Progressive Adventism

201 Responses to “For the Bible Tells Me So: Biblical Literalism and Homosexuality”

1. Glenn Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 9:13 am

   Thanks for this well reasoned yet passionate essay. You put into words much of my thinking–and frustration–over the past year or two.

   I’m convinced that many people who implore us to “take whatever the Bible says literally—if the Bible says it, that’s good enough for me” haven’t actually read the Bible. And ironically, I think it is THAT attitude that is the most contempious of the spirit of Christianity. The God I believe in wants us to use our heads and our hearts.

2. perpetualstudent Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 9:41 am

   According to Ezekiel 16:49, the sin of Sodom has nothing to do homosexiality. The text is much more concerned about how we treat the poor and helpless among us. A really good book about Paul’s writings is In Search of Paul by John Crossan. The book discusses much of Roman culture during Paul’s day and how he subverted it in his preaching and writing. One of the chapters in the book, discusses Roman attitudes about sex. Sex (especially between men) was used as a form of domination. Pedophilia and rape were very common and accepted in Roman culture.

3. Kris Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 11:37 am

   I am wondering what research you point to that indicates a genetic link to homosexuality. In what I have read about some similar research, this link is not as definitive as many people speak about it to be.
   If you read Chad Thompson’s book “Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would”, his description of the recent research point to the understanding that the genetic components when combined with our culture’s gender roles sometimes leads to homosexuality.

4. Daneen Akers Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pm

   The most study I’ve read about points to birth order and a tendency towards homosexuality. The more male children a mother has had, the higher liklihood her later children will be gay. Here’s a reader-friendly version:

   http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob1.asp

   And here’s an abstract:
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10763427&dopt=Abstract

   Another fascinating study that the film dealt with had to do with twin studies–there is a much higher liklihood that if one identical twin is gay that the other one will be also, even if they weren’t raised in the same home.

5. Aubyn Fulton Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

   Thanks for sharing this Daneen. I particularly agree with your point that we have to engage thoughtful people in honest conversation about important, often controversial subjects if we want to keep them involved in our community. That kind of conversation requires those who are afraid of change to at least tolerate different views, but it also requires those interested in change to be willing to put in the time and work and commitment to hang in there with the community. Your post is an excellent example of the latter and I am glad you are not giving up on us.

   I think you are also right that the conversation about homosexuality is often a screen for deeper fears and misunderstandings about Biblical Literalism. Fundamentalist Christianity, in its various forms and flavors, has always confused interpreting the Bible literally, with taking the Bible seriously. Interestingly, literal interpretations of the Bible, which most often distort and trivialize it, function to protect us from more radical interpretations that risks asking even more from us. The problem is not that moving beyond literalism risks weakening the role of the Bible or its call on us, but that, as you suggest, we might really have to respond to the revolutionary call of the gospel.

6. Bonnie Dwyer Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

   There are conversations about homosexuality in Adventism taking place. One occurred a year ago in Ontario, California and it was the basis for several articles in Spectrum and of a soon-to-be-published book. Thank you, Daneen, for starting another conversation on this important topic. The need for conversation lies at the individual as well as the corporate level. Because we, as members, are the church, and we individually need to instinctively love each other as Jesus does–without prejudice or judgment.

7. Glenn Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

   I think the issue of homosexuality’s genetic connections are somewhat besides the point. The fact is that homosexuality is a condition, a reality that has persisted across time and throughout most every culture. Whether it is entirely genetic or is formed in the early years of development is a bit of a red herring. The issue is, is there a basis for condemning the practice and exclusing homosexual believers from the blessings of Christian community.

   I don’t believe there is. And I think the burden of proof is on the Christian community to explain why such an exclusion or stigma is warranted. And before the answer is given that “the Bible says”, please note the Biblical expectations surrounding marriage and slavery, as has already been documented here.

   The question is, is homosexual behavior or relationships inherently immoral? Again, I find great difficulty in seeing how it is.

8. Bob Rigsby Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

   Hi Daneen: Thanks for this contribution

   You must know Carrol Grady — who is wonderful to converse with….

   That film festival is of course known for other movies this year: the one about the rape of the 12 year old girl (name of which I have forgotten) and Zoo: about sex between man and horse!. Now I hope we are all disgusted and mortified and all the rest by this sort of thing, but you — and we — realize that this is about the reaction of many to the subject of human homosexuality!

   Well, many countless conversations with wonderful people like Carrol, and some family, and personal friends, has modified and “informed” and molded my thinking! I’d like to know what you think of two strands of thought — ways of processing this for myself!

   First, is the notion of what might be called “the created order”! Not to argue, but do you think homosexuality was IN Gods created order? We may and can say we don’t have a precise and total connection TO that created order (because of the “fall”) but certainly every time we make some kind of call to an action or attitude about something, in many ways we are appealing TO how we think it really is — maybe how God created us — how it was in the beginning (not to get in to a discussion of evolution here!!) and so on! If God DID create homosexuality as part of His creation, and therefore (one might assume) part of His “will” what evidence might we have of that??

   Second, it has been enormously helpful to me to think in terms of our (that’s you and me) “Waiting for Conviction” on matters X and Y and Z. That is, I don’t know of any thinking Christian who believes he has the “FINAL” answer on matters here on earth that concern us. But he does the best he can in the moment! And on matters of ultimate understanding, he “Waits for Conviction”! This seems a most reasonable personal course of action, but if true, it must also apply to OTHERS! So, in this case, I find comfort (and freedom from need to condemn those who disagree with me!) in recognizing that others too must be given the time and leeway and loving environment in which they too can “wait for conviction” on matters like! Homosexuality! This seems (tell me if you think I’m wrong) to allow me the freedom to disagree with another’s convictions or leanings (eg Homosexuality — but really, almost ANYTHING!) while at the same time embrace them as on the same journey that I am. My convictions are simply different (at this time) than are theirs….

   Any thoughts???

9. Elaine Nelson Says:
   February 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

   Since there is no absolutely definitive answer to why some people are homosexual, wouldn’t it be best to remember Paul’s words that in Jesus there are no slaves or free, male or female or Gentile or Jew. Certainly, the last two are ordained by our birth, long before our birth. For those who live in earlier times, slavery was also a condition one was born into, but had the possibility of becoming free, at some time.

   Years ago birth deformities were also considered cursed by God (see Leviticus for those excluded from the temple services).There was also a common belief in demons and that sickness and disease was caused by the individual’s sin.

   Have we not moved beyond the literal descriptions offered in the Bible, now that we have better understanding of sickness and disease? Perhaps we are still at that stage in identifying other conditions, as recent medical studies have shown. How can we cling to the thinking of people thousands of years ago for our concept of conditions that were concluded at that time?

   Until the “jury is in” and we have absolute certainty of why some people are homosexual, just as why some unexplained birth anomalies occur, we should, in Christian charity, never exclude those whom God hath created–in his own image. If that includes me, how can that not include everyone else?

10. Jake Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    I’m with Glenn that the genetic makeup or disposition is ultimately irrelevant. We have to work with what we have.

    Do you know the story of Abby and Brittany Hensel? They’re conjoined twins who have separate upper bodies but the same lower body. Here’s a link to Wikipedia’s entry on them, and a video feature on them.

    I bring them up because they raise some fascinating questions on identity and sexuality. It’s useless to debate how they got to be this way. The question is how we should treat them, and how they should live their lives. They have two heads, hence minds and individualities, but only one sexual/reproductive organ. What would it mean for them to be intimate with someone else or get married or have sex or masturbate or simply be romantically interested in someone.

    A whole new set of rules and norms get applied in this case.

    The Bible assumes certain things as normative…but what happens when those assumptions need to be challenged and changed with advances in human understanding and changes in human circumstances? Ethics has to adjust.

    So, Bob, even if the created order (even if we’re able to know it) was one thing, it can’t be normative, but merely informative and possibly suggestive.

    Am I making sense?

