Thinking About a Response to the GLTB Persons Who Desire to Be Members of the Adventist Church
by Larry Downing
Challenge: Scripture does not, in explicit terms, provide an answer to the question of whether it is consistent within the Christian faith to accept into church membership gay, lesbian, transsexual or bi-sexual people who are in a committed relationship. In my opinion, scripture is silent on this matter. How, then, is it possible to form a reasonable and defensible conclusion when a significant authority is silent? True, there are texts one can turn to that address sexual behavior, such as the commandment against adultery, the requirement that one not lie with a beast, and other passages you have heard or read.
Question: Is it legitimate to apply these texts to the question of the GLTB individuals in committed relationships who wish to be members of the Seventh Day Adventist church?
Within the context of the biblical passages that address sexual practices there are other passages that command us to stone our son if he speaks harshly against us, stone the Sabbath breaker, the adulterer, and the two unmarried who are sexually active one with the other. Does anyone care to initiate an enforcement bureau to police and implement these rules today? This leads us to the broader question of hermeneutics: the art or “science” of textual interpretation. We read a statement, and from that statement questions arise: What was the author’s intent? How was the statement understood by the first hearers? How did they respond? How are we to understand and apply the statement now?
My hermeneutic—my method—is to examine a broad perspective, and from that exercise form a hypothesis, seek support for that hypothesis, and suggest a conclusion.
When we read the Old Testament we find a collection of stories. I maintain we do not find statements of theology or doctrine there. The Older Testament is not a series of “Bible Studies” or a catechism; rather, it is a collation of stories about people. We do not read about a 21st century church or the requirements for membership in a religious organization of our time.
If you were a Hebrew child you belonged to the synagogue. As an adult male you were a child of Abraham. You attended the local synagogue. You also had the right to enter the Jerusalem temple and participate in its rituals.
Were it possible for us to change places with those who attended temple services in Bible times, both they and we would be at a loss to understand the worship forms and practices. Ask the first century Jewish priest how we could transfer our membership from one synagogue or temple to another or ask how the temple or synagogue went about dropping a person from membership. The priest would be at a loss to give cogent answers. We might as well ask him to sing the Star Spangled Banner.
I find no record of church groups with established membership criteria during the time period between the Old and the New Testaments.
During the New Testament time period no formal church structure, as we know it, existed. The first Christians did select deacons and presbuteroi. One looks in vain in the NT for a church charter, membership requirement, by-laws, doctrinal statements or creeds.
It was in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries that we first find evidence of an official church organization. It is in this time period that Creeds were proposed, scrutinized, adopted and fought over. Bands of clergy formed and a structure was developed to define piety levels. Debates over what is the “true” doctrine went on for months and years. Heresy trials were common. There was a high risk of expulsion and death for those who believed or promoted teachings that did not conform to the established church teaching.
About one hundred and fifty years ago the Seventh Day Adventist Church was formed in response to the need for the church to own property and carry out other formal organizational matters. The church began to officially recognize certain beliefs as unique and essential to an Advent believer. The 1932 General Conference Year Book included the first Statement of Belief. Not all were pleased with this action.
Church membership in our early years was relatively fluid. People came and went with little official response. In theory, official doctrine is determined by the General Conference in Session. The vote to adapt a particular doctrine as a Fundamental Belief is one thing. Implementation of that vote is another matter. By GC policy, it is only the local church that determines who will be accepted into membership and who is denied membership. For example can an Adventist raise tobacco and maintain church membership? Some Adventist churches in southern United States have said no! In mid-western America, congregations have denied membership to those who raise pigs.
Based upon an examination of the biblical record, my hypothesis is this: Look at the larger picture. With this as a model, I suggest the following: The bible does not address many of the situations that we encounter in contemporary life. We cannot find a text to answer whether it is acceptable for an Adventist to fly in space. How does a person keep Sabbath when circling round the world every few minutes? In the same way, I believe we should not look to the bible writers to answer whether gay, lesbian, transgender or bi-sexual people can be accepted into church membership. Our task is to seek and discover how the bible writers addressed our human situation and pay particular attention to how Jesus related to people. Add a generous amount of charity toward all, and apply common sense when addressing sensitive issues. With these factors as a foundation, we can begin our quest to find answers to those matters that take us outside the bible writer’s knowledge and experience.
It is essential in our deliberations to examine the record of Jesus the Christ. Consider how He associated with, responded to and blessed many of whom we consider the wrong kinds of people— the political sharks—like Zacchaeus, sinners and publicans. This is a collection of individuals whom many would believe do not pass muster for membership in an Adventist Church. Yet, here they are as heroes in our sacred writings. Who let down the guard?
Put some sanctified imagination to work. Imagine Jesus in a face to face encounter with a gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender or any other kind of sexual behavior that comes to mind. What response on his part comes to your mind? Cruel remarks? Jokes? Scorn? Compassion? Welcome? Love?
Today, when a request may come from two people who live in a committed relationship to become members of your congregation, it is important to acknowledge that the two people have an established relationship that has not been part of traditional Adventism. This is the activating incident—the transition, the point of crisis. Some traditional Adventists believe: This behavior is sin! We are lowering our standards. We will be vilified. In my opinion, the church is the hospital for sinners—and aren’t we all patients? Jesus always welcomed the outcast and those whom the religious society of that era vilified.
Two passages I present for consideration: The first is found in Matthew 16:19. In response to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” RSV
The second is recorded in Matthew 18:18: In response to the disciple’s question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” RSV
I suggest to you that these statements are applicable when Christians gather to consider important matters. Decisions are made, and actions are taken. These texts provide evidence that the decisions and actions, though outside of traditional boundaries, have authority. In our decision, might we err? Absolutely! But taking no action is not the answer.
Is it possible that your congregation is or will be called to such a transition experience? Might this be your opportunity to expel the old and adopt the new? Could it be that what you face is the Lord’s way of setting you forth on a venture that will lead you to discover a revival of charity that warms the soul and affirms the outworking of Christian faith within this community? I do not have the answers to these important questions. What I can say is that from everything I know about Jesus’ life and teaching and everything others have said about Him, it is difficult to imagine Jesus standing before an individual who seeks a relationship with Him and saying anything other than, “You are my beloved child. Let no one hinder any one of my family who seeks to enter my home.”
One would have to first determine whether same-sex marriage is taught in the scriptures. It is not.
Larry,
Thank you for challenging us again to get back to the basics of scripture.
Some years back I came across a bookwith a title something like "Eight Things the Bible Doesn't Say (But Christians still want you to believe)." The predominant attitude in the church about how to relate to GLTB people could be added to that list as Number Nine because it has strayed so far away from the love of God and His power to save "unto the uttermost" (Hebrews 7:25). Instead of looking for ways to love people we've gotten lost in finding ways and reasons to condemn. Who needs a more dramatic illustration of having forgotten the basics of the Gospel? How can a person not be a hypocrite if they claim to be saved when at the same time they are condemning another just because their sinful nature is expressed in a different manner?
