Thanks for the interview, Marcel. I'm not sure if we remembered to mention that we're doing this production/research trip with our baby on board! Lily has been a true champ and shows signs of being quite the adventurer!

We've been really encouraged by and large by the response to this project. Just yesterday we visited a small church in Vermont. A local family showed us that great Adventist spirit of hospitality and invited us over for lunch--no small act of generosity given that a 10-month-old, who is a champion food flinger, is part of the package! We had a great conversation after lunch about the film, the huge silence on this topic in the church (for so long), and especially the challenges faced by parents (these new friends have close friends with a gay son, and it's been really hard on them). I just wanted to mention that we're still looking for people to talk to, so please do feel free to contact us (daneen@daneenakers.com) with story leads. 

I enjoyed the interview, and want to add that I greatly admire Stephen and Daneen (not to mention Lily!) for their caring and compassionate spirit, and their courage in the face of much official opposition. I believe their film will be an important and pivotal contribution to continuing the dialog on this sensitive subject in the church.

Carrol

I assume this is a passing phase, brought on in reaction to the conference at Andrews University, and that both atoday and Spectrum are not going all gay all the time. 

Incidentally, it is very interesting that the interview is posted with three pictures of a heterosexual couple and their young child.  Why don't you have the courage of your convictions, and post pictures of two men kissing on the mouth?

I was shocked to even see this subject so openly displayed.  I would curl up in shame to have newcomers in God's truth to see that the SDA would even consider allowing something like this to be existing within the church.  It is a shameful & sinful choice for anyone to become something so deviant against what God has created.  Yes we should love these unfortunate people but we must help them OVERCOME this sin, not to wallow in it.

~*~  Faith, hope & joy  ~*~

Jesuit scheme? I hope Adventism will reap what it is sowing. Getting a reputation as the most gay friendly church in town would no doubt please the homosexual apologists. When are the schools, such as Loma Linda Academy or PUC Prep, going to start walking the walk instead of just talking? Openly gay teachers NOW should be the rallying cry.

The employment of openly homosexual teachers in Adventist schools or openly gay pastors, which first?  If homosexuals are embraced by the church in fellowship, there is no reason they should be denied leadership positions, including being primary and academy  teachers as well as church pastors.

Good luck.

Homosexual roll models who influence the psychosexual development and moral paradigms of students are people who can go a long way in removing the stigma from homosexuals. 

Steve, Are you sure that it was a spelling error and not a syntactical error? (Syntactical is a big [sort of] word that people who study languages use). I possibly could have been referring to homosexual models who get "rolled" [by criminals or homophobes].

I had an acquaintance, a hand model, who displayed wristwatches in Hong Kong and Japan. He was  (incidentally) gay and liked to wear very long, spiked high heel, shoes in red patton leather. Not sure if he ever got "rolled" or not.

It would have been hard for him to run away in those shoes, that's for sure.

I appreciate your work editing my posts. Always good to strive for perfection, or even just good spelling. If you notice any other mistakes--spelling, punctuation, grammar, and so forth, please point them out. If you like, I can intentionally make some mistakes to see if you notice them or not. Is the comma placement in the sentence about the shoes correct?

David Read writes,

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions, and post pictures of two men kissing on the mouth?

Because if that were the case, David, it would no longer be an interview about a heterosexual couple giving struggling, suicidal, gay Adventists (who love their church and their God) a platform to share their incredible hardship with people who post on AT who have 0% appreciation for what these filmmakers are doing, but will instead cast judgment with sny and insensitive remarks.. .

But that's just a guess.

It is almost a guarantee that none here writing of "shameful sins" and deviant behavior, have a child or very close relative who is gay.

How many have seen the heart-wrenching CD made by Dr. Harry Wang, a Sacramento psychiatrist who specializes in seeing homosexuals, interviewing a LLU physician and his wife, daughter of the esteemed VOP speaker for many years, telling of their son who had run away for many years, not knowing his whereabouts, and when he finally came home they cared for him as he died of AIDS.  We should ask ourselves would that story have been different if he had known that his family and church would have loved and welcomed him in spite of this condition.