11. Elaine Nelson Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    One of the oldest carefuly recorded are the Siamese twins (they were really Siamese) who lived in one of the Carolinas. They married, had children, and died within a few hours of each other. It is not so rare today for conjoined twins to be surgically separated, but it depends on the limitations of their essential organs.

12. Hugo Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    I believe the homosexuality conversation won’t really become a widely-discussed hot-button in Adventism for another ten years (though Spectrum has begun to draw attention to it in recent years). The Adventist Church always seems a couple of years behind trends in the evangelical world, and another few more years behind trends in the mailine Protestant world (where the debate is presently on the table).

    Of course, even when the issue erupts on the Adventist spotlight, will it make an impact? Consider the fact that decades ater the evangelical world came to terms with women’s ordination, the Adventist Church in the US is still divided over the question. (Forget the decidedly conservative Adentist third world for that matter). Apparently, even when Adventists begin to debate an issue, odds are they are bound to continue to debate it for the next quarter-century at least. The Annual Council’s position statement on homosexuality in 1999 is bound to stand well into the 21st century, with little opposition from any world division.

    As for the substance of the homosexual controversy itself, Adventists must realize that a legitimate debate exists as to how Christians should apply certain scriptures. Nevertheless, I believe the evidence favors the traditional Christian moral teaching.

    Of course, as a Catholic, I believe that a living interprative authority exists that is capable of clarifying scriptural ambiguities (be they related to polygamy, homosexuality, etc.). Anglican defections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy reflect a growing desire for that sort of doctrinal solidity. The embrace of what some consider a “detesable act” (following Leviticus) on the basis of certain scriptural ambiguites undercuts the confidene of some in the “perspecuity of scripture “–an asusmption vital to the Reformation’s doctrine of “sola scriptura.” As the Catholic Church increasingly stands alone in its opposition to homosexual lifestyles, conservative Adventism may find itself fighting beside an unlikely ally.

13. Bob Rigsby Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    Jake:
    You are making very good sense…. And seems maybe I’m wrestling with the same sorts of questions that you are…. And realize, I do NOT have the answers….

    But when I say “the created order” I don’t imagine that any of us think that it was in God’s “plan” (how can we even know THAT???) that people are born as conjoined twins… (does that make me bias against conjoined twins??) I don’t think God’s plan included that cancer was the “norm” –yet look how rampant it is…. Note, I’m taking my ideas from how I read Richard Hays “Moral Vison of the New Testament”…
    So, I think we might agree that it is NOT in God’s “order” that there be conjoined twins…. But note; NEITHER was it in God’s created order that there be prejudice, or disdain, or hate, or mocking of those different from us, or ANY reason to leave one uninvited from His table of Grace.

    So yes, I think I hear what you are saying Jake…

14. Bob Rigsby Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Hugo:

    Wow do I love it when people from “outside” the fold (OK, maybe just “our” little fold) are willing to enter our discussion and comment. There is no better observer than one froem the “outside”!! better observer that

15. Hugo Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Hi Bob,

    Thanks for the enthusiasm, but I’m not really “outside” the fold. I entered into full communion with Rome a year ago while attending Southern (SAU). I participate in both the Catholic and Adventist blogospheres; both feel like home to me.

16. Hugo Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    A Catholic priest friend encouraged me never to deny my Adventist heritage, but allow it to enrich the spirituality of the Catholic Church. Conversions that are “either/or” can tend towards an unhealthy rejection of one’s past relationship with God; it is best to preserve all that can be preserved. I still visit Adventist churches, I remain vegan, and the majority of my friends are Adventist. But you’re right in noting that my new faith gives me a unique perspective.

17. Kris Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    Bob; thankyou for your comments.
    I am under the more traditional assumption (currently in my journey) that God did not intend Homosexuality to be a part of human experience (just as cancer and hate and selfishness was not to be a part of that original picture).
    I think Homosexuality is an affliction…one need only look at the hardship a homosexual person endures in our culture and society to see that. I think homosexuality truly has suffering as part of it…
    But just as you said Bob…just because I do not see it as part of God’s initial plan of creation on earth does not mean that I have the right to judge or condemn or treat with anything but absolute love and acceptance those who are homosexual.
    So while I do not think it is a legitimate, God ordained way of living, I have no right to do anything but love those who experience life that way.
    But it is hard because of that concept of behavior vs. identity. Those who think the way I do I think are unfairly characterized as bigots while those who do not are unfairly characterized as shallow or not truly dedicated.

18. Glenn Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 4:16 am

    “I think Homosexuality is an affliction…one need only look at the hardship a homosexual person endures in our culture and society to see that. I think homosexuality truly has suffering as part of it…”

    But isn’t the “hardship” homosexuals face in our society a result of they’re being stigmatized by Christians (and others) for being in an “afflicted” condition? Perhaps homosexual people and homosexual Christians wouldn’t have to endure such hardships if they were simply more accepted.

19. Kris Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 9:34 am

    Exactly Glenn
    Exactly.
    That is what I meant. At least the majority of the hardship I think is created by us and our culture…by Christians who cannot or will not love people who are different or who think differently or who behave differently.
    I think we could alleviate much of the suffering by simply loving rather than judging.

    In another way, I think it is true that it is a legitimate affliction aside from the way our culture responds to homosexuals. As a homosexual you do not get to experience the joy of a monogamous heterosexual marriage relationship and a family with children as a result of that relationship. This, I believe, cannot be duplicated in any other way, and those I know who are homosexual and healthy emotionally have a tinge of grief to bear because of having to miss out on this type of relationship. This does not seem unreasonable or something to ignore to me. And it is one of the reasons I believe homosexuality is an Affliction…aside from Christians.

    To me, it is much the same as saying the girls with one body have an affliction. I am comfortable with that. It would be Ideal for them to have their own organs and appendages…it is probably likely that they will die young because of this. But as someone said, it is not OK for a Christian to ostracize them or treat them with anything but love. It is the same thing, I believe with people who are homosexual in orientation. Regardless of what they are missing out on or regardless of the level of affliction: ‘A’, we shouldn’t make it any harder on them; and ‘B’, we should love and accept without hesitation.

20. Elaine Nelson Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am

    The contemporary mores and customs have much more influence in dictating our responses to any minority than reasoned responses.

    In past times, someone who was left-handed was looked at askance, or “sinester” the Latin word we still use for threatening harm or impending diaster. The Hebrew Scripturre identifies many groups that were “unclean” and cast out of the camp for varying periods of time.

    Have we not gone beyond that thinking? God help us if we are still “wondering in the wildnerness” attempting to define who is to be outside the fold.

    How do we interpret David’s love for Jonathan which was written that David loved as his own soul? Today, we would call them soulmates. David’s lament cires: “I am desolate for you, Jonathan my brother, Very dear to me, you were, your love to me more wonderful than the love of a woman.”

21. Joseph Kim Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    1) Our church does have a position against homosexuality. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat46.html

    2) Using genetics to justify homosexuality is wrong. Using pleasure is an equally empty argument. One could use similar reasoning to conclude that shooting herorin is okay for those who are genetically inclined and who derive pleasure from this activity.

    3) Unless homosexuality was created by God, it is a product of sin. If homosexuality is a product of sin, it should not be cherished or defended as being of God. If it is not of God, then it is against God.

    4) The old testament prohibition of homosexuality is still applicable today. Similarly, incest, bestiality, fornication, adultery, and every other form of sexual immorality is still wrong today. It was never made right no matter how good it made people feel.

    5) The new testament states plainly that people who practice sexual immorality will not enter into heaven. Romans 1:27.

    It is very sad to read how this sister is growing fond of the philosophies of the world. Faith is not rationalizing our justice and notions into what is right or wrong, but to accept the truth that has been plainly laid before our eyes. To ignore the truth is to do so at our own peril, especially when we publicly disseminate such ideas that will lead strengthen the resolve of those practicing sin, and even worse, lead others astray. Why would we lie to these poor souls and change the rules that we did not make? God set down these principles throughout the Bible to protect us from physical and spiritual harm.