While your opening question is drawn from current debate, I believe it is focusing our attention in the wrong direction. Instead of measuring the sinner and deciding if they are clean enough to be part of the church, we should be measuring the love and redemptive power of God, seeing Him working in us and following His example of accepting all who come to Him. Only then can we know the power of God that is entirely capable of redeeming GLTB people. Only then will we quit condemning and start redeeming. God's method of redemption is to bring people into the fellowship of the Kingdom where their spiritual growth can be nurtured instead of first measuring to see if they are sinless enough to join.
People who condemn the sins of others are keeping both others and themselves out of the Kingdom while those who love others as God loves them are bringing people into the kindgom.
As a bit of historical fact, I grew up in a small Colorado SDA church (65 years ago) that had six or seven gay and lesbian members. As a kid, I didn't quite know what that was, but I suspected they were different for some reason. Only as I look back do I realize exactly what they were. We also had a white lady with a white preteen daughter married to a black man who attended our church often. They were members of the local black SDA church, but the white and black church sometimes exchanged services and anyone was free to attend either. I have no clue what the adults were thinking or saying, but there was no effort that I knew of to keep anyone out.
Exodus announced today that is closing its ministry of reparative therapy for gays. The president said he still believed that homosexuality was a sin, according to the Bible as he interprets it, but that we must learn to accept people and not drive them away from the church.
In closing, it is acknowledgement that they had not achieved the success they had hoped, and in some cases, was very harmful to some of those in the program.
Larry, I really like your approach – your hermeneutic. I think it is a very mature and honest way to deal with sacred text. Before commenting substantively, though, let me ask a couple of questions.
You seem to imply that an Adventist congregation could reasonably consider same sex "unions" sinful, and yet still be Biblically obligated to welcome them into membership. Am I reading you correctly? If so, what do you make of Jesus' counsel earlier in Matthew 18, where He advises that willful persistence in sinful behavior, following "progressive church discipline" aimed at reconciliation, should result in expulsion from the fellowship of faith? Yes, Jesus welcomed the "outcasts" who heard and responded to His call. But in Matthew 18, after talking about the lost sheep, and assuring His listeners that the Father is not willing that any should perish, He makes it quite clear, in verse 17, that those who choose to persist in wrongdoing should be cast out of the faith community.
Or what about St. Paul's outrage in 1 Cor. 5, where he not only recommends disfellowshipping immoral members, but urges the faith community to not even associate with such individuals? It is pretty clear from the context that Paul was deeply concerned about a tendency among believers in Corinth to reappraise and redefine sin in a way that was engendering tolerance of evil. Paul says, "Look folks, it's not your job to pass judgment on those who are outside the faith community. God will do that. But it sure is your job to preserve the integrity of the body of Christ to which you belong." – "Expel the wicked person from among you!"
I am not just yet prepared to respond the issue as framed, Larry, until you provide a bit of clarification. It seems to me that you are finessing the fundamental question of whether members of the community of faith are Biblically justified in concluding that normalization of homosexual behavior among their members is contrary to God's will for the faith community. If that conclusion is reasonable, then why would the counsels of Paul and Christ not apply? If, on the other hand, Christians should not consider homosexual relationships as morally different from heterosexual relationships, then isn't it offensive for you to talk, in that context, about the church as a hospital for sinners? That metaphor seems to stigmatize homosexuality as a disease or moral failure that needs treatment or counseling.
Exodus International, the Southern California-based ministry that focused on trying to "cure" people of homosexuality, has shut down, officials announced Wednesday.Exodus International, the Southern California-based ministry that focused on trying to "cure" people of homosexuality, has shut down, officials announced Wednesday.
The closure of Exodus Internaional came a day after its president, Alan Chambers, wrote a lengthy apology for his group's actions that was posted on their website.
"We have done wrong, and I stand with many others who now recognize the need to offer apologies and make things right," Chambers said in the apology. "I haven't always been the leader of Exodus, but I am now and someone must finally own and acknowledge the hurt of others.
"I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change."
Other members of the ministry previously came forward to apologize for the actions of exodus. Earlier this year, the group's chairman, John Paulk, also apologized and said he no longer believed that reparative therapy could "cure" people of homosexuality.
"I feel great sorrow over the pain that has been caused when my words were misconstrued," Paulk said in April in an interview with PQ magazine. "During this journey I have made many mistakes and I have hurt many people including people who are close to me."
Exodus officials say that its leaders will launch a new ministry that they say will be more welcoming
Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2…
The closure of Exodus Internaional came a day after its president, Alan Chambers, wrote a lengthy apology for his group's actions that was posted on their website.
"We have done wrong, and I stand with many others who now recognize the need to offer apologies and make things right," Chambers said in the apology. "I haven't always been the leader of Exodus, but I am now and someone must finally own and acknowledge the hurt of others.
"I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change."
Other members of the ministry previously came forward to apologize for the actions of exodus. Earlier this year, the group's chairman, John Paulk, also apologized and said he no longer believed that reparative therapy could "cure" people of homosexuality.
"I feel great sorrow over the pain that has been caused when my words were misconstrued," Paulk said in April in an interview with PQ magazine. "During this journey I have made many mistakes and I have hurt many people including people who are close to me."
Exodus officials say that its leaders will launch a new ministry that they say will be more welcoming
Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2…
Elaine,
Did you read some of the comments below that article you speak about? I read the article and a few of the comments. I find the comments to be the measuring stick for how the public feels about such things.
Yes, I did read the comments. I sometimes find them much more informative than the article.
I also watched Lisa Ling's two programs last night with similar themes: "Faith Healers" and "Gods and Gays" which ran consecutively on OWN. The faith healing congregation were very believing that they would be healed and the "preacher" pushed and shoved some till they dropped to the floor. Others were crying and laughing hysterically at the same time. Quite a show.
"Gays and Gods" was a meeting of former Exodus "pupils" and the leader who first listened to all of their stories of being seduced into believing they could be "cured" and how despondent and depressed they became when all their prayers were unsuccessful after even decades, for some. Then the leader confessed and apologized for what he had done in claiming he could "cure" their homosexual feelings. It was quite a confessional. How it will impact the many Christian churches who still hold that it is a great sin, is questionable.
Probably most of us hide in our sins as they may be known only to our selves, and God. Every time we look in the mirror, with honesty, if we deny our sins to ourselves, we are placing ourselves ouside of God's mercy. The homosexual community by nature, have not the community cloak of protection from detection. i purposely feel no threat or danger from them. i believe the homosexuals more strident group of "in your face" actions in their parades & public places have disgusted many in the straight community. i condemn no man or woman as to their sexuality. i leave it in God's domain as to wheather it is a sin more deadly than mine.
At the core of this discussion is the question of God's actual power to transform as compared with our experience with and concepts of that power. The closing of the Exodus ministry only adds to those conceptual limits.
Since there is nothing like the testimony of someone's experience with God's transforming power, I want to recommend a book I have begun reading: "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert" by Rosaria Butterfield. In 1999 Rosaria was a tenured professor of Women's Studies at Syracuse University, a department dean, a practicing lesbian in a long-term relationship with another woman and an unabashed advocate of many liberal causes. Then she met Jesus and everything changed. Today she has a husband and four children and is no longer teaching or advocating for her old philosophies. While I'm only a couple chapters into the book, what I have found is a powerful testimony about what changes Jesus can make in a person. With summertime yard tasks demanding more of my energies someone who has more time to read may finish the book before I do and share from her testimony.