 Also, Carrol Grady, who has told her story here, a minister's wife, whose son is gay.  Same question:  had he felt there would have been no rejection, would his life have been far less tortured, and finally finding a home in another non-SDA church?

These are TRUE stories.  Only those so intimately close and loving those with this condition can truly understand the heartbreak of seeing their child growing up with an almost impossible burden.  How crass of those who have never experienced this with a child, can talk of deviance and sin.  While I do not have a child who is gay, as a mother and grandmother, I can empathize with a mother's heart.  Where are the hearts of those who are so judgmental and condemning?  Has God asked you to have this enormous burden to judge and condemn others? If you feel that is your God-given duty, please do not dare tell me about the love of God that you represent.  Hypocrites!

our "sexuality" is not genetically determined but is an expression of WHAT we choose. We remain responsible for it, and for the offense to God and His will that it represents."

 Unless you have the omniscience and medical and psychiatric backgound to make such a statement it should be considered only as a personal opinion, which has no merit other than that.

 In Bible times, and much later, sickness and disease as well as birth conditions were also believed to be due to sin.  Is that the prevailing medical opinion today?  Refusing to live in the 21st century, and rely on ancient books which were never intended for scientific and medical diagnosing is to remain a neanderthal or aborignal.  Rather than seeking professional medical advice, one should go to the priest or shaman who would administer a cocktail of uncertain ingredients or consider stoning to death.  If that is the case, consistency in all life should be followed by that same paradigm. 

I am still surprised by how malevolent blog comments can be. The anonymity of the web clearly can sometimes bring out our worst tendencies. I'm reticent to even engage, but because I know that LGBT individuals will read this, I want to go on record stating that the sort of vitriol and just plain inhumanity that is represented by a vocal few here is really not what we've been encountering as we talk to people in churches and communities around the country, and it's not even the church's official position. However, I do think it illustrates well how the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" approach very easily results in a focus on hatred all around. I know this is an exceedingly complex and sensitive topic for the church, but I think this exchange has been a helpful demonstration of just why the empathy and compassion of story is needed--and in good measure!

Thanks for the prayers (and a really big thank you to those of you who have contributed to the project!).  

Raycol, Paul condemns even harmless Lesbian sex:  "God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural."  Rom. 1:26 CEV.  This may not be an explicit "prohibition" but it is a pretty strong "criticism."     

 The site you link to argues that Greco-Roman culture of the New Testament era attached stigma only to the penetrated, not the penetrator, and that is true, but the Biblical admonition is not so limited:  "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."  Rom. 1:27 NIV  Obviously, the penetrator is "inflamed with lust" for the penetrated (otherwise he couldn't penetrate in that pre-Viagra era), so Paul attached blame to both parties, not just the receiving party.  Also the Levitical prohibition specifies death for both parties, not just the penetrated:  " 'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev. 20: 13.  So clearly the biblical model differs from ancient pagan sensibilities, and applies condemnation equally, not just to the receiving party. 

While the death penalty only applied in ancient Israel, it was a divinely specified ordinance, so it is hard to argue that God is just fine with homosexual copulation.

Postscript:  Obviously, this is not the greatest subject to discuss in anatomical detail in public, but it isn't a discussion I want.  It is a discussion the liberals want, so don't blame me if it makes you queasy or uncomfortable. 

Which psychological and/or medical authorities would you like me to submit my will to in preference to Gods?

Resort to authority is not an argument, but I take it as read that Seventh Day Adventists agree that God is our ultimate, objective, and complete authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Time and space proihibit going into detail as to all the many and varied ways in which these professions have erred over the years, but the history of them is readily available to anyone who cares to look. Suffice it to say that their history has not convinced me of their infallibility, while history more generally constantly affirms Gods reliability.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is genetically determined. If you have some, show it. If not, the onus remains on you who make the positive claim that it is, to demonstrate it. That is called reason, the logic of argumentation.

