Sexuality and Church Discipline
by Andy Hanson
The Church Manual brackets "homosexual practice" between "incest" and "sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults" in its list of sexual perversions.* Surely, "homosexual practice" should be awarded a different perversion catagory.
One wonders about what the Church might label "heterosexual sexual perversions."Last time I checked, every homosexual sexual act has its counterpart in heterosexual sex. To be on the safe side, these "perversions" should be enumerated for us Adventist heterosexuals.
Included here are excerpts from Bishop John Shelby Spong's essay, Should a competent Newspaper Publish Uninformed Prejudice?
We all have but one sexual organ and that is our brain. All else is equipment. It is our brains that tell us to whom we are attracted. We now know that a small percentage of the human population, estimates are between 5 and 10%, have brains that orient their affections toward their own gender. The same thing is true in the world of nature. There is no reason to think that because this is a “minority,” it is abnormal…We have removed a lot of things from the ancient writings of the Torah. Deuteronomy, the last book of the Torah, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient and who talk back to their parents. Leviticus calls for the execution of both partners in an adulterous act, as well as for anyone who worships a false god. Leviticus mandated kosher dietary laws. Those, like you, who want to affirm the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus, might want to read the whole Torah and see how much of it you want to take literally.
You might also be interested, as long as you are going to appeal to the authority of the Bible, to know that there is no reference to homosexuality in any of the gospels. Jesus, however, is recorded as commanding us to love our neighbors and when asked who is our neighbor, responded by saying your neighbor is the one for whom you have the deepest prejudice.
*Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual
Revised 2005, 17th Edition
Page 195
CHURCH DISCIPLINE 195 1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.
2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder, stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual falsehood.
3. Violation of the seventh commandment of the law of God as it relates to the marriage institution, the Christian home, and biblical standards of moral conduct.
4. Such violations as fornication, promiscuity, incest, homosexual practice, sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults, and other sexual perversions, and the remarriage of a divorced person, except of the spouse who has remained faithful to the marriage vow in a divorce for adultery or for sexual perversions.
5. Physical violence, including violence within the family.
6. Fraud or willful misrepresentation in business.
7. Disorderly conduct which brings reproach upon the church.
8. Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization. (See p. 190.)
9. Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.
10. The use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages.
11. The use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption.
12. The misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs.
The church cannot afford to deal lightly with such sins nor permit personal considerations to affect its actions. It must register its decisive and emphatic disapproval of the sins of fornication, adultery, all acts of moral indiscretion, and other grievous sins.
I see the list included divorce in the list for grounds of Church Discipline. Funny enough, whilst the Bible has very little to say about homosexuality or pre-marital sex (if that is fornication), and even less to say about 'lesser forms of marriage' such as de facto relationships (is this a form of concubinage, and something Jesus doesn't push the Samaritan at the well over), the Bible has a lot to say about divorce.
Divorce is one sexual issue that Jesus didn't simply gloss over, but devoted a whole treatise to explaining how it is ordinarily adultery. Compare that with how much time Jesus devoted to combating the issue of homosexuality – basically nothing – other than commenting in an obscure passage about people who are born eunuchs.
My point is, and it follows from Andy’s wider article, that there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy in casting the first stone when it comes to human sexuality.
We should also keep in mind there is formal and informal discipline. A divorcee and homosexual alike in many Churches is unlikely to face formal Church sanction, such as disfellowshipment. However, in most Churches today (at least in the West), a divorcee is likely to be treated as if nothing occurred – some people even continuing to hold Church office throughout the period of separation and proceedings. Yet a young person who comes out, again with few exceptions, is likely to go through a living hell in most SDA Churches, and culturally made to feel unwelcome.
Why the double standard?
I agree with you sentiments 100%. The church has a definate standing on "degrees of sin" albeit unsaid. Unfortunately the reasoning so often is that a divorced person has "repented of their sin" and therefore is forgiven and moves on, where a homosexual "remains in sin". However, there is never the expectation of the divorcee returning to their origional spouse.