Actually, William, I understand your burden and conviction. But I think your passion is causing you to miss what is at the core of this discussion – namely, how should churches should deal with openly gay couples who want their relationship to be viewed by the church as morally equal to heterosexual relationships? These are couples who believe it is no more reasonable for you to expect the Holy Spirit to make them straight than it is for them to expect that the Holy Spirit will make you gay. They are unlikely to be impressed with your compassionate belief that they are the objects of God's eternal love and forgiveness, and that God's Spirit can transform their lives, just as it can transform the lives of all sinners. As long as you view their sexual orientation and behavior as a moral issue, you will make them feel rejected. These are the prople that I think Larry is addressing in his blog. He is inviting us to consider how we should approach their requests for church membership.
Nathan,
I understood the thesis question and was cutting to the cure because misinformation and fear are the basis for many of the opinions expressed on the topic. Having a homosexual couple in the church will sully the reputation of the church! I don't want my children to see that! They will lure others into their sin! I think you know the list.
Something I find interesting is how accurately the fears expressed on the topic give us an inverse measurement of how much the members are allowing the Holy Spirit to work in them and their church: the more the fears, the less of the Holy Spirit. Or to state it with a positive correlation, the more people are fearful, the more they need the Holy Spirit.
An aspect of the issue that may be worth exploring is the Biblical model for dealing with members who are not just caught in a sin. Many discussions point to 1 Corinthians, chapter 5 as the basis for expelling from the church those who are accused of certain sins. Or, in this case, possibly refusing to admit them into membership. Paul makes it clear that the sin at issue is one that not even the pagans would tolerate. But making it worse was that the members were proud of it. Paul is amazed that they haven't cast him out of the church and admonishes them to do it. His concern is not just the sin of the offender, but how the permissive attitude about sin is permeating and changing the church.
How should we apply Paul's counsel to the present issue? I propose the following. First, we cannot use the model in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 as a model because homosexual relationship are becoming publicly accepted. The church will not be risking disrepute because of the growing public acceptance of same-sex couples. Second, we need to learn an attitude of redemption from seeing God at work in each of us so we can minister that redemption to others. Third, we need to recognize that God loves the people in that same-sex relationship as much as He loves you and me and that the same incredible redemptive power is offered to each of us without difference. Step Four is wiring our jaws shut so we won't reveal our degree of astonishment (or, pad the floor so we don't get a concussion when we faith) after seeing the miracles of transformation God works. (But put a quick-release on the wiring so you can start shouting praises to God for what He has done.)
Instead of a threat to the church, I think bringing same-sex couples into the fellowship of the church is an opportunity to minister God's redeeming love to a segment of the population who have typically been scorned by the religious.
Are you also willing to listen to the many who tried in vain with years of tears and prayer to change?
Always, the "conversion" stories of homosexuals who became heterosexuals is promoted. But where and when is there a public presentation of the many unsuccessful attempts to change from homo to hetero? To be convincing, it must be presented fairly.
Elaine,
Please read the book I suggested in a comment above. It is a personal testimony demonstrating the power of God to transform an extremely liberal, lesbian, abortion-supporting, promoter of radical feminism who was a tenured univeristy professor who was transformed by the power of God. Yes, Elaine, God can and does change homosexuals.
Yes, there are lots of stories in the Old Testament. And these stories are told for a reason. One of those stories is about Creation. It says God created the world with purpose and intent–and it was good, and without sin, and without death. It says he created man male and female–the woman was taken from the man, as a "help meet" for him, and the man exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." And the significance is given, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Jesus used this story to explain why marriage, between a man and a woman, is indissoluble.
"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Jesus' approach to those who deviated from God's norm was one of compassion, and of call: "Neither do I condemn thee: Go and sin no more."
Not everyone responded to Jesus' call. He didn't change his teaching to suit those. He didn't try to include all. He didn't run after those who turned away. He didn't worry about why they went away. He didn't appoint study committees. He continued to preach, and to teach, and to call.
Larry,
Why be exclusive? We should think also about how to accommodate a man who wants to come openly with his mistress to Church or a person who likes to come with his several wives or someone with his animal partner. Hermeneutics certainly could be twisted to accommodate any relation in Christ inclusive LOVE.
Of course Philip, you are right. You have identified the baby elephant in the room that will demand more and more food, and grow bigger and bigger. Once nihilistic "inclusiveness" and "love" become Kryptonite for those who demand to be part of the faith community, all boundaries and standards must surrender.
William, do you really think that Paul was only concerned with one man who bedded his father's wife – and how acceptance of that by the church at Corinth would look to the pagan world – or was he talking about a more pervasive moral laxity that the Corinthian church had apparently come to tolerate within the body of Christ in the name of love and grace? Was Jesus, in Matthew 18, only talking about disciplining and expelling those whose immorality or sin would be repugnant even to pagans? That may be a little tougher nut for you to crack than 1 Cor. 5.
Come on, William! You can argue that these texts should not be applied to the contemporary church in its dealings with homosexuality. But at least be honest, and admit that these Bible passages advocate a level of judgmentalism within the community of faith that is quite inconsistent with the "I'm-okay-you're-okay," "Live-and-let-live" moral theology of contemporary liberal Adventism.
I think it is safe to say that Paul would have been at least as outraged by an openly gay couple in the Corinthian church as he was about a man sleeping with his stepmother. Do you disagree? Since when did what most people do or accept become the moral grid through which we filter scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit? You're a big Spirit guy, William. So am I. By what authority do you decide that church moral standards are the product of misinformation and fear rather than careful study of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Call me fearful and misinformed. But I'm actually pretty comfortable and understanding of the mom who doesn't want to tell her son that God may want him to marry Johnny or Mark – or both of them – so they can love and be fulfilled just like Tom and Harry, who cuddle up in the pew ahead of them at church, sleep together at home, and have invited her son to their home for a sleepover with their son. Sometimes fear is a very healthy thing. And just because someone prioritizes information differently from you does not mean they are misinformed.
Do you want a mother or father to tell their adult child that God rejects him because he is homosexual?
If parents and the church he has attended since infancy, also reject him, is this his future: to be an outcast with the two most imporant factors in his life. Great going, Christians!
My attitude is anything but "live and let live." There clearly are times when it is necessary for a church to expel someone. I was just pointing out that the scriptural basis used by many to justify such expulsion doesn't appear to match the question of bringing homosexual couples into the fellowship of the church.
Far too often our actions prevent redemption, usually because we have not experienced it.
Our church has traditionally wanted problems solved before baptism. Remove the wedding
ring, stop smoking and drinking, etc…etc. Think of the changes in the life of the
family of the jailer at the midnight conversion in the prison!
ruthedjones
It's not an issue of baptism, Ruth. At least it shouldn't be. We should be eager to baptize anyone who wants to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The issue is membership status in particular communities of faith.
If someone in my church openly drank alcohol – I'm sure there are many who do – and felt there was nothing wrong with it, I would conclude that they are violating the covenant of membership in my faith community. What to do about it would be up to the congregation. But I certainly think any congregation would be well within its rights to disfellowship someone who wilfully insisted on flaunting the covenants of the faith community, just as any club would expel a member who doesn't want to abide by the rules. The question here is what covenants SDA faith communities can have, and whether they should be taken seriously.
