created you to be.
The lie isn't that you're just fine the way you are. The lie is that you're somehow unworthy, with the intent for you to subjugate yourself to the powerful for-profit organizations, the SDA church included.
Open your eyes, Tom, and free yourself. The day I left the church was the day I was "born again."
…er, to powerful for-profit organization, not THE for-profit.. ugh, stupid lack of an edit feature. >:O
Do you not know the difference between "embrace" and neutrality? If it is too uncomforable for one's religious beliefs, simply treat them just as you would wish to be treated. I believe it's called the "Golden Rule." We have not been called to judge.
While we are not called to judge, the Bible clearly states that "by their fruits you shall know them". So let's just say it not a bad idea to at least be wise fruit inspector (no pun intended). Yes, I believe in and practice the Golden Rule, which necessitates me frowning on sexual acts which God forbids. The Golden Rule forbids one from indulging in self righteous judgementalism, but it never should be used to cover an "anything goes" attitude. I suppose some people just don't believe in any kind of internal or external restraint on behavior for themselves or anyone else. For them the Golden Rule is just a seal of approval for moral anarchy.
The thing about God that perhaps amazes me the most is His ability to use me in spite of my imperfections and the sin that remains in me. It has not been confronting and trying to correct those sins that has changed me, but God drawing close to me and working in ways that draw my attention to Him. Watching Him work takes my attention away from temptation and, over time, has changed me in ways I never thought possible. So I prefer to look at people and see their fruits as what they will one day look back, see and realize how much God has worked in them.
Tom – how can you have it both ways? Stating you "believe in and practice the Golden Rule" and indicate at the same time your intolerance for behavior you don't agree with and indicate it as "anything goes attitude", insinuating a misuse of the "Golden Rule as a seal of approval for moral anarchy"? Sounds pretty intolerant and an attempt at denying the Gay/Lesbian community their basic civil rights. Wisconsin has taken a huge step forward in voting the first Lesbian to Congress.
Bea,
Is Tom's point really a matter of intolerance, or, is it a matter of 21st century reality? In a number of places the Bible tells us not to dispise the chastening of the Lord, because whom the Lord loves, He rebukes and chastens. I could be wrong, but Tom could be speaking to the fact that is very prevelent today… if you speak to anything about anybody's life, no matter what the issue… you're judging… which is code for leave me alone, and don't say anything to me about how I live my life.
This brings up a point about this series of blogs, Sabbath and Same Sex Marriage. I have no issue with the concept of loving somebody the same way I would want to be loved if I were in the same situation. But does that mean that because states are approving same sex marrianges that it, homosexuality, is no longer sin as a Bible definition? If it is, then loving that person who should include sharing with them the love of the Lord God who saves from all sin. This is where everything gets sticky / muddy.
No one at the end of the day will be saved unless they are born again, and walk in the newness of life… which to me personally means, for the sake of this blog, one would not longer see them self as a homosexual, but a child of God who has received eternal life, the life of God in the heart / soul… they become a new person. Otherwise, they will not be saved, because flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Unless we love people, there is no way we will be enabled to reach people with the good news of a Savior from sin. But does loving somebody include tolerating, or even accepting sin as defined in the Bible, because that's what I would want somebody to do if it were me? If that's love, it's of the world, not heaven. Jesus gave up His life and died for all our sin to save us all from it, not that we would be free to live in it. I do want to qualify what I've said, homosexuality is not any greater of a sin then any other… with the exception of the unpardonable sin… rejecting Christ out of hand. We have to be careful when we get into these types of discussions, it's not safe to give the impression that sin is acceptable in any form… if we do, anarchy will surely follow, in some way, shape, or form.
Perhaps I was terribly wrong in believing that it was the Holy Spirit that spoke to each of us about our personal sins. Has the Holy Spirit told us to instruct others in what we believe is their sinful lives? "Judge not, that you be not judged" is not a principle to follow? What would you say to such person: "Stop sinning"? How can he cease being who he is, unless you can cease being heterosexual, it is just as difficult for either.