    Let us heed our Master’s simple warning to false teachings. Matthew 15:9.

22. Glenn Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    “It is very sad to read how this sister is growing fond of the philosophies of the world. ”

    Well, this is the type of thing many people in the south, including members of the clergy, said in regards to abolition. “Slavery” was ordained in the Bible, and who were we with our “modern” theories to suggest otherwise.

23. TrudyJ Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    “Why would we lie to these poor souls and change the rules that we did not make? God set down these principles throughout the Bible to protect us from physical and spiritual harm.”

    I think we (as in, the church and well-meaning church members) lie to a lot of “poor souls” when we tell them that homosexuality is a sin that can be overcome by God’s grace just like any other sin. Unfortunately, God’s grace doesn’t have as good a track record with homosexuality as it does with other sins, which might suggest we’re misinterpreting something. The most spiritual harm I have seen done on this issue is that which has been done to gay and lesbian Christians by fellow Christians telling them that with enough prayer, faith and effort, their orientation will change. Not to mention the untold harm that is done to their spouses and children when they are encouraged to marry because marriage well help them get over those sinful inclinations.

24. Derek Sloan Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    There is a trend in Adventist liberal thinking to interpret the Bible in a new light. There are a variety of new interpretions. Some of the more salient differences revolve around the creation story, which is shown to take on mythic qualities, verses relating to homosexual acts (or supposed homosexual acts), and the doctrine of the sanctuary.

    Without making a comment on the validity of these insights, I feel it necessary to outline what implications these new interpretations carry with them.

    1. These new interpretations fly in the face of our traditional understanding of the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

    2. In each case they remove a segment of Adventist doctrine which is separate from the world.

    As both Christians and Adventists we are called to be separate from the world. Again, without placing a value judgment on the particulars of our new liberal thrust, the new interpretations we are placing on the Bible are moving us more in line with the status quo, rather than away from it. (In response to Jesus’ beckoning to give all our wealth the poor, I am disappointed more of us have not decided to do so. Maybe one day I’ll have the courage myself).

    The gospel of Christ is unbelievably radical. There is no question the Sword of the Spirit has been blunted in our ranks. However, any push to normalize our values with those of “the world” should immediately raise warning flags amonst us.

    On a side note, few of the “liberal” thinkers I have met show significant knowledge of the arguments they contend against. Their scriptural knowledge is spotty, they wrest Ellen White horribly (and comically) out of context, and the cultural mores which guide their view are humorously obvious. Even more often, they are as dogmatic as are their conservative brethren. If liberality is the pathway to grace and revolution, I surely haven’t seen it amongst the ranks. Of those I know who are revolutionary in the current Adventist system, nearly all of them hold a remarkably similar respect for Ellen White, the Scriptures, and the basic tenets of our belief (David Gates for example). Again, I find the barometer of many liberal thinkers to lie in modern culture. Of course there are liberal thinkers who are Godly and who have done their due diligence in their study of the scriptures and Ellen White. However, there does not seem to be any magic in liberality itself.

    At this point, Ellen White is not considered a source of inspiration for our Liberal friends (and many others, mind you). If one does not hold Mrs. White in high regard, they needn’t heed anything she says. However, let us be explicit about what we are doing in this new thrust. Flying in the face of our tradition and Ellen White attacks the very foundation of our belief. Our belief system is predicated on certain strong values and beliefs - pillars you might call them. The Sprit of Prophecy (the belief in inspiration in Ellen White) the Sanctuary, the Health Message, the State of the Dead, and several other “pillars” are key tenants of this faith. The Adventist faith is based on a certain vision. Ellen White herself lays out an ultimatum for us: “Either my works are from God or they are not”. An interesting note, is that she prophecied (or guessed, depending on which way you swing) that the first departure or apostasy from the faith would be the dropping of the sanctuary message. There is no incorporating this woman into our new thrust of thinking. If these pillars of the faith are useless - fine - lose them. But let’s not kid ourselves. We’re not reforming Adventism. Whatever Phoenix rises from the Pyre will not be Adventism. It will be something else. Will it be superior? That’s for you to decide.

25. Hugo Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Elaine,

    The David and Jonathan comparison is key in more ways than one. The issue with homosexuality is perhaps, the sexuality itself (rather than the companionship aspect).

    Scripture condemns sexual behavior between members of the same sex (”man lies with a man a with a woman”); it is against natural law. The male and female bodies were designed for physical union with one another. However, Scripture never defines the parameters of what is acceptable intimate, but non-sexual, behavior between, say, two men. Scripture describes David and Jonathan’s love as greater than “the love of a woman” (which all scholars agree is a reference to sexual love). Evidently, their relationship transcended the bond of sexual intercourse, but by further implication was also non-sexual (where sexuality is identified with “the love of a woman.”).

    Christians have few historical precedents for a committed emotional same-sex relationship, that excludes sexual contact, but might allow for closer physical contact than most men experience. (Evidently, this type of relationship could coexist with marriage [as in David's case]). There are Byzantine rites for life-unions between friends… maybe we should be thinking along those lines?

    Of course, when can we declare a relationship “sexual”? What is the nature of heterosexual marriage? Does the “physical attraction” allegedly native to the homosexual mind require that engage in sexual activities within his sex? Is the modern homosexual phenomenon pressing for same-sex committed relationships, or the societal acceptance of homoSEXual practices? Can we ever divorce sexual practices from the human love they allegedly express? Of course, this question recalls the age-old debate: when does love or attraction end and lust begin?

    The debate raises a number of complex questions, that in fact, few Christian groups presently can address. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” provides a comprehensive sexual doctrine for Catholics. What do other churches have to offer? The present homosexual debate allows Christianity to reassess the possibilities of human relationships, and probe into the essence of our corporeal personhood.

26. J David Newman Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    As I read the various posts on this issue I notice many logical fallacies and side trails. The fundamental issue concerns authority. Do we have an authority for deciding for or against homosexuality?

    If the Bible is not the authority what is our authority to decide? I have read much on this topic and I find no consensus on any authority that we can turn to outside the Bible. But when we turn to the Bible we find great division on how to use the Bible. I suggest a structure that we might follow.

    1. Divide the Bible into pre-sin and post-sin. That leaves two chapters for pre-sin and the rest of the Bible for post-sin. The rest of the Bible is simple the commentary on how God has tried to manage the results of sin in a sinful world and within the culture of the times.
    2. Does the Bible give us any light on sexual issue before sin?
    3. Did God give us the ideal in the first two chapters of sexuality?
    4. When God created man and woman he told them to be “fruitful and multiply.” What did that mean?
    5. Since to be fruitful and multiply means there has to be a male and a female did God intend the fruit of that relationship to be in a gender differentiated family or in a same gender family?
    6. If this was God’s ideal sin spoiled that relationship. In what ways are polygamy and homosexuality and other family arrangements not part of that ideal?
    7. What do studies of children raised in single parent families say about the struggle the single parent has in raising children with balanced role models?
    8. If God intended for children to be raised with both and male role models how does that work if the role models today are either two females or two males?
    9. Is it important for children to be raised in a father/mother environment? Or does it make no difference?
    10. Since we are living in the post-sin world how do we deal with homosexuality today? Do we deal with this issue in the same way we have dealt with divorce?

    I believe that a discussion along the lines I have outlined above will help us with the authority issue. We need to spend our time in the pre-sin section first and work out from there.

27. Tim Mitchell Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Derek, a question and a comment:

    Where would I find Ellen White’s comments about homosexuality?

    Read Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp 37-40. Will your arguments about Bible interpretation, discussion of new thinking, and stand up to what Ellen White actually said?

    What does Ellen White say about conservatism? Is the alternative to conservative be “liberal” or “open”?

    Let’s talk some time.