Churches are like Christian clubs. They are not arks of salvation. And they have a compelling interest in protecting the identity toward which God's Spirit is calling them. Too many Adventists feed the notion that the Church has the keys of Heaven and Hell. If we reject someone for membership, we are saying that God rejects them for salvation. This is absolute nonsense that plays into the hands of those who want to guilt the Church into abandoning standards for membership, because after all, who are we to judge what God sees in a person's heart.
Query: Does the fact that many SDA churches have de facto don't-ask-don't-tell policies when it comes to most of the 28 FB's – especially heterosexual sins – deprive them of the moral authority to single out the "sins" of homosexuality as a basis for discipline or exclusion? That to me is the most persuasive argument for accepting homosexual couples into church membership. If churches aren't going to do anything about divorce, extra-marital affairs, or drinking (assuming that the members do not want to acknowledge the wrongfulness of their conduct and repent) how is it that they suddenly become Bible thumpers when it comes to homosexual behavior?
Don't take the foregoing observation as an endorsement of homosexual couples for church membership. Rather, it is an indictment of the church. Fear of being called judgmental and inconsistent has produced a pusillanimous refusal to identify, much less meaningfully deal with, sin in the body of Christ (It yields pious Kryptonite such as: "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone."). Thus, in many, if not most, institutional centers of Adventism, the approach to both orthodoxy and orthopraxy is "dont-ask-don't-tell." And we get to feel self-righteous to boot, because "we are not legalistic or judgmental." I'm still looking for the Biblical authority for that model.
Nathan,
Your example of a church member drinking is a great illustration of an issue central to our discussion: believers claiming their opinion is supported by scripture when it isn't. Believe it or not, the Bible does not condemn the consumption of alcoholic beverages. It condemns drunkenness, yet in Leviticus even gives instructions for buying the best strong drink for consumption during the celebration of one of the annual sabbaths. If we're going to have an informed and accurate discussion we must rely on what the Bible actually says.
I loved your mention of "pious Kryptonite." Too many would-be spiritual Supermen have no idea how weak and filled with fear they have become as a result of not letting God mature His work of redemption in them. If nothing in this world can separate us from the love of God, what reason do I have to be afraid about admitting a homosexual couple to the hospital for sinners?
Is the church a hospital or a hospice? This is not an easy question. We each have notions regarding which of our many failings should be amenable to recovery or remission in this life and which must wait for the life to come. Not to mention notions regarding which of our propensities and behaviors should be considered failings?
Working backwards from the last question, a Bible based faith can find much illumination regarding what is or is not sin (as in all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God). Or we can admit culture or personal preference and experience or other sources of revelation (eg the Holy Spirit or Mohammed or Joseph Smith or the Pope or even EGW?) as arbiters of right and wrong. These are not disjoint – in reality we use some mix of these.
Assuming that we have identified some sins or failings or deficiencies in ourselves and/or in others, the next question becomes remediation or recovery or palliative treatment or simply letting things run their course? Or for highly contagious sins, perhaps quarantine might be necessary even if it does impinge on personal rights?
Each case is different and only the Great Physician knows the proper course of treatment. There is no single prescription that is right in every case. However the Bible is chock-full of case histories of ailiments, prescriptions, treatments and outcomes if we look for them. Still we have the problem of how to apply these case histories in current circumstances.
Regarding outcomes – our ability to foresee the final outcomes is rather limited, albeit case histories do have predictive value. Neverthless we may be able to discern what course a disease is taking. "By their fruits ye shall know them", "By this shall men know that you are my disciples", and many more. If there is only one Lord and Savior, my spiritual journey will over time converge toward Him or diverge from Him. If multiple objects are converging toward a central object they will also be converging towards each other. If over time they are diverging from each other then they cannot all be converging towards the central object. If we are moving apart from each other we are not all moving towards Christ.
Nathan,
Many years ago I was an elder in the largest church in that conference. We (the elders) became aware that a former elder was taking advantage of vulnerable women. One of his victims had shared her story with one of our woman elders (thank God we were the first church in our conference to ordain women as elders). After much discussion and prayer two elders were asked to visit this brother. When we arrived at his home we were thrilled to learn that somone (the Holy Spirit) had already paid him a visit. Before we could say anything our friend said "I know why you are here and I know I need to change". Our job was already done before we started.
A few months later he requested re-baptism (though we had initiated no further action after our visit). So was it even necessary for us confront him? At his baptism he publicly thanked yours truly and the other elder who had visited him (otherwise I would not be free to recite this story). Subsequently he re-married and today he lives a much happier man. Would God that all "elderly" interventions have so positive an outcome but unfortunately many do not.
Some time after these events this same gentleman came to me privately and asked if the elders were aware of someone else's wrong-doing. I said yes we were, and he wanted to know what we were doing about it, to which I replied that we were not ready to intervene.
Whether and when and how to intervene in other people's lives is probably the most diffucult question that pastors and elders have to grapple with, and all to frequently. Just because you do not see any public action does not always mean there is a "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy, nor that nothing is being done.
The interface of the homosexual marriage question of open church membership is a most difficult one, for both the hetero & the homo Christians. In most SDA conservative churches it would not be advisable as it would be most upsetting to both, members at large, and the shunning of the homosexual couples. The schism would be a disaster. It has been interesting to observe that there has not been more blending of black/white membership as one congregation. Maybe the general answer would be for the Leadership to set up churches for those of the homosexual community who wish to worship in peace, where they would not be subject to ridicule & harrassment by the member's who have no sin in their life.
Earl,
Separate churches? Perhaps new congregations could be established that would minister to both the young and the gender variant. Otherwise it sounds like you're suggesting a "separate but equal" approach that harks back to the days of racial segregation in America.
Why do you think schism would be the result of welcoming homosexual couples? Could it be because people haven't learned to love as Jesus does?
William, i don't have the answers. i was thinking of new possibilities of welcoming the homosexual
populace in a way that would be humane for them. As to schism, ask the conservative SDA people
what would be the result of bringing homosexual couples into their church. i noted above of the lack
of general blending of black/white members in the same churches, there is some of course, but it seems there is segregation without law. Why is this?
Earl,
Your mention about racial history reminded me of my childhood days when my family moved from the Seattle area to North Alabama. The year was 1963 and I was eight years-old. The Civil Rights Movement was getting into high gear and racial violence was often in the news. I remember my second grade teacher at the church school north of seattle being almost in tears with fear about my family moving into such an area. While I was not witness to many things reported in the news in that era, I do remember the hatred, mistrust and conflict in considerable detail. Fast-forward to today. I thank God things are very different. Yes, there were schisms in the church. But they healed because people learned to look past their prejudices. God dealt with several who held to their prejudices by laying them in early graves. God overcame and we learned to love without race being an issue. Today the church where I witnessed horrible hatred in the name of obeying God has members of different races and from many countries.
God places different ministries in various churches to make that church effective in their area. Not all challenges are faced in all places. So, while one church may be more focused on ministering to the GLTB community than others, there is a more important issue than their ability to minister to that particular community: being capable of ministering God's redeeming love to whomever they meet because they know the power of God in their own experience. Sadly, the debate about whom to admit into the fellowship of the church is based primarily in the fears arising from the lack of that experience.