What we DO know is that the PRACTICE of homosexuality is condemned in both old and new testaments, Gods "two witnesses" - as in, "upon the word of two witnesses shall truth be established".

Sickness IS due to sin, and there was none of either in Eden before Adam and Eve introduced it.

But whether specific illnesses are due to specific sins is not given to us to know.

Again, what we DO know is that IF we are afflicted then it is in an attempt to show us the error of our ways, and not to punish us. That comes later, and is described as the "second death".

But I am curious about one thing: is it then your contention that homosexuality is an "illness"?

Do you think that this construction shows a more loving attitude to the practitioner than does simply recognising that we all make mistakes?

Perhaps you read into my reply what is not there? I have no antipathy for homosexuals whatsoever. Whatever they might have done and do, their sexual practices and associated motivations are no more or less pure than my own.

I simply do not think that encouraging homosexuals to persist in their practice on the basis that "it's not my fault" is not helping them. Therefore I have serious questions about people who do so while professing to love them.

In the Bible, love tends towards whatever gives and sustains life.

What tends towards death is known by other names: hate, evil, wickedness, abominations, and so forth.

If you do not like these characterizations then perhaps you should take it up with God Himself?

I cannot help you with them; they are simply there.

I have absolutely no credentials in psychiatry, but the comments of David Read and "Suenell" might make some ordinary individuals wonder if both of them may have some deeply buried unresolved issues of their own that they need to face squarely. At least, Mr. Read uses his own name. "Suenell"s' sign-off of "Faith, Hope, and Joy" is a strange contrast to the hostility expressed in the posted text.

In light of these types of statements, Adventist Today might reconsider the current policy of allowing individuals to post without using their actual name. However, our commitment to freedom of expression is probably stronger than having to put up with the ravings of bigots.

I spent six years serving the gay community in Los Angeles, from 1990 to 1996. Two of those years my contact with them was sparse. The other years, intense. During that period, I was associated with one of the first hospital AIDS units in the United States. I also was connected to nearly every infectious disease medical group and or infectious disease/AIDS physician in Los Angeles. I spent numerous hours with AIDS patients in dedicated hospice units.

I spent literally thousands of hours with AIDS patients. I had extensive discussions with some  about their sexual practices, social life, family situations, and so forth. I met their families, counselled them, prayed with a few, sensed their pain, although I myself rarely felt it.

I entered the field, thinking that these were young men, nearly my age, with similar backgrounds and interests, who would welcome a helping hand during this catastrophic period of their lives. Naturally, I was interested in their spiritual welfare. Who could be indifferent to their plight, as they were manhandled into eternity without a Saviour?

The hostility which I encountered was remakable. As a community, homosexuals hate Jesus, the Bible, the church, most anything associated with Christianity. Not that they are completely without spiritual interests. A very few did maintain connections to a church, a shaman, a philosophy; however, as a group, their hatred for anything associated to Christianity was seething. Some, upon their death bed, welcomed a prayer.

Gay "cultural" Adventists share the same hatred of Jesus. They are not Christians. It is not surprising that they find so many sympathizers among other cultural Adventists who also are not Christians. Mafioso support one another, too.

Certainly, many here will blame me, my approach, my lack of sensitivity, my judgmentalism, and so forth. Some will say it was my fault that they were not more responsive to the Christian gospel.

I doubt it. An angel from heaven would have been met with the same attitude. The problem was their attitude, a deep seated rebellion, often related, not to their church or theology, but rather to their birth family. Many, perhaps most, had been deeply wounded by their parents. The hurt had turned from pain to anger to rage.

They rejected not only the values of their parents but those of the society in which they lived and ultimately, the plan of God. While they covered up the real issues in a maze of defense mechanisms, bottom line was that many of them were angry ANGRY, ANGRY. They hated their parents, society, church, Jesus.