28. Tim Mitchell Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    (Sheesh, I’ll swear I was sober when I wrote the above paragraph. Sorry for the lousy grammar. Is there an interpreter in the house?)

29. Joseph Kim Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    “Well, this is the type of thing many people in the south, including members of the clergy, said in regards to abolition. “Slavery” was ordained in the Bible, and who were we with our “modern” theories to suggest otherwise. ”

    19th century slavery in the United States is not comparable with the current discussion of homosexuality on so many levels. To compare a homosexual’s plight with that of an African-American slave is insulting.

    Slavery, as described in the Bible, is so far removed from the American notion of it, that compared, they appear as apples to oranges. American slaves could not buy their freedom, did not have rights, were not redeemable for all intents and purposes, and they were never released every 7th year. For a jewish slave, they could only be owned by people who agreed to certain strict regulations allowing for mutilple freedoms, including redemption and sabbatical freedom clauses. In fact, if you knocked a tooth out of your jewish slave, the compensation to them was their freedom. One tooth and six years of service sound more like the military than American slavery.

30. Joseph Kim Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    “I think we (as in, the church and well-meaning church members) lie to a lot of “poor souls” when we tell them that homosexuality is a sin that can be overcome by God’s grace just like any other sin. Unfortunately, God’s grace doesn’t have as good a track record with homosexuality as it does with other sins, which might suggest we’re misinterpreting something.”

    How can you say such things as factual? Where is your proof? What controlled studies or even strong anecdotal evidence that failure on the part of God’s grace is the normal result of a homosexual trying to overcome their issues? How do you come to the conclusion that because homosexuals are recalcitrant in their beliefs that Christians are misinterpreting something?

    To call a sin by anything other than its rightful name is, in and of itself, a sin. If any adulterer, fornicator, or any other person actively engaged in sexually immoral acts were publicly defending their behavior, we would not hesitate to judge their acts as reprehensible. Why do homosexuals deserve any special consideration when their acts are equally condemned as perverse in the very scriptures we claim to uphold and believe?

    We can accept homosexuals as participants of our congregations, but we should not baptize them into our congregations while they are defending a lifestyle that demonstrates an unwillingness to put God’s will before their own.

31. J. David Newman Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 3:15 am

    Whether you agree with Joseph Kim or not he does make several valid points expecially regarding comparisons with slavery. The other point he makes concerns the generalizations bandied about this post. Assertions are made but they are not backed up by controlled scientific studies. Anyone can make an assertion and what happens is we try to convince people by emotion rather than by facts.

32. Glenn Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 8:38 am

    I can appreciate the desire of some to recast the Biblical treatment of slavery in the best possible light, but attempts to recast Biblical slavery as some sort of benign institution devoid of its–if I may use the word–abominable nature just won’t fly. Slavery involved the trafficking of human flesh, the buying and selling of human beings. Nothing about the Biblical code on slavery reduced the horror of this reality. Read the texts.

    Exodus 21: 2-6

    2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
    3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
    4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
    5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
    6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

    This passage says that a male slave could leave after six years BUT if his master gave the slave his wife and his wife bore children, the wife and the children didn’t get to go free. If the male slave wanted to keep his wife and kids he had to stay a slave forever. So much for family values.

    Exodus 21: 20-21
    20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
    21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

    This passage says that if a master hits his slave and the slave dies than the master will be punished in some way unspecified, but if the beaten slave survives at least two days, the master won’t be punished because the slave is the master’s “money”. The NIV says the slave is the master’s “property”.

    So, unfortunately, the Bible gives a pass to this most abominable and malicious of human practices.

    Meanwhile, the Bible appears to condemn by death the practice of homosexuality, without any apparent regard for the nature of the relationship and consent of the individuals.

    One system of human relations that is totally exploitive is allowed; another that is consensual and non-malicious is condemned.

    The blatant disparency in the Bible’s treatment of these two states of human existence is one of the many problems I’ve had with using the Bible as some sort of blueprint for living.

    But if the claim is that the Bible’s condoning of slavery was conditional to the nature of society at the time than that type of reasoning essentially refutes what many of Christianity’s most ardent apologists contend about sexual and social mores–that moral values are absolute, universal, and standard across centuries and cultures, and therefore not subject to re-interpretation or change.

    Conservative Christians and Biblical literalists can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim that the now widely acknowledged unpopular edicts in the Bible should be understood and tolerated out of a recognition of the needs and expectations of the culture of the time, and at the same time argue that for the people alive today, no cultural allowances can be made.

    As may be apparent, this subject and the division it leads to in the body of faith is a great source of pain to me, not because I am gay (I’m not), but because I am human. And when Christianity is illogical and inhuman I strain to affirm my continued presence in it.

    It is also unfortunate (and that may be too gentle a term) that we probably owe the long existence of slavery in no small part to the Bible itself, which to the financial and clerical powers in the Christianity community, excused their practices and structure of power relations.

    Fortunately, I am gratified that there exists at least some movement, some support within the body of Christ for transcending the inflexible demands of our past and for widening the circle of Christianity to embrace all of humanity and making the vision of Jesus a reality.

    The larger issue is the manner in which the church has over the centuries treated sexuality itself. It wouldn’t be a stretch to reckon the church’s relationship to sexuality as obsessive, over-controlling and paranoid. Hugo, you mentioned Natural Law theory. The most prominent supporter of Natural Law theory was Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century Catholic theologian and philosopher. Well, Aquinas in his wisdom declared that incest was preferable to contraception and masturbation because at least incest “preserved the integrity of the act”. And today, Natural Law arguments are used to oppose any kind of “artificial” birth control. So much for Natural Law.

    As we have learned as a society to shun practices such as slavery that were once widely accepted by the public and condoned by the church, I can only hope that we will in the future learn to see the church’s reaction against homosexuality in the same light.

33. Tim Mitchell Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 8:39 am

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually argue that homosexuality is an Edenic creation. But here it is.

    I’ll toss out a few questions that seem to be at the core of the debate:

    1) Is the modern phenomenon of homosexuality a hardwired preference, a pre-cognitive preference, or a purely volitional preference? What do we mean when we toss the term around?

    2) Is the Bible speaking of what _we_ think of as the phenomenon of homosexual nature, or of specific homosexual acts, some of which were against the cultural norms (eg. Sodom, hospitality, and rape as a power crime) or cultic (Leviticus, abomination and the wasting of semen for non-procreative purposes; Romans 1, cultic homosexual acts? 1 Corinthians and the meaning of that one Greek word)?

    3) What is the “homosexual lifestyle?” (What is “the” heterosexual lifesylte?)

    4) Does the Bible intend that we focus only on the activities of the groin when we consider this matter? It seems to me that a lifetime of love and sexual commitment for heterosexuals is far broader than that and far more nurturing than that.

    5) _If_ there had been committed homosexual couples in Bible times, what _principles_ would the community have applied to tell the couple that their lifelong commitment was wrong? (Inhospitality like Sodom? Cultic like Leviticus, and perhaps Romans and 1 Corinthians?) Would we make the same arguments today? (iow, what is it about homosexual monogamy that is “wrong” in God’s eyes? What it is about that experience that is degrading or less fulfilling than celibacy, if one doesn’t have the gift of celibacy? As Paul said, not everyone has that gift.)

    6) As Paul mentioned to certain heterosexuals that it is better to marry than burn, would he say the same thing to a committed homosexual couple? Or would he say, “It is better to burn than marry.”? (Would he say that to divorced people too?)