The pastor should give a sermon to non-judgmentalism and acceptance in an effort to educate members.
Any member who ridicule or harrass anyone in church is despicable and unworthy of the name "Christian." But with the church's official position about homosexuality, that will not happen except as individual pastors educate their congregation. There are congregations where this would never happen, as they accept all who wish to be part of the congregation. Sound like the early church?
I don't know, Elaine. I've been in a lot of SDA churches where there were homosexual members. I never saw ridicule or harrassment. In fact, when I was a child, a beloved gay gentleman in our church used to come over to our home Friday night and play the piano while we sang. It was wonderful. He often taught the Sabbath School lesson at church. I think you are setting up a straw man to make yourself feel morally superior. There is no reason why a belief that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will and law should lead to harrassment and ridicule. You simply need to fallaciously argue that it does in order to make homonormalization a moral mandate for the Church.
Obviously, you haven't been to the churches I have for the past 40 years, because the only time I can remember hearing judgmentalism from the pulpit was when I visited a very small church in northern Idaho about 8 or 9 years ago. Yes, it was pretty bad – "Burn your CD's; smash your computers; Don't watch "The passion of the Christ;" Mel Gibson is an agent of the Pope, etc., etc." I remember it because it was so embarassingly anachronistic it was almost laughable. But for the most part, I've heard nothing but love, forgiveness and acceptance from Adventist pulpits for the past 40 years.
Your statement, Elaine, that pastors should educate their members, begs the question. Are you suggesting that pastors should defy their church employer and advocate normalization of same sex relationships? What duty of loyalty would you concede that pastors owe to their employer's values? Do you think members are sheep who will follow their pastor? What gives the pastor superior insight and wisdom about such matters that the congregation should defer their values to him? Elaine, I thought you believed that people should think for themselves. Or is that only if their thinking follows the same intellectual ruts as yours?
It is interesting to note that when sins worthy of death are listed in Romans 0ne that gossip is
listed in the middle of them. That is a terrible list, but still Romans 5:12 tells us that Jesus had
to die because Grandpa Adam ate part of the apple given to him by Grandma Eve!
Nate, it was earl who was so very concerned about what might happen for gays attended church.
Pastors are there to teach, preach, and education is included. If the members are instructed, from scripture, that judgmentalism of whoever is not the Christian's attitude, that needn't mention any particular group, but what the Christian's attitude should be for everyone. Surely, you agree with that, don't you? How is that defying his employer? It has much Scripture in support.
If pastors have preached very strongly against women's ordination, surely, there should be no problem preaching that we are NOT to judge whose sin is the worst, but that we are all sinners, and all are in church to receive instruction and blessing.
I guess I have lived and worshipped in a cloistered environment, Elaine. I never heard any pastors preach against womens' ordination except Doug Batchelor. And I don't understand why you would expect, because some pastors judge women not qualified for ordination, that we should therefore refrain from identifying sinful behavior as such. That seems like a non sequitur to me. You perhaps meant to say that those who support womens' ordination should support gay marriage in the Church. That would make more sense. You say we are all sinners. True, but I don't know that many of us are complacent about, or indifferent to our "sin," or expect that others in our faith community should accept our sinful behavior as "just the way I am." Do you see the difference?
You are surely correct that general sermons about being non-judgmental would have solid grounding in scripture. But I don't think it would lead to changed attitudes or behaviors unless there were a lot of workshops with applications. Would the pastor preach about anything besides judgmentalism? How about obedience? How about Christian disciplines? How about purity, and holy living?
You see, non-judgmentalism is but one of many Christian virtues. The same Christ who said do not judge also gave us Matthew 18 instructions about expelling defiant members from the church. The same Paul who talked about grace, love, and salvation by faith also urged the church to protect its boundaries from immorality. Churches and faith communities cannot possibly organize and maintain their identity without setting boundaries. And that necessitates judgment.
So we are back to the question of whether it is legitimate for a faith community to judge homosexual behavior as injurious to its witness, and contrary to God's will for it. Personally, I think it is a very long stretch to go from neutralizing Bible passages that condemn homosexuality as immoral to judging as evil and immoral those who read the Bible differently and believe that the Church should uphold heterosexual norms. Isn't that what you're doing, Elaine, if you suggest that Christians who believe homosexual behavior is evil are despicable and unworthy of the name "Christian." After all, who are you to judge others?
Wouldn't it be the most non-judgmental thing all around for heterosexuals, who want churches that view homosexual relationships as morally equal to heterosexual relationships, to go and form their own inclusive faith communities, assuming they are a distinct minority of their church membership? Why should a small minority try and force their moral views on the majority? I'm not clear as to why a tiny minority of members, who feel God is calling them to accept behaviors that other members feel are sinful, have the right to judge others in the faith community who experience God's call differently. Do you have an answer to that, Elaine?
The command of Jesus to not judge others is to not condemn others for their sins because sin is in each of us. He is not telling us to avoid recognizing what sin is in a person because that is often the key to knowing how to minister God's love to them. Condemning creates offense and prevents sharing God's love.
Does anyone know how to be non-judgemental? No one ever seems able to figure out what that is because the objective of those who call for us to not judge is to silence criticism of whatever behavior or action a purpose is pursuing that is offensive to those who try to live by spiritual principles. It is part of a larger effort to eliminate all faith in God.
The debate about being non-judgemental is one Christians cannot win because Satan has infused so many noble-sounding arguments into modern society. So our challenge as Christians is to avoid that debate and instead show the love of God to those who hate Him, whether or not they know the basis of their hatred. This is particularly difficult for those whose faith is based in conceptual absolutes such as sin and righteousness because our working definitions of them are typically described not as principles but specific behaviors. This diverts our attention to specific behaviors instead of the overwhelming love and forgiveness that Jesus offers us. So our challenge is to look past the behaviors and share from our experience of being drawn to God so they can be redeemed.
Nathan, praise God for men like Doug Batchelor–and others like him. Yes, there are others–howbeit few. There are just not enough pastors these days preaching the Gospel from the Word of God; too many are preaching from other books and spreading feel-good theories…watering down the truth of God's law. May Christ return soon and end this madness.
Nathan, your positions would be the ideal, if, they had been in evidence from the SDA church's beginning. Here in 2013, some of us desire that all sinners who wish, are able to worship together in harmony and peace. However it will not happen when homosexual couples are brought into contact with the conservative SDA congregations. "Dyed in the wool" SDA conservatives can not (will not) change their stripes. A pastor in Hollywood was recently fired for his liberal approach to go out to the"highways & byways" and bring them in. The church hierarchy will not tolerate it. The answer maybe (if the GC would sponsor it) as mentioned above, those who have a burden & calling for this role, would be willing to start new churches with all comers welcome.
Did anyone see the Barbara Walters program some time back about a family who seemed to want their son to be gay? They didn't seem to care and wanted their son to get the hormone shot to become a shemale but the doctors refused untill he was old enough to make his own decision. This was because it was irreversable if given.
Just wondering if anyone else saw the program. I do not remember just when it was but it's probably in archives somewhere.
It seems to me this is becoming more and more acceptable in the USA. Some countries forbid all this so I suppose those who choose this life style just keep quiet about it.