Why do we expend so much energy discussing particular sins instead of dealing with the sin that is in us, that polluted our world and changed God's creation in such horrible ways? Because we don't know the transforming power of God in our own lives. W have such discussions as this is because our sin-polluted attitudes make us think condemning others will make us feel less condemned for our own sins. We talk about finding salvation and experiencing the transformation God has promised to work in us so that others can find it while find ways to prevent it from happening in us.
Our first challenge with "church discipline" is we have adopted the false concept turning the meaning of "discipline" into "punishment." A disciple is a follower. Condemnation and punishment causes people to leave.
The closest followers of Jesus were His disciples. They were His students. They were drawn to Him by the love and power they experienced when they were with Him. He nurtured their spiritual growth to where the change in them was so great that people marveled at it and were drawn to Jesus to experience the same transformation. God's love and power drove the sin out of their lives. But we focus on identifying particular sins in people and trying to cleanse the church of such pollution. When are we going to try turning things around and confronting sin in the ways of Jesus? Revelation 12:11 declares "they overcame him by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony."
There is great power in someone having experience with God and then going to a weaker brother or sister and saying "I've been in your shoes. Let me show you how God gave me victory." When nurturing such spiritual growth becomes our primary focus our question will no longer be what sin is in a person, but if we have been good examples encouraging them to draw closer to God so they, too, can be transformed.
Indeed that is what we should do but don't do. In practice, whilst we recognise all these other sins are forgiveable, we somehow treat homosexuality in our Churches as an unpardonable sin.
The Bible has much more to say against heterosexual activity, than of homosexuality; and wrongful heterosexuality was a great deal more common. Yet, for some, homosexuality is the red flag of all sins; ignoring the fact that homosexuality was never mentioned once in the Bible. There are a very few references to same sex relationships; none of love, but only of sinful acts that were either in very promiscuous behavior, and never mentioning love EXCEPT
when describing the deep love, more than of women, that Jonathan and David felt for each other; never was it condemned in any way
If heterosexual love is considered to be very normal, why is homosexal love considered both abnormal and sin? If heterosexual physical intimacies are accepted between two lovers, why not the same acceptance for two heterosexual lovers? Does anyone castigate heterosexuals as living a certain hedonistic "lifestyle"? Why is it only used against homosexuals?
To pick out one group by race, sex, or other distinguishing classes, is to show bigotry and prejudice for no other reason than a particular group have become targets of self-righteous people.
Long ago, someone proposed that "when the Bible is silent, we should be silent,"
Rather than making homosexuality an unpardonable sin, the current attitude for some is the incompatibility between homosexuality and repentance.
Phillip,
Please allow me to add a word to your last posting: The "perception" of incompatibility between homosexuality and repentance. What seems impossible to us is routine activity for God.
I am curious how homosexuality is incompatible with repentance in a way any other sin isn't.
What other sin has such eager advocates to its normalcy?
Greed and pride come readily to mind.
How?
We seem to have all come to a decision not to condemn these sins. In fact, if they are confined to the market or social life, we will actually see them as 'blessings' having God's favour.
Doesn't it say in Ez. 16:49 that the greatest sin in Sodom, the reason why God destroyed it, was not the sodomy, but the mistreatment of the poor. There could be an important lesson and analogy for most of the Western world, especially many Christians in those countries.
Back to my original comment, what about the sin of adultery through divorce? Not only do advocates seek normalcy, they largely have reached normalcy in the Church. When divorcees repent for their sin, do they have to go back to their previous spouses – the ones who are still their spouses in the eyes of the Church and God?
I am not having a go at divorcees but merely pointing out the double standard.
Was anyone expecting the church to be consistent? When has it ever been?
"What seems impossible to us is routine activity for God."
Man must want to change before God can act. Man's decision comes first; God will not intervene contrary to our free will. "The heart is deceitfully wicked" and God should never be blamed when it is man's decision to be prejudiced, even bigoted. What Christ has not condemned, man should not condemn.
Should the Church adopt a single standard consistency of compromise in one should ensure compromise in all?