No where has the Bible called homosexuatlity a sin! It is a misinterpretation.
Love is never condemned but we are commended to love one another as Christ has loved us. When does loving the same sex become sin? David and Jonathan were lovers, he kissed him an wept over having to leave him. What part of love is ever condemned in the Bible? Are two old lesbians to be condemned because they love and care for each other? What explicit love expressions were condemned in the Bible?
The Bible only condemns promiscuous sexual activity both homo and hetero, but never love. Does a heterosexual choose a life mate for only sexual gratification? Why is not thought possible that homosexuals could equally choose a life mate for the same reasons: companionship, mutual interests, caring for each other in sickness and death?
It seems that many who speak against homosexuality are ignorant of anything but the very promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle portrayed in the media; forgetting that heterosexual promiscuity and hedonism is equally condemned. For those who do not recognize the disparity of these contradictory views, please, become better informed.
Laffal
I agree that one must be born again to be saved, but for me to deny the very fact that I am a homosexual, or not see myself as such, is beyond my reach. Perhaps I should never have commented on this blog, because it is, in some ways, hard being misunderstood.
I do agree with what you said about whom the Lord loves he chastens. So I do not believe I am showing intolereance, as Bea suggests, by saying that I can live by the Golden Rule, if I would want the Lord's chastening if I acted out as He forbids. And I don't consider that self-hate either.
Tom,
We've talked before on this, and I'm pretty comfortable with your outlook and approach to the issue. But I would like to ask this, if you are born again and a new creation in Christ, why hold on the the homosexual identity marker? To me, to do so would be a way of fostering a certain double mindedness. Mind you, I'm not trying to be insensitive, or callous by any means. But from a spiritual standpoint, don't you think that Christ would really like to lead you, and all of us who struggle with likeminded, but yet different issues, to the place by which we are self identified as children of God… period?!?
Just want to let you know that your imput is appreciated, it's from the heart, and that's needed more then it is readily available from the rest of us.
Laffal – When I read your message to Tom, so many thoughts exploded inside my mind. I thought "man's inhumanity to man"!!! To fill Tom's mind with shame and guilt – shameful information on your part – in the name of God!! It is as impossible for a homosexual person to become heterosexual as it is for a heterosexual to become homosexual. It is like punnishing a person, with a ruler whacked against the knuckles, for being left-handed. It would be well for you to get educated before giving such crazy, hurtful, wrong information.
Bea,
First of all, Tom and I have had a number of previous discussions on this matter without guilt nor condemnation suggested or asserted. He's lived as a happily married man to one wife for over the last 30 years. My question to him was not about changing one's sexuality as it were, but it was asked to simply suggest that to have one's personal identity divided into two compenents, homosexual / child of God, could be problematic. Please point out where I "whacked him on the knuckles." Again, Tom and I have discussed these matters a number of times on previous blogs.
FYI, I have a cousin who committed suicide over this issue, and his sister has, and still is practicing the gay lifestyle. I love her, but that does not mean I have to accept her lifestyle, nor do I go out of my way to load her down with guilt. That's not in my pay grade.
Blesssngs
laffal,
All that needs to be said, Bea has written. To be so insensitive to someone who is not just like you, you demonstrate no attempt at understanding what you cannot have experienced. Unless you have struggled with your own homosexuality (and your attitude clearly does not support that) it would be better to keep such thoughts and ideas inside you. If your desire is to make someone feel worthless and guilty and unclean, and has no hope of salvation unless his sexual orientation is changed, do all such the favor and take you left hand and put it over your mouth, and your right hand on the Bible and take a solemn oath never to verbalize such insensitive intolerance again.
It is this identical attitude that has caused many to commit suicide. Do you want more blood on your hands?