Is it all the work of satan to destroy mankind??? Should christians of all faiths accept this practice?
Seems to me this is what it all boils down to.
Those who think that somehow sexual orientation is determined and fixed are, IMHO, kidding themselves with wishful, speculative thinking. Our aversions and attractions to most things are highly conditioned. Seafood and pork make me nasuseous. That's because I grew up conditioned to believe that those foods were disease-ridden, unclean, and sinful. Taboos would not be necessary if humans were by natural inclination generally averse to what is proscribed by the taboo.
I remember in the '80's how my gay friends kidded: "If you try it you'll never go back." They were kidding me, but they were serious. They told me that they knew lots of straights who became gays, once they opened themselves to experiment, and the mental and emotional barriers were removed. I don't know what studies have been done to verify or disprove my anecdotal evidence, but it intuitively makes sense. I think sexual identity exists along a spectrum, and is much more fragile and malleable than our taboos would have us believe.
Marriage and family – with a mother and father – have throughout human history been the fundamental unit sustaining the human race and passing on values such as respect, honor, faith, integrity, industriousness, fidelity, generosity, gratitude. The family and marriage have been badly weakened by liberal social policies, technological "advances," and medical science. Of course we know that single parent homes can be just as effective in some cases in doing this job. But statistically, we know that kids need a mother and father. They also need biological identities, and connection with their past that will be unlikely when children become consumer items specially manufactured for same sex couples. In the rush to normalize homosexuality, we don't hear much about the children, do we? Hmmm…
We have no idea what the unintended consequences of changing the rules will be, just as Adam and Eve had no idea what the unintended consequences of their choice to break the rules would be. If God had given us the ability to see the future, it would have undermined our capacity for trusting obedience. We know quite clearly what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. We also know what non-religious cultures have thought about it. Whether those rules should apply today is of course the question on the table. And it is always a fair and reasonable question. But it is a question that needs to be answered before insisting that the church should declare by behavior and/or policy that homosexual relationships are morally equal to heterosexual relationships.
I think it is hard to argue that the church does not have a responsibility to preserve and protect family values, and the integrity of this institution that is so vital to faith and culture. Where homonormalization has taken place in the world, we see a correlative laxity in other moral values; we see the church held in contempt; we see birth rates and marriage rates plummeting. We see indifference to the welfare of future generations, and attenuation of a sense of responsibility to those who have gone before. Shouldn't these realities be sobering to the Church, and give it pause before it plunges after culture into the shark infested waters and swiftly moving currents of militantly secular culture? Or can we just love and tolerate sin out of existence by normalizing it so that we do not need to have any church standards?
We can infer from the writings of Ellen White that neither homosexual orientation nor homosexual practice should necessarily preclude someone from membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. See https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2010/04/members-who-smoke.
Unless a church is ready to interrogate all members about their bedroom and close friendships are, of both sexes, it should not be a problem if church is where people go to worship and all who come are assumed they wish to worship also. Just as those Catholics who go privately, or in a congregation to worship, participate in the mass, there are no questions. Just assumed and accepted that they are there only to worship. Why should ANYONE have a problem with someone who wishes to worship in his church?? Should he present ID? club memberships and affiliations? Driver's license?
If persons are living in overt sin such as same sex relationships, no matter how committed, Scripture has condemned such cohabitation. Thus such persons unequivocally should not be admitted as members. To be welcomed of course but not as members. Scripture has made it clear although modern man so often wishes to substitute his judgment for a thus saith the Lord.
Maranatha
This is an expression never used in the Bible, so would you please explain what are "overt" sins as compared to what other kinds of sins? Are there "covert" and "overt" sins we should recognize?
It would seem that gossiping and judgementalism are quite overt. While most are quite covert, few know about: pride, gluttony, lying, adultery, stealing. addiction, Sabbath breaking, are just some of the sins that may be hidden.
Why do we keep going over this ground, Elaine? Those who gossip, cheat, and beat their wives don't believe that those things are perfectly acceptable behaviors. If confronted and convicted, they will admit that their behavior is wrong. They are ashamed of their behavior. Even those who cheat on their spouses profess belief in marital fidelity. They just think their situation is different. Gays, on the other hand, think their relationships are morally equal to heterosexual relationships, and you are insisting that the Church should agree.
I think you know when Truth Seeker speaks of overt behavior, he is talking about behavior which is done openly and without shame. Why do you pretend there is no difference between overt and covert sin?
You ask why anyone would have a problem with someone who wants to worship in his church. That's not the issue. A church is more than a building that people go to once a week to worship. It is a community of believers who have made vows and commitments to one another and to God. The question posed here is whether GLTBs in a committed relationship, who wish to be members of a faith community, have a right to force that community to change its covenants and commitments. Frankly, I'm not sure why it should matter whether they are in a committed relationship though. From your perspective, if a gay guy was frequenting gay bars, propositioning other men in the church, and promoting his lifestyle, it should make no difference. We should be perfectly willing to nonjudgmentally welcome him into the faith community, right?
From my perspective, I don't think this should be a big deal. What about a member who openly drinks alcohol, sees nothing wrong with it, and believes the church's position on alcohol is Biblically untenable? Would it be appropriate and reasonable for a faith community that has covenanted to absolutely abstain from alcoholic beverages to deny that individual membership in their faith community? I say, "Absolutely, without question!" Why shouldn't a church be able to set standards? Should I berate MENSA for being judgmental because I can't or don't want to meet its standards for membership?
Isn't it ironic that the number one complaint about the Church, leveled by those who are the most judgmental toward the Church, is that the Church is too judgmental?
Why not just start your own SDA fellowship, Elaine, and let it be known that you welcome LGBT Christians – and non-Christians for that matter – with open arms? Come one-come all. Why not actually demonstrate by action your commitment to a live-and-let-live Christian fellowship instead of trying to change the identity of those who see things differently from you? Churches are voluntary, Elaine. And they are supported by their members. You left the Church probably long before LGBT issues made it on your radar screen. Do you miss it so much that you are now fighting from outside to perfect it so that it will be safe to save and safe for you to return?
What typically sidetracks any discussion about standards in the church is performance evaluation and enforcement where there are no effective ministries helping people overcome. There are times when it is necessary for a church to expel a member. But show me a church considering such an action and you are most likely looking at a church where the ministry of redemption is based far more on theory than experience and where there is far more evaluation of the "performance" of a person than any of the "ministries" in the church.
Are you saying that there are some people you cannot comfortably worship with because of their sins?
Is Christ your model? When did he ever condemn the sins of which you condemn?
I'm not sure I understand, Elaine, why you insist on confining your perspective to the worship service. As I said before, church is not just, or primarily, about a worship service. I wouldn't be uncomfortable sitting in an SDA worship service with a pedophile, a serial adulterer, or a Muslim. That is a far different issue from including such individuals as members of my faith community, when they insist that their behavior and beliefs are perfectly consistent with the faith walk idealized by my community, and when tell me that they have no desire or intention to change their behavior. Would you not agree?