34. Kris Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 9:53 am

    I feel deeply troubled by
    I do not think our interpretation of the Bible has to be an either or thing…
    It does not have to be either absolutely literal in every single verse or not literal at all and completely determined by the whims of its readers.
    The Bible provides many sweeping themes regarding morality and the underlying principles are clear. For example, Jesus said the Law and the Prophets are based upon the principles: Love God - Love others. This use of the Bible by Jesus I believe shows that it must not all be taken literally in every situation…but rather, we must appeal to the greater good (this is ethics)…which happens to be, according to Jesus: Love God-Love others.
    It could probably be argued whether or not homosexual behavior is a way to love others…but I would be willing to say: ok, homosexuality does not bend that principle. When we come to the first one however (Love God)…it becomes more difficult. How do we figure out what it means to love God…how do we determine what God would have us to do (I believe God has great interest in how I behave…because I believe his character is on the line when I go around saying that I am a Christian); I would further argue that “I” am not the sole determiner of what God would have me to do…God is. So my experience of not having been freed from addiction to pornography, alcohol, homosexual thoughts and behaviors, or pedophilia (these are examples) is not at all an indicator of what I ought do. It is my experience…important yes….valuable yes…irreplaceable no….the determiner of what is right or wrong; good or bad…no.
    I believe one of the primary ways we can determine what it means to love God is looking at some broad principles in the Bible. It seems to me that searching for God pleases Him (Zaccheus, the Woman with the bleeding disorder, David, etc…); It also is true that when Jesus Came, he intended to establish a new kingdom on earth…a new reign. I think this new reign is an appeal to how things were intended. It does not seem at all unreasonable to me to think: how did God originally intend things to be? that is what I want to make the world like….
    It is not an appeal to the bigoted “adam and steve” adage…but rather to the reality that God Created Adam and Eve together…and they were in his image…It is no mistake that John characterizes the church and GOd with that same marriage relationship imagery. The marriage covenant is one of the central pictures of how we are to see God and his relationship to us, the church. So to just throw that out as ‘cultural’ seems to me to be more than a bit questionable.

35. TrudyJ Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    “How can you say such things as factual? Where is your proof? What controlled studies or even strong anecdotal evidence that failure on the part of God’s grace is the normal result of a homosexual trying to overcome their issues? How do you come to the conclusion that because homosexuals are recalcitrant in their beliefs that Christians are misinterpreting something?”

    I say such things because “change ministries” — or therapeutic interventions based on changing homosexual orientation, whether faith-based or secular, have a poor track record of success and often cause greater psychological harm. There has been some research done in this area. Sorry, I thought I had a paper at home that I could give some references from but it must be at work; I’ll check it out later, but in the meantime some links to explore:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_repar.htm — an overview that contains some links on the topic of “reparative therapies”

    http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/common/feature.html?record=552 — critique of the controversial Spitzer study

    I think the paper I have at work references some more scholarly discussion of the subject. Of course it’s very controversial — change ministries like Exodus report their “success rates” as high as 70% while gay rights groups claim that reparative therapy has a success rate as low as 0% … clealry some bias going on on both sides, and the definition of “success” is very fuzzy.

    I do find the anecdotal evidence even stronger. I am so tired of hearing the stories of gay Christian friends who have spent years and years on their knees to God begging Him to change their orientation. My critique of the traditional Adventist (and indeed traditional Christian) stance on homosexuality does not come, I assure you, from any desire to jump on board with the trendy philosophies of “the world.” It comes from the pain of having watched people, and heard the stories of people, who so badly wanted to change and believed for years that God would “deliver” them. Not just one or two people, and certainly not people who were hard-heartedly rejecting God’s call to holiness or pursuing a selfish desire for sexual gratification. I am talking about men and women who genuinely want to serve God and have their lives conform to His Word — yet who find again and again they cannot change their orientation, and that God seems to ignore their pleas for help.

    Anecdotal and not scholarly, to be sure, but I highly recommend anyone who believes “Gays should just submit to God and turn from their sin” to read Mel White’s book “Stranger at the Gate: Gay and Christian in America.” Mel is a controversial figure but his story was, to me, heart-wrenching and eye-opening.

36. Hugo Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    “Well, Aquinas in his wisdom declared that incest was preferable to contraception and masturbation because at least incest “preserved the integrity of the act”. And today, Natural Law arguments are used to oppose any kind of “artificial” birth control. So much for Natural Law.”

    The concept of “Natural law” attempts to define the parameters of sexuality upon the principles of function and design. Natural sexual intercourse requires that the male sexual faulty penetrate the woman’s and release semen into it. The male penetrates; the woman receives.Although the act carries a unitive dimension, it is inspired by our innate procreative instincts.

    Accordingly, Aquinas classifies homosexuality, bestiality, and masturbation as “Unnatural Sex”. The male human body is not sexually compatible with the bodies of other males (or other animals). Although certain forms of penetration are possible only among male homosexuals (anal sex, for instance), the anus was not designed for penetration and is easily vulnerable to tearing. Female homosexuals do not have the sexual capacity to penetrate one another. Also, none of these acts carry reproductive potential, which again, is the instinct prompting sexual desire. (Artificial birth control also denies the sexual act its reproductive potential, and is excluded by traditional Christian moral teaching).

    Now, remember that Aquinas uses the term “incest” to refer more precisely to voluntary consanguineous marriage (Summa Theo. II-II 154,9); he is more directly speaking to the case of Abraham & Sarah, for instance. Such sexual intercourse is natural but illicit; masturbation on the other hand is unnatural an illicit. Both acts are grave sins to Aquinas, but the latter violates more moral laws.

    Ultimately, should two reproductively incompatible individuals exercise their (physical, psychological) sexual faculties towards one another? Does this reflect God’s design for the world? Is not sex fundamentally rooted in reproductive potential?

37. Bob Rigsby Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    This is an absolutely fascinating thread Julius: one of the best I’ve read in the Adventist sphere…

    I agree with…. Everybody!

    By that I mean that many many valid points are raised… You, Julius, on a recent thread on this subject, spoke of your personal belief that homosexuality was not ordained by God, but that your obligation to treat others with respect and allowance for their rights and freedoms lead you to feel that gay marraige should be allowed. (that’s MY paraphrase — Julius speaks for himself in that thread…) And that is an honorable position….

    I’m glad that Joseph Kim has participated in this discussion…. What I hear him saying is “hey guys — we KNOW it’s ‘wrong’ — so why all this discussion?”

    The reason the notion of “God’s created order” works so well for ME is that I can formulate the following…. the things I am tempted to are ALSO not of God’s created order. I struggle with pride and arrogance and spite and anger and well it’s not a pretty picture. That’s my HONEST assessment of myself. Now I ALSO say that homosexuality is not part of God’s created order…. Which leaves me, and the homosexual, in approximately the SAME position before God. And you know, once that reality comes clear, I am suddenly much less inclined to disrespect and judge the homosexual — even though I STILL believe that homosexuality is wrong. WRONG in the sense that it was NOT of God’s created order. But neither were any of MY personal failing either! It is insane to be expected to chose between a loving homosexual and a heterosexual who treats people like dirt and who is proud and arrogant…..It seems that homosexuals are held to a VERY different standard — and that is just not right…

    Now, having said that I don’t believe homosexuality is in God’s created order, what do I do? Have I EVER stopped to wonder if the homosexual worries about associating with, and worshipping with ME because I ALSO have failed to meet God’s created order??? So the ONLY solution, as I see things, is to respect that EACH of us “waits for conviction” (and maybe we could add healing and redemption etc…) on matters which seem to be where we fail and fall and just dont’ “get” it.

    I can no more believe that homosexuality is “OK” with God than I can believe the moon is made of green cheese! But please! that does not mean that because I am NOT homosexual I am therefore some paradigm of virtue!!! I am not.

    Lastly, I must say that the problem many people have with homosexuals and treat their “sins” differently from the sins of the prideful and arrogant and envious and idolaters (etc) stems directly from their views on the Atonement and what it means to be “saved” and their acceptance of “penal substitution” models of the Atonement… That gets into another subject though……..

38. Elaine Nelson Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    Is there any indication from the Bible that homosexuality as a CONDITION was ever mentioned, or was it only homosexual acts? Promiscuity between heteros as well as homos WAS mentioned, however. Lot was surely a paragon of virtue–offering his virgin daughters, and where was he ever condemned for such an offer?

