Gay Marriage and Discernment

I sincerely appreciate David Person’s articulate argument entitled “Banning Gay Marriage Is Discriminatory and Wrong” (AT March/April 2004); his clarity challenged my own thinking on the matter. Nonetheless, while I agree with his spirit of conviction, I am left with some heavy questions concerning discrimination and government’s role in the matter. Is all “discrimination” categorically wrong? Or, has this word become emotionally loaded and would it remove the power of government or an individual to be able to discern, and voice that discernment?

To say that racial discrimination is wrong I wholeheartedly support, but to allege that discrimination is not Christian is overstating. The Ten Commandments teach us to discriminate between what is good and what is evil, and yet, according to Jesus, such discrimination is based on love. To hate is never Christian. Jesus left us many examples of how to discriminate in love: the woman at the well, the woman caught in the act of adultery, Zacchaeus the tax collector, Levi Matthew with his partying cohorts, and his (i.e., Jesus’) own dying words while hanging on an unjust cross—just to mention a few.

We do not have an injunction from God to discriminate racially; however, we do have God’s explicit word concerning sexual moral behavior. Because homosexuality is a religious moral issue, does that automatically gag government from being able to protect what is also a civil institution that dates thousands of years?
Jay C. Baker Via the Internet

Defense of Marriage Legislation

In the Pacific Union Recorder editorial you reprinted (AT Jan/Feb 2004), the editorial invokes the Ten Commandments to defend church intervention in same-sex marriage legislation. But the Ten Commandments focus on one basic marriage issue, adultery. If we look at the teaching of Jesus on this issue we find that He denied the reality of divorce, making remarriage a form of adultery (Matt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18).

Where then, is the real Defense of Marriage legislation—making remarriage off-limits to most divorced heterosexuals? When remarried couples seek to join our church, why don’t we tell them they are living in sin and must separate in order to join us? Do heterosexuals get a special dispensation from Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage?
Jim Miller
Madison, Wis.

Curious Logic on Gay Marriage

Some curious logic is employed in the recent Adventist Today (March/April 2004) on the subject of homosexuality.

John McLarty, a thought-provoking writer and effective editor, makes the assertion that since we Christians have such an abysmal track record with heterosexual marriage (i.e., high rate of divorce) perhaps our “right to speak” on the issue of gay marriage has been diminished. We have thus not “earned the right to speak.” But is the truthfulness of the message that man/woman marriage, as it was in God’s created plan, is the best way, any less true just because we are defective? Our failure to live up to a high standard does not necessarily diminish the validity of that standard. (It does however speak volumes to our fallenness and need for redemption.)

Skeptics love to trash Christians for failings like Swaggart’s and the Bakers’ public falls from their own high standards. But does that make their standards any less well-grounded? Why should the person with no discernible standards automatically become “right” when Christians fail to meet their own standards?

Next, it seems to me that David Person commits a classic blunder when he assumes his point to prove his point. Discrimination is wrong. We all agree with that. Any action that does not treat gays as “equal” in every respect is discrimination and is therefore wrong. But the question of whether “gay marriage” should be treated differently from heterosexual marriage is the very point under debate! I’d guess he wouldn’t dream of calling legal prohibitions against slavery, polygamy and unequal treatment of women in employment “discrimination” (though one finds more support for these in the Bible than for “gay marriage”). If every personal choice is given blanket exemption from being restricted because such restriction would be “discrimination,” on what basis could there be any legal intervention in anyone’s behavior no matter how bizarre or harmful? At what point does “discrimination” become the proper rejection of harmful, disruptive, antifamily or antisocial behavior?

Lastly, Ronald Lawson maintains that speaking against gay marriage somehow is an attempt to impose morality. This is tantamount to saying that the church has nothing whatsoever to contribute to the public discourse. By this reasoning, no person with any position molded in any way by religious influence has a right to speak. Laws which uphold moral values are enacted all the time. Whether or not lawmakers label their motives as “moral,” the fact remains that laws protecting children and women, prohibitions on murder, theft and trafficking in humans are all grounded in a moral sensibility. The assumption that the “evolution” of marriage necessarily must lead to the acceptance of gay marriage as the moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage is unsubstantiated, contrary to Romans 1 and dubious.

To act as if acceptance of gay marriage as a civil right will not have any “spillover” effect in implying a moral equivalence to heterosexual marriage is naive at best, devious and catastrophic at worst. (His inability to discern the danger to traditional families that such an implied moral equivalence brings is, in itself, troubling.) To what other biblically rejected activities has Mr. Lawson applied such thinking? If biblical values are rejected as having no place in society simply because they are biblical, where, pray tell, does one get his values from? Should not these “alternative sources” also be subjected to the same scrutiny and suspicion Lawson focuses on the Bible? Our founding fathers rightly recognized the dangers of a state run by the church. This does not, however, mean that the values that molded their convictions were completely separated from their beliefs in God.