Matthew 18: 15-17 quite clearly provides a model for the Christian church which encourages condemnation and expulsion of those who persist in wilfull transgressive behavior. Now I know that, in your heart of hearts, Elaine, you don't believe Jesus actually said those words. You think they were simply put in His mouth by legalistic "Adventists" in the early Christian churches who were more interested in purging and purifying than in loving and forgiving. But having just offered Christ as an example for Christians, isn't it a bit awkward for you to now discount the relevancy of the Matt: 18 counsel attributed to Jesus?
Maybe this is all hypothetical? How many gays have applied for membership in the SDA church? It may be that most of those gays were born and baptized into the church before puberty, as is often the practice. Should they then be asked to leave the church?
Do you have any knowledge of gays requesting membership in the SDA church? Or, is this worrying about what MIGHT happen?
Elaine,
Probably very few. Some of the opinions I've seen expressed make it pretty unlikely any visit will last very long or give them reason to return.
Why would a GLTB person come to church? The attitudes in the GLTB community are typically so radically anti-spiritual that their presence in a church other than the Metropolitan Community Church, which exists primarily to affirm the GLTB lifestyle, is basically for one of two reason: 1) looking for opportunity to mock or find reason to publicly oppose a particular church, or 2) they see God offering some possibility of solving the terrible conflicts and insecurities that are at the foundation of the GLTB lifestyle. Unfortunately the number of churches where people know God well enough to minister redemption to the GLTB community are few and far between.
Are you suggesting, Elaine that the practical, real life implications of a feel-good theory – i.e., how is it going to work out in reality – are unimportant? This is a huge difference between liberal and conservative approaches to policy. Liberals ask: "How does it make me feel?" Conservatives ask: "How does it work?"
Today's long-awaited SCOTUS rulings will eventually affect the Christian church, for those that still do not recognize the legitimacy and qualification necessary to be Christian. For Christianity, which began with a message of equality for all this message should ring loud and clear: In Christ there are no second-class citizens. It is not sin to be different. Christians were different from Roman pagans and Jews, but love conquers all. If the church can not accept and love all who wish to remain part of the only religious family they have known, who is there to condemn and deny God's love?
It may not be a sin to be different, but that's not a Bible / Christian issue. The Bible / Christian issue is; if you are "born again" do you remain the same? Because the Bible also says that "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV) Christianity is about the new life "in Christ" which is actually of the life of God in the person. Irregardless of SCOTUS rulings, and the enactments of men for whatevere their reasonings, these Bible / Christian issues will always be relevant, vital, and essential.
Again Elaine, for most Christians, you are arguing a straw man. I have never suggested that sexual orientation or behavior has anything to do with the ability to be a follower of Christ. There are many different Christian communities of faith. Suppose my community convenants with one another to have daily Bible study and prayer, and one of the members suddenly announces that she is going on strike. She has no intention of complying with our stupid legalistic rules. She doesn't need Bible study and prayer to be a Christian, much less a daily dose. By what moral or Biblical authority would you deprive my faith community of the freedom to discriminate in membership selection gainst folks whose faith seems to be "maturing" beyond our own? It is up to God to judge those who choose other faith walks and fellowships. But don't both Paul and Jesus make it pretty clear that each faith community has not only a right, but a responsibility to establish and uphold standards for itself?
How the Supreme Court ruling will affect Christian churches is difficult to say. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the Supreme Court ruling sends a message that in Christ there are no second class citizens. The Bible sent that message long ago. What the Bible does not say is that all citizens are in Christ. Nor does it suggest that all who profess faith in Christ should be welcomed into any Christian fellowship. After all, even Christ only had 12 in His immediate faith community. Quite clearly, either He drew boundaries, or He allowed His disciples to create a degree of exclusivity, though we don't know just how those boundaries were established.
In the end, you are right. "Love conquers all." But that trope can mean whatever you want it to mean. Does love therefore tolerate all? Does love erode moral distinctions? If so, love equals nihilsim. As I read the Bible, love only conquers through the resurrection. When we see what happened when Christ emptied Himself for us, we too can be free to abandon what we could otherwise rightfully claim as our entitlement. When one has to stand on a bully pulpit and hurl accusations and condemnation in order to send the message that love conquers all, I wonder how effective or credible the messenger will be.
Nathan,
The Supreme Court rulings yesterday on gay marriage have removed the restraints on a radical minority to drive the enactment of laws and court rulings defining the free exercise of religion as discriminatory and establishing criminal penalties for that free exercise. This sets the stage for major challenges to the religious who must decide whether they will run afoul of such laws, find the Holy Spirit's guidance for learning how to continue practicing their faith and spreading the Gospel while under attack, or just surrender their faith.
The universal law of Christ love (LOVE IS GOD GIVEN), is not coercion, it is freedom to choose. Is your sin, and mine, "HIGH LIGHTED in NEON", for all to see? We are all unworthy of our ALL LOVING CREATOR, God knows this, and He gave us HIS "NEW COVENANT", which removes the stain of sin for each & EVERY ONE of His Creation. That which God ordained, let no one put asunder.
Please offer some examples are unforeseen problems that religious might "run afoul of such laws"?
This does not force anyone's conscience with the the court's decisions and there is nothing in the rulings that affect churches, unless you are concerned about what might be. For everyone not gay, life will go on as before, and no one is asked to give up his principles anymore than seeing people working on Sabbath has no affect on Sabbath observers.
Elaine, the conversation here has been very helpful, but please recognize that if 'alternative legal relationships' are fully up held under civil or human rights protections, a church or school or hospital must not discriminate even though it might be said institution's religious belief not to hire or marry those of alternative relationships.
Those who work on Sabbath aren't allowed to join the Adventist Church. So too should it be with GLTB and others who openly sin and don't toe the line in terms of Christian standards. After all, orientation can be used as an excuse for just about anything. All sinners, including GLBT, must repent and turn from their ways, just like everybody else, by faith in Christ Jesus. Governments and religious institutions or individuals who encourage and support sexual immorality and disobedience to God will have to face the consequences and be held accountable for their actions in the day of judgement.
Those who work on Sabbath aren't allowed to join the Adventist Church. So too should it be with GLTB and others who openly sin and don't toe the line in terms of Christian standards. After all, orientation can be used as an excuse for just about anything. All sinners, including GLBT, must repent and turn from their ways, just like everybody else, by faith in Christ Jesus. Governments and religious institutions or individuals who encourage and support sexual immorality and disobedience to God will have to face the consequences and be held accountable for their actions in the day of judgement.
It is one thing to promote standards but it is quite another to minister redemption. So I doubt seriously you will ever have to face the issue because the strict attitude you have expressed will keep GLBT persons from wanting to join your congregation. It will keep a lot of other sinners from wanting to join, too.
It is usually an interesting endeavor to attempt to justify, codify or defend our membership norms. May I suggest a different model and ask Lawrence to jump in as well.
I would suggest that the membership model is sadly very flawed in its very core set of values. It acts more like a club, with its rules and regulations, expolsion factors, dues and gatekeepers. Funny thing, but i just can't find that model in scripture.
Instead what I see in scripture is a group of disciples following the master, who wish to be held accountable for their ministry and life behaviors by a specific group of people whom they trust and believe are also being vulnerable and accountable. The question is not what do I think about you, or what has the group voted about your behavior, the issue is pastoral, what is the Spirit saying to you in your faith walk. Last time I checked the Holy Spirit was doing a far better job of convicting, than any person I ever met. And contrary to public opinion, the church is not the "junior Holy Spirit!"