Elaine,
As it is your custom, you feel to need to correct, and admonish those of us who think differently then you. No where in my comments to Tom can you point out one statement that lends itself to guilt / condemnation / unacceptance. As I said to Bea, I was simply asking a question of Tom that has a basis and foundation on previous discussions I have had with him on this issue.
Why don't you let him speak for himself. If he feels the same way, I will gladly account for myself to him.
Laffal,
I know you mean well, but saying that "homosexual child of God could be problematic" so why not just change my identity is what is really problematic for me. You see I didn't choose in any way to have gay attractions. They have been there as long as I can remember. Being married these past 30 years has made life bearable, even happy for the most part, but I can't deny my attractions for my own sex. They have been there since early childhood, and no amount of therapy or prayer has changed it.
Some here may think that I indulge in self shame, but I have passed that stage sometime back and now live life knowing that Jesus loves me just the way I am, but that does not give me license to indulge in sex that is plainly forbidden in the Bible. I'll add that when I was living in denial of what I knew I was inside, I hated myself, even suicidal. I don't want to go back to that again, so no I can't just drop the identity as a homosexual even though I don't act out those inner impulses.
Tom,
Once again, I appreciate your forthrightness and honesty. I wasn't trying to imply or suggest a change of indentity that attends the same sex attractions, nor to deny the details of your life's experience. I can only hope and pray that you will, in your walk with Christ, find that these attractions become less and less attractive, so you can enjoy the enhaced sense of peace and joy as a child of God.
Blessings to you and your family.
(Am I to understand you live somewhere in the Sacramento area?)
0
Laffal, I appreciate that you are trying to show grace to Tom here, but it hurts me to hear you suggest that he would somehow be more of a child of God if he had less homosexual attraction.
Can you see that nothing he can do will ever make him any more or any less a child of God? God loves him fully just as he is, and that is the beauty of grace.
"it hurts me to hear you suggest that he would somehow be more of a child of God if he had less homosexual attraction."
Then be at peace, for laffal said no such thing. To say that one might enjoy an "enhaced sense of peace and joy as a child of God," speaks only to their experience, not to their status.
Each of us is completely a child of God, as you have indicated. That is our status. But it is quite clear we do not all experience that status as fully as we might. Probably none of us do. Possibly laffal is mistaken about what would enhance Tom's experience. That could be true whether or not his opinion concerning homosexuality is correct.
Remember that the man lowered through the roof was more concerned about his guilt than his inability to walk. That is why Jesus first said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." Those words enhanced his joy more than being able to walk again. Most of us would have guessed the latter would enhance his status more than the former.
In any case, wishing that another's joy might be enhanced says nothing at all about one's status as a child of God.
"I can only hope and pray that you will, in your walk with Christ, find that these attractions become less and less attractive, so you can enjoy the enhaced sense of peace and joy as a child of God."
Proving that we interpret statements differently. My impression is that if "these attractions become less and less attractive," he will be able to enjoy enhanced peace as a child of God.
There is gradation from now to possibly less which will ;give him more peace with his walk with God.
Laffal should explain his meaning.
"Proving that we interpret statements differently."
Parsing and interpreting are not the same action. I attempted no interpretation, merely parsing.
"There is gradation from now to possibly less which will ;give him more peace with his walk with God."
Yes, but as already pointed out, experience is not the same as status. If I bring my wife flowers more often, it might enhance our marriage experience. There would still be a gradation of experience, but it does not change our status: we would remain married.
So it is in our walk with God. Being justified secures our status. There are many things we can do to enhance our experience of being saved, but they do not change our status.
If people reasoned more carefully and more closely, it might enhance everyone's experience as posters in this discussion. But it would not change our status as posters.
Laffal is free to elaborate if he wishes, but his remarks were perfectly clear as written.
Thanks Laffal. I never did take the same degree of offense to your earlier responses, as a couples other did here. I wish folks who disagreed with you would not be so intolerant in their own way. But then again blogs are here to let one speak what is on their mind. God bless everyone, and may Jesus soon come and transform us all at His second coming when this "corruptible shall put on incorruptible".