I left AIDS work when the protease inhibitors were introduced. The response of some patients was miraculous. Some who were curled into fetal positions and appeared hours from death fully recovered. Unfortunately, many, perhaps most, returned to the life style which put them into fetal positions.

I left the field thinking that most of the homosexuals I encountered over those years were sociopaths, more or less. My opinion has not changed. One SDA physician, a homosexual in the end stage of AIDS, was wanted by the police, hiding out in his home. I am not exaggerating when I say that he was among the most vile and debased of the multitude of gay men I saw.

Another gay Adventist physician was  more widely known. He was convicted of one of the most brutal and calculated murders ever documented in Los Angeles. Gay sympathizers and advocates have no idea where this is headed.

www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com

 Thanks for being part of our lives,

Hansen - I somehow doubt that your exit from "the field" was mourned in any way, shape, or form.  Your "ministry" failed, and somehow, it is their fault, not yours. 

You're entirely right that many will blame you for your failure.  Lucky for you, you're not one of them.  In fact, you are the fortunate beneficiary of the confident self-discovery that you did as perfect a job as a holy angel from heaven, and that angel would have met the same miserable failure as you found, because the audience is at fault, not the messenger!

Your statement that the hostility you found was "remarkable" is indicative that you suffered from a woeful lack of basic understanding for your audience.  Any competent minister would have arrived knowing that the primary antagonist of the gay community has historically been the Christian community.  It's not atheists who brandish signs declaring that "God Hates Fags" or run the site godhatesfags.com or celebrate the arrival of AIDS as God's wonderful justice rained upon the gay community.  Only the blissfully unaware would have been surprised to have found hostility and anger there.  This following is not intended to be an overstatement or disrespectful in any way, but you might as well have shown up in a Jewish Temple with the intent of converting them to Naziism.  You should have expected hostility and anger.

Hansen - as someone who defines "most homosexuals" as sociopaths, you have no business and likely never had any business ministering to them.  It's probable that you did more damage than good during your time in the community, and it's a guarantee that your attitude today does more damage than good.  At least you are openly hostile to the gay community now, and absent of the fraudulent veil of ministry, which most of those you "ministered" to apparently saw through, which would in turn explain your miserable failure.

Reading this interview, and the comments that follows, fillsme with a familiar ambivalence. On the one hand so full of hope that a community like ours can nurture such bright minds and open hearts as Stephen's and Daneen's. What a blessing they are, and what wonderful work they are doing.

On the other hand, such despair that even as we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century our community still is infected with the fear and intolerance and hatred reflected in so many of the comments. Have we really grown so little as a community in all this time?

Stephen says in the interview that one reason they areworking on this project is to "engage in a meaningful conversation about religion and homosexuality." I understand that Adventists of goodwill canand do disagree about homosexuality - what I do not understand is the resistance to engaging in the conversation. What are we so afraid of?

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem is that we don'treally know how to engage in the meaningful conversation Stephen and Daneen are trying to help us have. Strong and passionate conviction does not have to meantoxic and vitriolic attack. Intense debate and close reasoning do not have to degenerate into sarcastic competition and one upmanship. It is okay to simply state your own view as clearly as you can, and then ask for help in moreclearly understanding the views of those who disagree with you. Listening is not a weakness - it is amazing what we can learn when we really try to listen to and understand those we disagree with.

Many thanks, to Stephen and Daneen for their good work, andto Adventist Today for this fine interview. Thanks most of all to the brave men and women who are sharing their stories with Stephen and Daneen, and through them with us. As an Adventist Community it has been our great shame that wehave not been worthy of the courage and trust those who share their stories display. Perhaps we can take this opportunity, whatever our particular view happens to be about homosexuality, to more closely show these brothers andsisters the love and respect that our Creator so graciously shows to us.