Wouldn't it be far more helpful if the discussion was framed around simply reaching out to anyone and everyone, asking about their faith journey and seeking to share [not tell] what God is doing in our life. Yes, I know some will suggest this is post modern relativism. But with all do respect, I would simply ask you to show me from scripture where the membership model as we so often practice it is specifically taught. Instead even the man that Paul told them in 1 Cor not to have anything to do with, in 2 Cor he suggests they went too far. His issue is pastoral not purity! Last time I checked we were all sinners, NONE exluded. So maybe we should quit looking down from our "pretended" high throne, our back yard club, and quit playing games like kids, and start just being the body of Christ!
Am I being to idealistic?
The Pope's answer to this and similar questions should be applauded. When asked about homosexuals, he answered: "Who am I to judge? God loves everyone."
He also said that the church had been too absorbed with minor problems. That should be the SDA church position.
Elaine Nelson: "The Pope's answer to this and similar questions should be applauded. When asked about homosexuals, he answered: "Who am I to judge? God loves everyone."
———-
God loves everyone – right? That would include child molesters – right? Would the pope then consider the abuse of children by priests (or by anyone for that mater) a minor problem too?
Anyone that places child molesters in the same category as homosexuals is sorely lacking in education and knowledge. This belief reflects the world of the 19th century and the one who makes such inappropriate and unlearned statements is evidence that one has not learned anything new in the past 50-60 years. Clue: The sun does not revolve around the earth; it is not sinning to wear clothes made of cotton and polyester, the test for marital infidelity is not found in the dust of the tabernacle mixed with water for the accused wife to drink, and doing no work on the tenth day of the seventh month which is a permanent statute must be obeyed.
When it comes to other forms of immorality (adultery, fornication, lust, self-abuse) do you take the same "method" of interpretation?
There is only ONE reason the sin of homosexuality is even up for debate – those of unconsecrated hearts within the church have never learned to have the temporal bend to the spiritual in their own lives-rather it is the spiritual bending to the temporal.
Scripture is chrystal clear on immorality-all immorality.
What if there were members of the LGBT community who were not in a commited relationship and said members wanted to be accepted into the Seventh-day Adventist church?
Really interesting discussion everyone. I think part of our difficulty in ministering to the gay and lesbian is the fact that we know many in this group were indeed born with homosexual gender identity disorder. This would mean we have to be very sensitive to the challenges this brings these individuals. And many of us do not want to "be sensitive" but "speak the truth." Can we not do both?
Complicating this issue is also the fact that some in these dear people have been molested as children by same sex offenders. At this critical time in development a child can be thus sexualized and conditioned in same sex attraction.
To further complicate the matter, some individuals from either of the two groups above can become sexual offenders—arsenokoitai in Paul’s day.
Paul uses two specific terms when he condemns homosexual sin. We will miss the point if we fail to understand his specific terms. In First Corinthians Six Paul refers to malakoi and arsenokoitai . The first term malakoi is unfortunately is translated “effeminate,” which is very misleading, and “abusers of themselves with men” is not nearly as specific as the original.
The word malakoi, is applied in the classic writers to the Catamites-(Ovide’s Fasti book four line 342) or boys for sexual use and/or to be prostituted to others. Probably molested as children themselves, in my opinion. This was the ‘classical’ “Man-boy love association” common among the Greeks, particularly at Corinth. Most of these boys were groomed for this use from early childhood. Paul’s term arsenokoitai are the classical ‘sodomites’ or those who abuse men and/or boys. It is important to note that Paul in 1 Tim. 1:10 associates this term arsenokotia with “man stealer” andrapodis — ( ρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς.)
I think we can see that this issue is just as complex Today as it was 2000 years ago.
It is important to note that in Paul’s list in 1 Cor. 6 He includes basically every category of sin known to man. His point continues to be that “all have sinned can come short of the glory of God.”
We all must be saved by God’s grace or we will not be saved.
It's not help to understand our mutual need of Grace when we try to “normalize” everything!
It is the local congregation's decision who will be a member. If a congregation welcomes for membership one of these individuals, who is to invalidate their decision if they, and they alone can decide?
There is a reason our church is a world wide movement as prophecy predicted. It is sad that some decissions concerning a current study have been thwarted by a few who disregard unity in the church and feel it is thier right alone to decide……
God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has invested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.—Testimonies for the Church 9:260, 261 (1909).
I see that "All" misses the point. Ellen was addressing the problem that too much power was concentrated in the hands of very few individuals–"kingly power" was the issue. The current issue is not that "a few" see the need for change but whole unions and conferences. This is called local democracy. If those currently who wish to exercise "kingly power" want to attempt to hold back progress in different parts of the church, well they can try, but it is not working.
The statement that church is for sinners is a loosely used term but with good intention of course. I use it myself. This however isn't exactly what the church is. The Church is a gathering or assembly of believers – a calling out of believers in Christ – with belief playing an active role in how we define ourselves as a church. GBLT therefore cannot join as members unless they are in one accord with our fundamental beliefs which does not include certain sexual behaviour and practice as a part what constitutes virtuous Christian living – this being based on what the bible teaches of course.
Mr. 22 can certainly express his personal opinion that GBLT individuals "cannot join as members unless they are in one accord with our fundamental beliefs." Well, I'm sorry to be the one to tell Mr. 22 that local congregations make their own determinations about who can join and who can not. Fortunately, there are a number of Adventist congregations who do not have the kind of retrogressive attitudes exhibited by Mr. 22 and certain other church "authorities." These congregations hold to other views about the nature of the moral responsibilities of a local church.
What Dr Taylor should remember is that the victory currently being celebrated by the liberals in some quarters of the church are the areas that are waning in membership, growth and adherence to our fundamental beliefs – hence the compromise – in a desperate attempt to turn the tide – which has been substituted for repentance. The socio-political climate in these quarters of Adventism is what is driving the engine. They deem this as victory – a victory against the Church – I might add, in favour of secualar government policy and moods.
In the First World, this is a victory for the Adventist Church of the future not against the Adventist church of the future. As for the Adventist Church of the Third World, they have the freedom to do anything they wish, just don't make that normative for all of Adventism.
If they cain't say yea to "our" fundamental beliefs, they ain't welcome. We are a closed society. We will not be sullied by the dirty, the bums, the needy, the fearful, the distressed, the homo sexuals, the unloved, the sinners with more terrible sins than ours. No Sir re Bob, you ain't welcome, now git!!.
Dear Mr Calahan
The Church is the body of Christ. It is the calling out or gathering of 'believers' which would include some fundemental beliefs I would say. These fundamental beliefs should be in harmony with the Bible. Somewhere in the gospel there is a call for repentance and belief in the word of God. Oh, but I again forget that there are some so-called Adventists who don't believe that the word of God is the word of God. The church isn't a free for all, just because salvation is free.
i believe one Fundamental Belief is neccessary, for the church of Jesus Christ, as follows: Thou shall believe and love the Lord Jesus Christ, your God, with your heart, soul, and might, and all that is within you, and your neighbors with the same power.
If you wish to persaude one seeking a new church, you would be wise not to trot out your 28 FB's. i pity those who do not believe the church is not a free for ALL.