Kendra,
only just recently did I realize the real significance of "Same-sex marriage and the Sabbath."
If we're going to get the state out of the marriage business, shouldn't the seven day week be repealed, too? There is no justification for our seven day week outside of the OT.
How is it fair for us to insist that everyone else adjust to our religious schedule?
“Our religious schedule” Ed, includes the Sabbath. It would be unconstitutional for the state to micromanage “our religious schedule” concerning that. It would be unconstitutional/wrong for the state to define, delineate, or determine which of those seven days the Sabbath is indeed.
(You see, it’s not really a “leap.”)
Kendra has suggested that it’s unconstitutional/wrong for the state to universally micromanage marriage; or to define, delineate or determine which marriage arrangement between competent consenting adults is correct.
You may not ultimately agree with her, but it certainly is a congruent position.
Personally, I believe homosexual behavior is sinful; but this is my religious perspective.
Stephen,
"It would be unconstitutional/wrong for the state to define, delineate, or determine which of those seven days the Sabbath is indeed."
I do wish you could resist the urge to introduce straw men. I said nothing at all about the Sabbath. Just so you don't miss it– the Sabbath is not the issue.
The only provenance for a 7-day week is from the Old Testament, from a seminal religious passage. The state's endorsement of the 7 day week is thus an endorsement of a particular religious tradition. Should not we get the state out of the business of micromanaging and defining the week? And if they are to endorse a week, should it not be religiously neutral? As mentioned, a 10-day week (among others) has been suggested as a non-religious alternative.
The simple truth is, both marriage and the 7-day week are institutions which existed before the Constititution, and all the state laws concerning marriage. Those laws did not invent either one, they simply recognized their existence. This sudden assertion that marriage is religious institution is simply an argument of convenience.
Uh…I hate to be the one to break it to you Ed (well, not really), but the title of Kendra’s blog series is “Sabbath and Same Sex Marriage.”
Besides, you are the guy who said, “Only recently did [you] realize the real significance of ‘Same-sex marriage and the Sabbath.’”
If marriage is not a religious institution, what is the meaning of Commandment #7? If marriage is not a religious institution, what is/was Genesis 2:24 supposed to represent? If marriage is not a religious institution, what does the term ‘holy matrimony’ mean? (This is far from a “sudden assertion.”)
You have demonstrated that you are either not willing or not able to parse an line of reasoning.
Using your own formula, personal property must be a religious institution, and perhaps more important than marriage, for both the 8th and 10th commandments reference personal property. The 8th prohibits stealing it, and the 10th prohibits coveting it.
Perhaps next that parenting is a 'religious institution' because of the 5th commandment.
Your formulation that, because there's a commandment that addresses it, it's a religious institution is absurd, as demonstrated.
And though I know you'll misstate my position on the Sabbath, no, it's not because it's a commandment: It's because the provenance upon which the 7-day week was established is the is the Creation story.
And the point is that both the 7-day week and marriage have long ago been adopted by so many cultures of many religions that to consider either a religious institution is to ignore millennia of history and practice.
But that's what you have to do when you want to make up a new definition for an institution.
Adieu, Stephen. You will be in my prayers.
It should be simple, then, to explain what the meaning/origin/significance of the concept of adultery is, as well as what Genesis 2:24 represents; not to mention ‘holy matrimony.’
We will be waiting for your explanations.
If having a commandment and other texts protecting or promoting it makes someting a "religious institution," the private property is one–it rates two commandments–and parenting is another (5th commandment). Using the same logic as the premise of this thread, then, government should not outlaw theft or otherwise protect private property; and government should "get out of the business" of defining/regulating adoption.
Ridiculus premisses produce ridiculous outcomes.
Are you intimating Ed, that I shouldn’t exactly hold my breath waiting for an explanation as to what Genesis 2:24 represents? How about Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:6-8?