Isn't it funny how liberals want "to spark meaningful dialogue about what it means to be both gay and Adventist"  and "to engage in a meaningful conversation about religion and homosexuality," but when I start discussing homosexual acts, and quoting Scripture (which is important to religious people such as Adventists), then Ervin implies that I'm a closeted homosexual.  That should be a major clue, a big piece of the puzzle, as to how liberals really feel about conversation and dialogue. 

(In fact, the contemporary Left utterly despises and loathes freedom of speech: look at "speech codes" on college campuses that liberals control, the hatred for AM talk radio and Fox News, the liberal support for "human rights commissions" that attach heavy civil penalties to politically incorrect speech, but that's a story for another day.)

Liberal Adventists don't really want "dialogue" or "conversation."  They want conservative Adventists to drop all standards regarding belief and practice.  Most of all, they want conservatives to embrace a liberal scriptural hermeneutic, because then there would be no barrier to the whole liberal program, including openly gay clergy, Darwinism, etc. 

Liberals want you to believe that homosexuality is a special, poignant, sad case, but it isn't.  It is just another instance of run amok male sexuality.  Male sexuality is very problematic.  Monogamy is not natural to men; we want to sexually possess every attractive woman we see.  Men don't often admit this, even to their wives--especially to their wives--but it is true.  Most of us are not in a position to act on this ravenous sex drive, but some men are--extremely wealthy men, celebrities, movie stars, rock stars, professional athletes, kings, sultans, and potentates througout history-- and many of these have acted on it, and we all know the stories.  David's story is one: he already had multiple wives and concubines, but he saw Bathsheba in the altogether and he HAD to have her, come hell or high water, and it did come. 

The point being that homosexuals are not the only ones whose desires are constrained by biblical standards of conduct.  All of us are constrained.  Married women, though ususally not ruled by lust in the male fashion, do sometimes find themselves wanting very much to get validation by an extra-marital affair.  The Biblical model is tough, and not only for those with same-sex attraction.

I wish the Bible didn't have any standards regarding sexual conduct, but it does, and we can't get rid of those without also getting rid of the Gospel.  It is a package deal.

Why would any bible believing SDA be surprised that homosexuals would come to A-today for support and sympathy?

Don't quote scripture, David. It has no validity on A-today discussions.

Like I said, in many ways, in the SDA church, acceptance has taken the place of repentance and conversion.

So homosexuals come here and find acceptance, knowing they need not repent to be considered viable Christians.

And by the way, they are not looking for spiritual help to overcome and deal with their moral affliction. They are looking for acceptance. And they find it here.

 Bill Sorensen

There's not space at this blog to engage in a careful discussion of alternative (not revisionist) ways of reading and understanding the Bible, but as I have offered at other times, I would be happy to further engage with anyone who cares to read the Bible studies on my website, www.someone-to-talk-to.net  

Carrol

Though it is evident that I disagree with Daneen and Stephen's take on the Biblical evidence for God's view of homosexual practice, I very much appreciate their mission to put faces and hearts on the issues we are dealing with. We do so much damage when we de-personalize people and especially God Himself. It flies in the face of love. It is a blatant and understandable effort to avoid the excruciating (actually, incruciating) pain that He constantly experiences as He witnesses the complex mixture of pain and vanity that has been the cascading and compounding result of His decision to create us with free will.

I wish you well, and pray that this opportunity for conversation is embraced.

I spent a lot of time trying to understand the gay community. Not all of it was in the context of the AIDS fiasco. I worked in the art world. I often met and socialized with homosexuals. A few attended church with me. A couple went to hear the Heritage Singers at a Baptist church. Another attended one of John Carter's services in Glendale. I really don't know that they were all homo"sexuals." Two men living together, sharing a bed, doesn't necessarily mean that they were sexual, does it?

Generally speaking, dialogue with gays is a mistake. It was a mistake for Eve to dialogue with the serpent. There are some things, some people, who are best. avoided. I usually avoid really beautiful [female] Asian prostitutes, for instance. I don't even want to look closely at them.