There may well be some good arguments in favor of gay marriage. The ones set forth in this issue of Adventist Today however, are not among them.
Bob Rigsby
Orlando, Fla.

Not All Adventists Oppose Gay Marriage

Adventists should reject Alan Reinach’s plea to “speak up” on gay marriage. He seems to assume that church members are uniformly against gay marriage. They are not. I, for one, am in favor of allowing gay marriage on constitutional and equality grounds. Others in the church have a similar approach.

Gay marriage is constitutional under the constitutions of most states. Opponents of gay marriage tacitly admit as much by calling for amendments that would expressly prohibit gay marriage.

Reinach overlooks the fact that marriage has two aspects: civil and religious. Nothing would prevent the church from continuing to fulminate against homosexuality and to prohibit gay unions within the church. Yet there is no nonreligious reason to deny gay couples the civil benefits that come from marriage (e.g., the right to inherit, to sue for injuries to the other spouse, to take pensions and Social Security, and the like). Law should reflect general communal norms, not the religious preferences of certain subgroups.

Finally, and most controversially for readers of this journal, I disagree that homosexuality is “absolutely” immoral. Adventists traditionally cite the Bible as grounds for the immorality of homosexuality. Yet within almost the same breath the Bible commands men not to have sex with women on their periods, states that men are unclean after nocturnal emissions, claims that God directly or indirectly killed the innocent firstborn of Egypt and 185,000 of Sennacharib’s troops while they slept—and a host of other idiocies and atrocities that I would recoil at claiming are literally true of God.

For decades Adventists have applied historical methodologies to the Bible, frequently to derive the conclusions they desire for reasons external to the text. Paul’s advice to women to remain quiet in church and his assertion that women are ontologically subordinate to men; Jesus’ statements to the thief on the cross about post-death existence and the parable of Lazarus in hell; the New Testament’s repeated diminishment of the importance of Sabbath-keeping (Gal 4:10, Rom 14:5, Col 2:16-17); Jesus’ consumption of alcoholic beverages (Matt 11:18-19)—Adventists have performed hermeneutical somersaults to insure that these literal words don’t say what they say.

Why then are Adventists enslaved to the Bible’s backwards thinking on homosexuality, which should be assigned the same status as the idea that the sun stood still relative to the earth for Joshua? Science is demonstrating that homosexuality arises from a combination of genes, hormones and early life experiences, over which gays have no control or “responsibility.” It is time that Adventists apply historical criticism consistently to the entire biblical text, in the context of modern science, and recognize the antihomosexuality teachings for what they are: outmoded and unethical. The Bible does reflect an “absolute” morality, but it is contained in its ethic of love and valuation of humans in their relationship to God (Deut 6:4,5). The task of Christian morality is the difficult one of deriving principles of right action through a constant dialectic between the essential meaning of the Bible and the often ambiguous factual setting of our lives. The abject hoax of fundamentalism, typified by Reinach’s simplistic call to action, is that this task can be met through an easy reading of literal words without historical or social context.
Karl Kime, attorney
Los Angeles, Calif.

Investigative Judgment

I found Ervin Taylor’s book review (AT Jan/Feb 2004) of Clifford Goldstein’s Graffiti in the Holy of Holies fascinating. But it was this statement that really knocked my socks off. “Even if we were to accept the questionable proposition that there is only one ‘correct’ interpretation of Daniel 8:14, what possible relevance might that have on how a Christian is to live now? Only those who closely identify with classical Adventism would try to find a reasonable explanation of how it would.”

The Sanctuary doctrine and the Investigative Judgment as based on Daniel 8:14 are the “central pillar of the advent faith” (The Great Controversy, p. 409). If this “central pillar” is true, to paraphrase Des Ford, the “Good News” of the Gospel turns into really bad news. If every person who has ever professed faith in God has their life come into review during an “Investigative Judgment” where every word spoken, every deed done, every motive considered {forgotten or otherwise} either condemns or justifies them (Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 311), then how can any of these ever hope to experience the peace with God spoken of in Romans 5:1? And if this weren’t enough, once the “Investigative Judgment” is over, two groups, those making the cut and those who don’t, must live in the sight of the Lord until His second coming without a High Priest, the former group reflecting the image of Jesus completely; the latter group lost forever and without hope (Early Writings, p. 41). What possible relevance might this have on how a Christian is to live now? It means trading fear and uncertainty for the Savior’s promise of salvation. “He who hears My Word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life.” 
(John 5:24.25).
David H. Simon
Boise, Idaho

Timely Issue

Thank you for this issue (March/April 2004). It is timely, and much needed. Those of us who have to deal with the results of divorce will benefit from the advice given. The article re: the Catholic sisters should be well-heeded by SDAs.
Karl Hafner, M.D., M.P.H.
Via the Internet

Healing Faith?