Stephen
So what is your point exactly are you suggeting that the church normalise homosexual practice to eradicate the double standard? Compormise in one area does not legitimise another compromise. I agree with you that our policy on divorce leaves a lot to be desired and there is much needed repentance and policy change .
My point is about the nature of those who want to be the first to pick up stones…
I am not saying homosexual practices (as opposed to homosexual orientation) should be given the ok and normalised. I am saying that in terms of enforcement, or the cultural message put out through the Church in its official publications, there shouldn't be a double standard.
How many articles are there in Adventist official publications condemning homosexual practices – quite a few I have noticed in recent years. How many articles have there been in official Adventist publications condemning divorce – none that I can recall.
That could just be in my area of the world though – Australia. In many ways, I think the Church in the West is more hypocritical about this issue than say Africa. In the West, most segments of the Church, including the official SDA publications, still openly condemn homosexual practices quite strongly, but turn a blind-eye to divorce.
In the Developing World, including Africa where you are from, I suspect the Church is probably still a little less hypocritical in condemning both.
That won't be a satisfactory answer for many as some will suggest in the West divorce and homosexuality shouldn't be condemned at all and moral standards lowered or liberalised across the board, whilst others will say in the Developing world that the West should having stronger moral standards across the board.
One thing that becomes clear if you study cultures around the world is that no one culture has cornered the market on hypocrisy. It is one of the ways in which we are all truely equal.
LOL so very true.
And the reason why in my experience people tend to blow up when I mention the divorce double-standard, is divorce is an issue that can and does effect 'normal' people – or at least normal in their own minds. Even unlike homosexuality, or even say pre-marital sex or cohabitation, divorce is a problem of the middle age 'elite' or 'elders' generation; whereas, these other sexual issues are often a problem of young people.
It is easier for those in power (includng with respect most readers, authors and commentators here) to apply double standards that favours themselves. As to these issues, I take note that Jesus had little to say about cohabitating de facto couple (one comment to the woman at the well but He pushed no further condemning her), almost nothing about homosexuality, but He had a hell of a lot to say about divorce and He condemned it explicitly.
I can't find where it is incompatible with repentance or different from any other behavior because all are the symptoms of the disease of sin that is in us. The key in all cases is repentance, the turning-around enabled by the power and love of God that leads us into a new life and different behavior.
Moreover, I know it will be a repeat of the old debates, but it is important to stress that the Church Manual itself doesn't condemn homosexual orientation, it only condemns homosexual practice. I know that will not be satisfactory to many; however, truth be told, many if not most Adventists are not even willing to treat those who have a homosexual orientation, but who abstein from homosexual practices, as anything but lepers.
It will change in the next generation; but by that time, there may be no new generation who sticks around and wait patiently for the church to be dragged into
the 21st century.
How long did it take the church to ignore divorce? It will be the same with homosecxuality and other sexual sins, which all church goers know, are the worst sins not mentioned in the Decalogue.
I admit that I am in a rarefied Adventist atmosphere here in Southern California. So maybe I'm out of touch with what's going on elsewhere in North America. But can anyone tell me of any instances of church discipline being meted out for homosexuality, or even adultery for that matter? There may be some. How about in Australia, Stephen and Kevin? It just seems to me that, in the don't-ask-don't-tell world of Adventism, where orthopraxy is almost never required (I know of church elders in my local church who drink alcoholic beverages when they are among Adventists whom they regard as "mature" and "open-minded"), the Church Manual is pretty irrelevant. Why do we make such a big deal out of something that has no practical significance? Or is this a bigger practical issue than I am aware of?
Formal church discipline of any kind is rare from my experience. That doesn't mean the saints don't make their disapproval very clear. There are many ways of making people feel uncomfrotable enough to conform or leave without ever having to convene any formal disciplinary committee. There is a huge amount of informal pressure applied to anyone who deviates from what is locally acceptable. I sometimes think formal discipline would be kinder and less destructive.
Being a part of a world wide orginisation one has to consider the "cultural or traditional" concepts. Discipline in African cultures for example is very from what you would expect in the USA. African traditionally view homosexuality in society very differently to what you or I may.