    BTW, speaking of “curing” homosexuality, Ted Haggard underwent only three weeks of intensive “therapy” (by whom?) and now claims to be cured! Which raises the obvious question: is he truly homosexual, or simply a curious bisexual?

    The old adage about “walking a mile in somone else’s moccasions” applies here, doesn’t it?

    If someone has a close family member who is homosexual, it can almost be guaranteed that his attitude will drastically change.

39. Eric Says:
    February 7th, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    Daneen-

    I really enjoyed your essay - I wish when I was in college I had professors who were not afraid to discuss the difficult issues in life. What struck me most about your observation, and what I find most people unwilling to discuss is, do we trust our own desires? As a gay male who grew up Adventist , I knew that when I went on dates with women, there was no ‘desire’ there. A good Adventist counselor told me to just wait and I would meet the right girl who would create desire.

    Now, I’m trying to date a guy who is not from this country which creates a whole new set of headaches - in a heterosexual relationship, we could get married and he would have a visa to live here and together pursue ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. But no, I’m gay and our relationship does not count.

    As someone has already pointed out, all the Christian religions have different interpretations of the same Book. Which begs the question - if there are so many different interpretations, why not trust my own interpretation of how I have come to see God? Being at the stage in life where I no longer fear God’s rath, but rather look forward to a conversation, when all is revealed and when I can pose the question, “tell us, when You created sexual human beings - was there a bit of of humor invovled?”

40. J David Newman Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 4:02 am

    Elaine writes “If someone has a close family member who is homosexual, it can almost be guaranteed that his attitude will drastically change.” I have two very close family members who are gay. One lived the lesbian llifestyle all through her teens then got married at 22, had two children and has remained married. The other is a homosexual with a live in lover. Elaine is right, your attitudes will change. Years ago my wife and I would not let him stay with us if his lover was with him. We did nhot want them sleeping together under our roof. Currently he and his lover are staying with us for two weeks and they have their own room together. While I believe that we must look to the creation order as I outlined in a previous post for the ideal we must also learn how to live with brokenness in the post Eden world.

41. J David Newman Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 4:57 am

    Last year Spectrum published a series of articles on the gay lifestyle. Two issues later they published a letter that I sent themj. Here it is because I believe that it is pertinent to the discussion we are having.

    Your articles on “In the Church and Out of the Closet” are emotional and heart rendering but I would like to question an assumption that comes through loud and clear. “Gays and lesbians should have full rights and privileges in the Adventist Church and be treated as normal people because that is how they are born and they cannot help themselves.”

    I want to be on record as stating that the gay lifestyle is not a salvation issue. There will be gays and lesbians in heaven. Since right behavior is not the basis for our salvation then wrong behavior cannot keep us out of heaven. We are saved by grace from first to last. This does not mean that right behavior is unimportant (it is very important) but it is not part of justification and the basis of our salvation.

    Now back to my point. If it is true that gays and lesbians are born that way and cannot change then we are in serious trouble. The Bible makes it clear that we are all born with behavior that is unacceptable to God: “All have sinned and fall short (and the tense in Greek is continually falling short) of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23); “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:12).

    Now it is true that there are a few Adventists who follow the ancient English monk Pelagius who believe that we are not born sinners, that we do not inherit any sin from Adam, but this is not the understanding of the vast majority in the Christian faith. We are born sinners, we are born selfish, we are born unable to change without divine intervention.

    We teach that a person must be born again, that a person cannot change his sinful orientation without divine help, without a miracle, that God must do what we cannot do. Without going into the pros and cons of the gay/lesbian lifestyle (that is a whole different issue) I am simply dealing with the assumption that being born a certain way precludes change. If that assumption is correct then to be consistent we should apply the same logic to everyone and say that since we are all born sinners we cannot change and therefore God should accept us anyway.

    But if God can perform a miracle to change a sinner why cannot he perform a miracle to change the gay or lesbian?

    It seems that if we are going to argue the acceptability of the gay/lesbian lifestyle we must give up this assumption and build our case on stronger evidence.

42. TrudyJ Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 5:56 am

    “But if God can perform a miracle to change a sinner why cannot he perform a miracle to change the gay or lesbian?”

    My response to this would be: I believe God COULD change a person’s sexual orientation, just like God could change the colour of my hair without artificial aid if He wanted to (sadly, He leaves this up to me). But if God CAN change a person’s orientation, why does He so often refuse to do so, in response to the most heartfelt of prayers and efforts to change on the part of the praying gay or lesbian Christian?

    It’s the apparent refusal of God to do what He obviously could do, that makes me think maybe this is not something He intends to change here and now. I agree that God’s original plan was one man, one woman, together for life, bearing children — but in the post-Eden world we see and accept so many variants on this original plan, and I don’t understand why we single out homosexuality as the one that’s going to be an abomination. I think committed, monogamous gay and lesbian couples in the church should be treated the same as those who remarry after divorce — with a recognition that this is not the original or the ideal plan, but that we will honour this couple and their relationship.

43. Joseph Kim Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 6:28 am

    “It’s the apparent refusal of God to do what He obviously could do, that makes me think maybe this is not something He intends to change here and now…but in the post-Eden world we see and accept so many variants on this original plan, and I don’t understand why we single out homosexuality as the one that’s going to be an abomination…but that we will honour this couple and their relationship.”

    Problems with this conclusion:
    1) God’s apparent refusal to change any sinner from their actions does not make the sinful action right.
    2) Would Jesus condone homosexuality?
    3) Even in a post-Eden nation of Israel, did God permit homosexual relationships?
    4) We are to honor only God, and that which comes from Him. We should not honor perversions and deviations from His will.
    5) I do not single out homosexuality from any other form of sexual perversion including adultery, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.
    6) We do not define what is an abomination, God does.

    Why do we rely upon our rationalizations to justify what is a black and white issue? I’m sure that every addicted, genetically or otherwise, sinner can ask why God is not changing them. Rather, they should be asking why they are not accepting God’s transforming power.

    Every argument that I have read thus far in favor of normalizing or even harmonizing homosexuality with Christianity has been based upon emotional and passionate rationalization rather than a sober and humble acceptance of God’s sovereignty over his creation. No one said that being a Christian was going to be easy. It is the hardest thing for proud and self-centered human beings to choose. That is, to fully submit one’s will to God. Thus, like Paul, we must die daily.

    What are we going to normalize next? Smoking? Drinking? Recreational use of drugs? Obesity? Non-observance of the Sabbath? These are just the beginning a descent into the very pit that Christ died to pull us out of!

    Ultimately, while we like to believe that there are gray issues in this gray world, everything this is black and white. It’s just hard to see this when we are living in the dark and enjoying it. Especially when the light doesn’t excite our senses our meet the growing demands of our passions.

    With Christian Love,

    Joseph Kim

44. J. David Newman Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 6:47 am

    Trudy, I do understand the pain. I really do. As I indicated I have family members in this lifestyle. I am in touch with many in this lifestyel. I do react to one thing you said, “But if God CAN change a person orientation, why does He so often REFUSE (my emphasis) to do so.” How do you know the mind of God? How do you know that her refuses to change these people? There can be many reasons why a person does not change that have nothing to do with God.

    Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist who led the team that deleted homosexuality from the diagnostic manual in 1973, now says homosexuality may be changeable. “Like most psychiatrists,” said Dr. Spitzer, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that’s untrue—some people can and do change.” To the researcher’s surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67 percent of men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process. “Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Spitzer concluded, “some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning. I’m convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual . . . I think that’s news . . . I came to this study skeptical, I now claim that these changes can be sustained.” Other professionals have reported a range from 50 to 70 percent success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction.12 Findings such as these have prompted some professionals to admit that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation through a variety of change efforts.” (A report released May 9, 2001 at the annual American Psychiatric Association convention, psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City)

    One of the most powerful devices being used to convince people that the gay lifestyle is OK is to convince people that they cannot change, therefore they must be accepted.