While we’re at it, do you think that there is any connection between whatever Genesis 2:24 represents and the seventh commandment?
If you think you have addressed the ‘adultery’ question, what then does ‘fornication’ mean? If marriage is not a religious institution (from a Jude-Christian perspective), please explain this; as relates to 1 Corinthians 6:18, 7:2.
Perhaps you should address those questions to a couple married in the Shinto tradition. Or maybe what it meant to the Aztecs. And there are always the Ancient Romans. All of these, and many more, practiced marriage and condemned adultery.
Yes, Christians and Jews have teachings about marriage. We also have teachings about government, but that doesn't make government 'a religious institution.' We have teachings about education. That doesn't make schools 'a religious institution.' This is pretty straightforward.
The Bible has a lot of teaching for farmers, employers, and even soldiers. That doesn't make farms, businesses, or armies 'religious institutions.'
Perhaps you'd like to discuss Druid marriage customs. If their teachings are detailed enough, would you declare marriage 'a Druid institution?' I'd say, 'Of course not," but I've already been surprised at some of the logically untenable positions already put forth on this issue.
The problem Ed is that I am asking a Christian what Genesis 2:24 represents. If it represents marriage, is there any antecedent for this information in human history?
Marriage, like the 7-day week, has origination.
The problem Stephen is that your questions are irrelevant to this discussion. Feel free to chase any bunny trails, but I have other things to do.
Adultery, as written in the 7th commandment, prohibited "taking" another man's wife; she was his property, just as described in the 10th: "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife, his ox, etc." Women were owned by the man. Never does it say that he could not take several wives and after Adam and Eve were created, God said "Be fruitful and multiply." Cohabitation was their instructions. In Gen. 2, an editor or scribe added these words of explanation that God did not say: "Therefore, a man should cleave to his wife," an interpretation in the oral telling of the story, and added, just as many such explanatory sentences were added in other places.
The assumption that the Bible characters were faithful to only one wife is presented as the ideal for all times; in spite of the many polygamous marriages that were recorded in the Bible. When one speaks of the "ideal biblical marriage," it is an idealized version contrary to the true situation. God never condemned them as they were obedient to his command to populate the earth.
Yes. I think you are right in that the Bible is very helpful in presenting an 'Eden ideal', but then providing a huge number of examples of how almost every Bible character is history didn't live up to this ideal.
On that basis, I think we need to be careful in Lording over others and going for that first stone if we believe others are not living up to that Eden ideal – because I doubt you are either.
For example, on the issue of de facto cohabitation, I am always struck by Jesus approach in John 4. In John 4:18, Jesus notes, "The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
But where then is Jesus, 'go and sin no more'? There is none. Jesus leaves that discussion at that – lingering.
Sometimes I wish we Christians would be a little more sensitive like Jesus to situations.
Hmmm. This is a heavy subject. At Eden, God provided a woman for Adam, not several. God, if he recommended multiple women per man for populating the Earth, would think He would have given Adam numerous women, as Adam was probably the very best virile man ever. But as for as we know He didn't. Doubt God would't be in a time constraint as He has eternity for His desires.
i believe God's plan was for there to be fidelity in the marriage commitment. That man has played fast
and loose. i would think sex with more than one wife, or concubines, or prostitutes,would be sin for a
husband. Don't recall any reference where God suggested "open marriage". i also have a serious problem for assuming Adam & Eve were not equal. They owned each other. Parable??
Elaine is quite right. Women were the property of men in teh OT. And the rich could afford more than one. Poor Jacob had to work for seven years for hsi first, only to be duped at the last minute. So he then worked another seven. Who said there's no romantic love in those days? Pity about wife no.1 though.
And wives are property in Modern marriage ceremonies up until recent times. The ritual of 'who giveth this woman to this man?' is rapidly being dropped. Marriage itself is a civil contract designed to manage the ownership of property. In Australia, teh rights of the wife in these contracts have only been formalised in the past one or two generations. It jsut happens that this type of contract was started in teh days when the Church governed both civil and ecclesial arenas.