I do know of formal discipline in the case of de facto cohabitation, and was involved in that disciplinary committee myself through elders. When it was pointed out that there was perhaps perceived or actual standard, given many Church members were divorcees, including those holding office, and even including those sitting right then and there on the disciplinary, that wasn't a message well received.
As for homosexuality, I haven't heard of any formal discipline for the simple reason as I don't know anyone who has formally come out in a full Church setting. The closest I know of is a friend in England, who was an openly gay Adventist, who helped establish a Church plant, but then was prohibited to hold any official role in the new Church he helped create. I guess that was a kind of formal Church discipline of a sort.
I would otherwise generally agree with Kevin about informal pressure. No formal discipline is needed because the informal discipline, through culture, is so strong that in every other case Adventists raised in the Church who come out leave the Church first.
No such cultural stigma or informal pressure exists for divorcees, at least in my own personal Churches and most of the other Churches I attend.
I suppose it is none of my business, since I left the church formally more than 40 years ago, but what is this preoccupation with the sex lives of others? I mean, aside from sexual behavior in some public place, what business is it of any church member or authority what someone does sexually?
And what about divorce? People should not be asked to remain in physically or mentally abusive, or even unhappy, relationships. Why would anyone remain in a group/church that condemns them without any real knowledge or understanding of their situation?
It seems to me that the message, the "good news," could not be much clearer. "Love one another." Not to mention, "Judge not that ye be not judged."
Joe,
In my humble opinion it springs from these primary things:
1) Placing a greater emphasis on being factually correct about God than truly knowing Him.
2) Refusing to recognize the fully destructive nature of the sin that is within us and letting God be in control of our lives.
3) Denying the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual and the function of the church that minimizes, if not entirely negates, the perceived need for church administration.
"Moral certainity is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the person, the surerer they are they they know precisely what is right and what is wrong." H.L. Mencken
I'm guessing that Mencken would have no use for one who "was teaching them as one having authority." (Matt 7:29)
How about you?
We create our own morals based on our upbringing and environment. A good friend once explained why sex standing up is so unacceptable… it may just lead to dancing.
For that reason, I use to always wonder why Adventist couples don't dance at their own weddings…
Satirists have a way of poking irrevence as what some have christened as reverence and see through and expose it.
Another great American satirist, Ambrose Bierce:
"Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
Do you disagree?
I love good satire! Just last night Jay Leno was talking about how it has become illegal in many California cities to have a nativity scene but that they could do one if it was a live display. Leno's comment was that it still was an impossible situation for the churches. "After all, the is LA. Where are you going to find three wise men and a virgin?"
There is a gay married couple attending our church. They love the Lord and want to be together in heaven. This is a dilemma for people to accept. I'm thankful that God holds all things in His hands and it's not for humans to decide. One in a thousand people are born with organs of both genders, which is as prevalent odds as redheads. I am sorry for the young man who planted a church and is unable to serve in it. God is not a respecter of persons.
A religion that discards a group of people who desire to worship, is a group I do not care to be associated with.
"A being who can create a race of men devoid of real freedom and inevitably foredoomed to be sinners, and then punish them for being what he has made them, may be omnipotent and various other things, but he is not what the English language has always intended by the adjective holy." John Stuart Mill.
God created man. God created sexual desire. Sexual desire continues even after it can't be physically consumated because of dysfunction of equipment & other health reasons. It is the strongest mental urgency of normal people. Not biting the apple was easy compared to sexual drive abstinence. God provides the design for sex in the human brain, yet descriminates how it is to be used. Gives us toys to play with, and then says unh unh, think about it? The sexual drive persists until death, long past its breeding period?? As we know the hard wiring varies, scaled from 1 to 100. Hard wired, and then condemmed? Having chaired church business meetings,we never disfellowshipped a single soul. Some who perhaps were brought to the attention of the church, left without being asked to.
We are counselled to marry so that we do not burn with passion meaning lust. They have married and truly love each other, and attend church regularly. I can't see them being different in God's eyes than any other married couple.