Thank you so much for Morris Venden’s article, “Faith Enough NOT to Be Healed,” (AT Sept/Oct 2000), which touched me deeply. I’ve been suffering with several debilitating chronic health problems for many years, and I’ve encountered those who believe that it is only due to my lack of faith that I haven’t been healed. Though they sometimes made me doubt my faith relationship with God, I never really accepted their point of view, particularly because of the record of what happened to the Apostle Paul in response to his request for healing. This article brought me great comfort and encouragement and I’m very grateful for that.
Deborah J. Uffindell
Via the Internet

3ABN Conversation Misquoted

This letter is in response to your January/February article on 3ABN, which I saw only [in late May]. The article incorrectly attributed information to me. The last paragraph on page 11 says Kermit Netteburg noted that 3ABN’s use of a corporate jet seems to coincide with 3ABN’s loss of a million dollars in annual donations.

I recall the conversation between Ed Schwisow and myself quite differently. Ed asked me about a drop of $1 million dollars in 3ABN contributions, and I said I didn’t know about 3ABN finances. I didn’t add that I’m not part of the board, nor do I have any relationship with 3ABN that would give me access to their donation records or their finances. The crucial point is that I did not confirm that 3ABN had lost $1 million in contributions—nor could I have done so.
Kermit L. Netteburg, assistant to the president, North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists
Silver Spring, Md.

The Health Hazards of CCM

One of my concerns in Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) (AT Nov/Dec 2003) is that as we move towards Rock, will we turn up the volume so that performers and audience close to the speakers could damage their hearing? I would like to see someone with the equipment to measure decibel levels help all of us understand what decibel level, in what pitch range, can damage hearing. This is an objective measure of music that could be taught to seminary students and youth leaders. God is not glorified by any health-destroying practice.

Another concern in CCM is a vocal style that can produce vocal nodes and permanent fibrous thickening of the vocal cords. Ellen White has much to say on this subject and warns that the improper use of the voice can shorten life (2T 672). Many popular rock singers can only sing for about 10 years, yet a well-trained voice can be used till a singer is old. God is not glorified by unhealthful singing.

Praise music that glorifies God should be based on melodic tones and harmony, not noise and dissonance. Screaming Christian words to distorted, overly dissonant music does not sanctify it.
Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Los Angeles, Calif.

Belief System Purely Humanistic

In his “Readers Respond” called “Getting It Right” (AT Jan/Feb 2004), Bob Wonderly proposes a belief system that is constructed exclusively from human reasoning. His belief system is based on three questions and their answers: Does God exist? Yes; is this God relevant to me as a human? Yes; does God intend for me to be free? Yes.

Of course I have no problem with either Wonderly’s questions or answers. My problem is 1) the fact that he abandons the Bible as a source for answering the questions (he speaks of our “unrealistic notion of inspiration”) and 2) his questions don’t address the problem of human evil and its solution (he includes humanity’s fall into sin and God’s plan to save us from it among the problems with our historic “bottom up” approach).

Adventists have maintained for more than 150 years that our theology is grounded in Scripture. But if we were to adopt Wonderly’s approach to developing our belief system we would have to abandon Scripture as its basis. And we would have to abandon the great controversy theme with its diagnosis of the problem of evil and God’s solution in Christ’s death, resurrection, mediatorial ministry, and second coming. In abandoning these we would cease to be Adventist, Protestant or even Christian. Thus there wouldn’t even be a magazine called Adventist Today in which Wonderly could express his humanistic views!
Marvin Moore, editor, Signs of the Times
Caldwell, Idaho

How Free Is Free?

Wonderly has made a significant contribution to the issue of “Getting it Right,” (AT Jan/Feb 2004) and I commend his approach. That is, through the first two questions that he raises and answers. When he comes to the third question (“Does God intend for me to be free?”) he ventures onto ground that detracts significantly from his former thoughts. I especially object to the following: “Free as in so free that I can surprise God, that I can do something, create something, some idea, that God has neither thought of nor done? For it to be otherwise would mean that I am a mere computer doomed to follow a prearranged and previously imposed program over which I have neither say nor control.”

If I can surprise God, then I am a god that supersedes God. If I can develop some idea that God has never thought of nor done, then I am a superior god, and God is subordinate to me.
D. Ordell Calkins
Orangevale, Calif.