    I know that the research of Dr Spitzer has been challenged but that is because gay advocates need to keep before the public the illusion that this is an unchangeable orientation so they will attack any research that shows the oppostie.

    I think it is very significant that the psychiatrist who led the charge to delete this from the diagnostic manual is the one showing that this is not an inevitable lifestyle.

45. Joseph Kim Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 7:01 am

    “I want to be on record as stating that the gay lifestyle is not a salvation issue. There will be gays and lesbians in heaven. Since right behavior is not the basis for our salvation then wrong behavior cannot keep us out of heaven. We are saved by grace from first to last. This does not mean that right behavior is unimportant (it is very important) but it is not part of justification and the basis of our salvation.”

    Where is the “Thus saith the Lord” in this? In our busy lives, most Christians have neglected the plain Word of God from our daily walk. How can we conjecture and debate using the relative terms of the unstable human experience and try to substitute these for the solid foundation which is the Bible? The “wrong behavior” of Ananias and Sapphira, Judas Iscariot, the sons of Samuel, Eli, and Aaron, are the fruits of a corrupt heart, and this condition cannot be present in the character of citizens of Heaven.

    Romans warns us of the philosophies of the world, and the fact that all have been given enough light in their lives to make a choice for God (through a transforming relationship with Jesus) or for themselves. Included here are homosexuals, as part of a longer list of unrepentant sinners who value their lifestyle above the warning from God. Verse 32 concludes in no uncertain terms: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”

    1 John tells us plainly of what it means to be a Christian. That is, to use only Jesus and his perfect obedience to God’s will, as our only example to strive for. There is no exception made for genetics, predispositions, defects, etc. To do so would elevate our fallen condition to that place that only Christ should occupy.

    James drives home the principle that faith without works is dead. Every Christian who thinks that faith alone is the only factor in justification must read this in a humble manner. Faith precedes works, but justification requires both elements. Otherwise, without works, faith is not faith.

    Luke reminds us, in our Saviour’s own words, that every sinner will be punished. Verses 47 and 48 state: “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

    Nowhere in the Bible is any form of sin excused. We serve a strict and disciplined God who is the Father of mercy. But how can mercy exist without strict discipline? Otherwise, why else did Christ have to die? Why not just forgive everyone and be done with it? Homosexuality, no matter how complicated the issues, must be dealt with at the root level: Is this from God or from Satan?

    Here are the passages (quoted from the RSV and multiple verses for context).

    Romans 1:
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

    1John 3:
    1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 4 Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
    10 By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

    James 2:
    17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
    22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
    26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

    Luke 12:
    42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.
    45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. 49 “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; 52 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

46. Elaine Nelson Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 8:34 am

    “What are we going to normalize next? Smoking? Drinking? Recreational use of drugs? Obesity? Non-observance of the Sabbath? These are just the beginning a descent into the very pit that Christ died to pull us out of!”

    We all create both God and heaven in our own minds, so that’s yours. It’s going to be a very small group. It wasGroucho Marx I who said that “I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” Variety in heaven will make it far more interesting. ‘Course Martin Luther as a connisseur of Germany’s best, will not be admitted.

47. Daneen Akers Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 8:56 am

    I’m encouraged by the conversation this has started–even with some clearly dissenting voices. I’m afraid I don’t have time to respond at length.

    Joseph–thank you for pointing out the vastly different pictures of God we have in the Bible. This is just why literalism is so frustrating an endeavor. Which image do we keep? Loving, full of grace, a mother chicken gathering her chicks? Or wrathful and awaiting a day of judgement. That’s why I can only look to Jesus as a litmus test. The only people he had severe words for were those who judged others thinking they knew God’s mind.

    Thanks also for the Romans reference–I think it clearly shows that responsible homosexuality as we know it today (and I’m speaking of a committed, monogamous relationship) did not exist in Biblical times. (Not to mention the only-used-once-word that scholars debate over.) So, we have to apply our current cultural norms to grapple with these issues. Earlier you stated that if we would just look at what the Bible plainly lays before us it would be easy–I think the variety of earnest, sincere posts here demonstrates that we can and do have difficulties arriving at the same interpretation. We all know what the Bible reads, but do we know what it means? Can we ever know with enough certainty to tell someone their salvation is on the line?

    I find it interesting that we no longer condemn those who have been divorced for any other reason other than a cheating spouse to a lifetime of celibacy and aloneness–that’s because the vast majority of us are heterosexuals and that philosophy just didn’t work in modern society (although it was the norm for a long time). Biblically speaking, you can’t leave your husband just because he’s abusing you or your children, and I would argue that’s simply because women’s roles have changed since Biblical times and we are no longer considered the property of our husbands or fathers.

    A big part of this debate really seems to hinge on whether or not we think being homosexual is an afflication that should be changed. The film that sparked this conversation goes into that issue in detail–Dr. Spitzer is one of a very few medical or mental health professionals who would think that it either can or should be changed. You can guilt someone into almost anything for a while. Actually, Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal church went through “reparative” therapy before he married his wife. They later both realized that the “gay issues” weren’t behind them and they agreed to release their vows.

    It’s true that having a gay or lesbian be close to you changes things. It’s very easy to judge when the “other” is so outside of ourselves. With all of the conflicting messages in the Bible, it seems that everything must be weighed against Jesus’ command to love God and love others. I used to think that was a bit of a cop-out–now I realize it’s the highest and hardest calling of all.

48. Julius Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Joe,

    Good to have you join this conversation. I named this blog “progressive adventism” because regardless of where one stands theologically or subculturally we each need to be led by God and progress individually and, hopefully, collectively as a community.

    Boy, it’s been a long time since I last had interaction with you of any kind. I miss the time when you lived just around the corner. Now that I’m almost hitting 40 and you’re not too far behind (are you older than Julian? [yes, gentle readers, my brother's name is Julian; and neither of us was delivered via Caesarean birth]). Anyhow, lest I forget, please give my regards to Sarah and…how many children?

    To the topic at hand here. What I really appreciate about your contribution to the discussion is your call to faithfulness to Scripture and demand for clear, logical, evidence-based thinking. You’re right that many of our assertions are made because we wish them to be true.

    Like Bob allluded to earlier, I’m of the position that homosexuality is not part of the creation order. Why? Because it’s not mentioned in the creation account. (Now I recognize that many of the good things we have today are not part of the creation order in Genesis 1-2, either. So this is an incomplete argument, I know.) I’m also of the position that Scriptural writers are rather clear in their opposition to homosexuality, though not all the passages we think of as condemning homosexuality might qualify as that. Even with those debated passages aside, it’s clear to me that in general homosexuality was not an accepted part of life in Israel or New Testament Christianity.

    What I struggle with is the question of whether Scripture’s injunction against homosexuality represents the “letter” or the “spirit.” Also, do we or should we automatically practice what Scripture teaches or speak against? Are there times when we can go contrary to the letter of Scripture to fulfill the spirit of Scripture? There are many, many cases where a simple “thus saith the Lord” works, but there are many instances where it doesn’t work. Not because I don’t want to obey God (I passionately do), but because ascertaining what God is teaching us cannot be clearly and definitively determined—even after prayerful, careful, obedient attention to the whole of Scripture.

    Joe, you concluded one of this morning’s posts with “with Christian love.” I would want to challenge you in a truly brotherly way (given our friendship and the way our families go way, way back into prehistory =) , I do feel like we’re blood cousins at least) to write with greater gentleness and less with sweeping generalizations toward those who are in deep disagreement with you. I believe that they are honestly and earnestly seeking answers—not just any answers, but Scriptural answers. You may think that they’re following “philosophies of the world” or writing only with “emotional and passionate rationalization,” but I’d urge you to hold back a little on accusing the persons behind the arguments. Sometimes, one person’s proof is another’s rationalization, and what one person considers to be emotional may very well be another’s logic. My sense is that you’re alienating the very people you want to reach and persuade by what seems to be, ironically, emotion-tinted accusations.