If teh state now wishes to legislate for the property rights of same-sex couples, why should the church be concerned? If that same couple seeks the blessing of the church, then the church has a problem. Moderns tend to think of homosexuality as an inherited trait or tendency. It does not appear to be a 'choice' on the part of the one so inclined. But this does not appear to be the case in the OT or the New. Paul is quite adamant that same-sex coupling is of teh flesh and those who practise it are not admitted to the heavenly city. He doesn't support pederasty in the same text.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Those who hold steadfastly to the NT's attitude will have problems with a church that blesses same-sex unions.
What about a same sex married couple who choose to join the Adventist church? Will they be accepted as divorced heterosexual couples are? Or cohabiting unmarried couples? Is someone who wishes to join, asked about their former life, about marriages, divorces, premarital sex? Are heterosexual couples asked if they lived together before asking for church wedding? Out-of wedlock children?
These are all related topics if the church wishes to involve itself in members' sexual lives. Have they adopted this attitude from those politicians who are so obsessed with the sexual and reproductive lives of others?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs
If this is so grievous to you as it is to the Reverend, perhaps you could use your blog to educate the masses about how to have a proper debate.
I question whether the Internet is an appropriate forum for debates.
I quite agree, Kendra. As you have made clear, this is not a place for persuading one another. It is a place us to demonstrate our compassion by agreeing.
Not agreeing — listening. Something you seem to struggle with.
It has always seemed one of the least appealing things about church people is their eagerness to diagnose the faults of others.
Yes, women have been used as a footstool by males for thousands of years. This is something i've had difficulty with understanding. Except for the male/female variant, was Eve a clone of Adam? Adam, the male, was dominate only because of his physical abilities as protector? i've found women to be more loyal, more compassionate, more driven to excel, more dedicated to family responsibilities. In this 21st century they are finally breaking free, and cracking open the glass ceilings. As Peter Finch screamed out the open window in the movie "Network", "we are madder than hell, and we aren't going to take it any longer". The distaff of the USA, finally, are gaining acceptance of equality. If the female masses would just refuse to let the uncommitted males impregnate them. They seem intellectually able to make most of the important decisions, but often choose the wrong males to cohabit with, tendency to choose the "hot" guys, the "rats". What do i know. 50%-80% born out of a stable home of father & mother.Is it any wonder the young don't have the basics for a viable lifestyle? Look at their role models. As the inhabitants of heaven are neither male nor female, but are spiritual, and there will be no marriage
in heaven Mark 12:25, was male/ female only on Earth? Was Adam, duty bound, as protector of Eve, mentally unable to resist the sin? Who were the sons of God (Gen.6:4), giants in the land, who before the flood, impregnated the daughters of men?
Kendra, you’re a woman after my own heart. I agree with you that straight church members do not need to judge gay/lesbian couples who marry and/or live in a faithful monogamous relationship. I agree with you about the religious liberty issue. And I agree with you about why Jesus came to be incarnated on this earth – because people had a very faulty understanding of God and His love for ALL sinners.
Tapiwa, the loneliness of gays and lesbians who feel they are ostracized and condemned by the church is definitely NOT a straw man. It is a very true state for most gay/lesbian people who still attend our church. Most of them eventually leave, seeing no possibility of love or understanding or friendship from church members.
And Ed Dickerson, you truly do not know or understand those of us who are family members or friends of gays and lesbians. So please do not try to tell us why we continue to try to help the church become more like Jesus, who reached out to the outcasts.
I only just got around to reading this but I agree with everything you say, Kendra, and appreciate your courage in saying it so publicly.
Atention Shoppers we are having a sale in isle 3. We are having a Monterey Institute special this week. Miis is on sale for half off this week! Please proceed to isle 3 to participate in our Monterey Institute of International Studies sale! 5% of the proceeds will go to Adra!