    In all this, as we sort through the spirit and the letter, the evidence and the psychological forces that impact our understanding of the evidence, and the reason and the emotion of the issue of homosexuality, I pray that you, and I, and every single one of us here will continue to speak with convinction (yes!) and also with compassion. I think the best way to show compassion at an impersonal forum such as this is to show with care and humility that others are seeking the Lord and His Truth just as much as we are ourselves.

    Whether you realize it or not, Joe, you too write with emotion and passion. That’s a trait I love so much about the Kim AND Chung genes that you’ve been blessed with. I really, really like that. I do appreciate your honest engagement with those who think differently. We in Adventism tend to speak and dialogue primarily with those who agree with us, and that has created unhealthy silos in this community. I hope you’ll continue to engage yourself here with conviction and clarity. And please don’t let this little comment discourage you from being an invested member of the conversation here.

    Aye, aye….with Christian love,
    Julius

49. Glenn Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am

    Hey, Hugo, when are you going to respond to your emails?

50. Joselito Coo Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 10:32 am

    To Joseph Kim: Smoking is not a sin, but an addiction. Help is available for those who desire to quit although this may be difficult. Previously, the best smoking cessation programs have a 20% success rate.. With improvement in modes of therapy, however, their result keeps improving..

    I’m glad Pastor Newman made reference to Dr Spitzer. Wish we had some cliicians, psychiatrists in particular, amongst us who can enlighten us regarding the present state of the art/science. Anyways, Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood (GIDC) is not a sin but a clinical condition. Needless to say, GIDC and Chemical Dependence are not the same. Neverheless, as clinical entities, they have both passed the criteria used by experts.

    Dr Spitzer explains: “the entry of GIDC into the psychiatric nomenclature was guided by the reliance on ‘expert consensus’ (research clinicians)–the same mechanism that led to the introduction of many new psychiatric diagnoses, including those for which systematic field trials were not available when the DSM-III was published.”

    From: J Sex Marital Ther. 2005 Jan-Feb;31(1):31-42.
    Was the gender identity disorder of childhood diagnosis introduced into DSM-III as a backdoor maneuver to replace homosexuality? A historical note.Zucker KJ, Spitzer RL.

    Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinic, Child Psychiatry Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health-Clarke Division, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1R8, Canada. Ken_Zucker@camh.net

51. J David Newman Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    Joseph Kim you took exception to my statement that there will be gays in heaven. I do not believe you are saying in reply that only sinless people will be in heaven? When we are saved by Jesus we are still sinners. We teach that good works do not get us into heaven. If that is true then bad works cannot keep us out of heaven. Otherwise our salvation is behavior based. God takes us to heaven based on the perfect behavior of Christ. Justification is the work of a moment, it is the front wheel of the bicycle. Sanctification is the work of a lifetime. It is the back wheel of the bicycle. You cannot separate the wheels and still have a bicycle but you must distinuish between the functions of the wheels. So in salvation there are two parts. You cannot separate them but you must distinguish between their functions. There is no such person who is justrificed who is not also sanctified. Sanctification is the putting off of sin but how many sins do you have to put off to be sanctificed? That is why there is justification. When you come to Christ there comes an intense desrie to conquer sin but the order in which we determine what sin to overcome is determined by the Holy Spirit, not by us. We too often try and play Holy Spirit. Our part is to love people. God’s part is to convict. I hope this helps.

52. Glenn Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    Christianity could learn a lot from twelve-step groups. Their approach to spirituality is pretty simple yet effective and moving. In one of the 12-step fellowships I attend a statement is read at the beginning along the lines of “this group has no opinion on outside issues and seeks no controversy”. In other words, there are no tangential lines of demarcation. If you identify with the support group you are welcome. While the 12 steps provide an outline of sorts for members, they are not requirements. The purpose of the group is that of support. No one tells you what to do. People just share their experiences, fears, struggles, strength and hope.

    Unfortunately Christianity has a long history of defining itself by what it is not and who it excludes rather than who it includes and what ultimate service it provides. Today’s church in particular is out of balance. As it has evolved over a little less than two centuries it has become a fragmented set of denominational bureaucracies all with more or less the same interest and methods: promoting and sustaining themselves primarily by bossing people around.

    But today’s churches are greatly disadvantaged relative to their forefathers who could rely on fear to force their members to conform to the church’s expectations. That tactic is still effective today to a certain extent. But its hold is weakening. Society has become wealthier and better educated. Not to mention, surrounded by a vast array of alternatives.

    The progressive or post-modern Christian is seeking a church that serves, that genuinely offers something. The best most churches can offer is a promise of eternity (or the threat of hell) in return for the member’s submission today and throughout their earthly lives. And that is, for the post-modernist, beginning to seem a pretty crappy bargain. For the traditionalist of course, the church still offers exclusivity and privilege. This was more or less my attitude growing up SDA.

    But thinking Christians are growing weary of hearing demands from the church and being told what to think about homosexuality among many other issues without any corresponding good received in return, whether it is their participation or a genuine spirituality and community they can’t get somewhere else.

    The church too often comes off as a finger-wagging schoolteacher. But we are not children or ignorant dupes. Virtually everything the historic church has claimed about society has proven erroneous and thus lacking in credibility. Once persecuted, the church became the establishment and became an abuser of power itself. It persecuted “heretics”; It sanctioned slavery; it demeaned and discredited woman; it opposed labor unions, social rights and individual liberties, voting and democracy. In many cases it continues to carry water on behalf of established centers of power at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. Hence its continued shrill warnings about sexuality among other issues are increasingly falling on deaf ears.

    Somewhere in the dim recesses of my mind is the belief that churches should offer something that can’t be found elsewhere–a connection to God. In other words, the church should primarily be sacramental. The church that wants merely to perpetuate itself; to issue demands in the form of doctrinal statements and assertions about the world and expect to be obeyed is a dinosaur.

    I’m burned out from all the hair-splitting over doctrinal distinctives and outdated political rhetoric. It’s embarassing and frustrating when other important needs are not being discussed, much less met. Is the church providing, or can it provide, a meaningful connection to God? That’s it. I’ve no use for the church’s supposed superior intelligence on matters of living and relating, what to eat, what to watch on teevee and who to love. It’s proving to be bankrupt. Let the church succeed at its core mission–making God a reality in people’s lives.

53. Glenn Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    I’m sorry the statement above should read “two millennia” not two centuries. Thanks

54. Glenn Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Well, that was quite a rant I made, if I may say so myself.

    If I could re-state what I was trying to say in slightly more rational terms it would be to say that the discussion of homosexuality is indicative of a fault-line that underlies the SDA church and Christianity more broadly. That faultline concerns who God is and what the church is. On ond side is the view that the church is essentially an authoritative institution intended to transmit doctrine and to provide a safe haven for the member against the world. On the other side is the belief that the church’s role is more experiential, service oriented, to connect the member with the divine. The first tends to be rather abstract and rule-bound, with a preference for preserving as much as possible the existing order of things; in political terms it is most concerned with security and certainty; the latter is more universal, more open to change and variety; politically it is interested with justice, peace and liberty; in terms of worship and church structure it is more concerned with making a progressive difference in the world and being practical than in ensuring that a consistent, formal theory of the church and the world is maintained.

55. Elaine Nelson Says:
    February 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Glenn, it needed to be said. If the church cannot be a serving one: helping the poor, the dispossessed, the impotent in society it is only serving its own needs, rather than ministering to the world. Jesus was first and foremost a minister to the powerless. Yes, he pointed out sin, but the sin of hyprocrisy was the worst, in his denunciation. The modern church, in claiming to follow Christ’s example, is neglecting what should be its primary mission, not monitoring others’ behavior.

    Why should I belong to a church if questions how “sinful” I am.? It’s always OPS “Other Peoples’ Sin” that is th