The serpent and Eve tells us what happens when people enter into dialogue with evil. Gays who have committed themselves to the gay agenda, or claim to be Christians while unrepentantly homosexual should just be avoided, not engaged.

While the filmmakers may be well meaning, they are misguided.

At least some people get the picture. Many, if not most homosexuals are not looking for help to overcome their immoral afflication. They are looking for acceptance in their sin.

Some flaming liberals are more "holy" than God. Why? Because they think it is highly "spiritual" on their part to forgive what God will not. That is, according to scripture, God will not forgive and accept anyone who has no intention to repent and be "born again."

The world is rapidly moving toward a spiritualistic universalism religion that is so "inclusive" that no one is shut out except those who are intolerant of their liberal agenda.

What goes on in the political scene in America is reflected in much of Christanity including modern day Adventism.

Spiritualism must necessarily undermine the true biblical dynamic of the law before it can "sell" its agenda to the world.

Seventh-day Adventism is doing its part in participating and spreading this lie of Satan and helping him "sell" his program in the church. Some see it slightly. Few see it as it really is.

"Who is blind but my servant?" The eccumenical movement is more sophisticated in some ways today. Church members are being persuaded by an incessant undermining of the law and continual false charges and implications of legalism leveled against anyone who defends the biblical norm of Christian conduct.

Women's ordination was simply the tip of the iceberg for the homosexual movement and the feminist agenda. Attacks on creation and other biblical doctrines will increase as time goes on.

The celebration movement with its train of evil will intensify more and more. Not just on the liberal fringes of Adventism, but more and more in the mainline church.

Once you abandon the bible on any single particular teaching, you set the stage to abandon the bible, period. Aparently, Adventism has learned nothing from the early church apostacy.

Today, the bible Sabbath is skating on thin ice and will soon fall through unless there is a complete  reformation in the SDA church.

I doubt Satan fears Adventism today so much as in the past. Our attacks on Rome and apostate Protestantism are becoming weaker and weaker because our own abandonment of scripture.

Even the so-called conservative elements in the church are to some extent "dumb dogs who won't bark". They cautiously challenge some points with no real commitment to defend the faith without reservation. They seem to be more jealous for their "influence" in the church than loyalty to God and His word.

For those who are loyal to the bible, we are in for a rocky time of it and it won't get better as we near the end. We generally thought the worst opposition to the truth would be from without. Such is not the case. The worst opposition to truth historically was always from within and history no doubt, repeats itself.

Bill Sorensen

Bill: Amen and Amen.  Very good points.  I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the homosexual community there is very active.  It always amazes me how much mercy and love God must have for homosexuals in light of the fact that he hasn't destroyed San Francisco yet!  The sexual perversion committed there everyday, month after month, and year after yea,r is beyond our comprehension.  When it comes to our North American SDA church, I totally agree that the liberals are in control now.  Most conservatives have been marginalized and isolated.  Only God can save us now, and may He do that soon, before we become like the United Methodist or the Evangelical Lutherans! 

TruthWave said....

 "Only God can save us now,....."

I think this may be more true than many realize. EGW said, "The time will come when God will takes the reins in His own hands."

"It is time for thee to work, Lord, for they have made void thy law."

Keep the faith,

Bill Sorensen

Contemporary Adventism has stopped attacking our Roman Catholic and Protestant friends because Adventism, at least as represented by moderate and progressive Adventism, has not abandoned Scripture. Jesus talked about love and acceptance. Bigots within Adventism talk about anything else than love and acceptance. Modern Adventists take Scripture seriously and understand from where traditional Adventism got its anti-Catholic views-and it wasn't Scripture. It was from the culture of 19th century America.

I, for one, hope that many of our fellow believers will read the continuing rants of reactionary Adventists that post on the free and open bog comments pages of Adventist Today and Spectrum, and even the postings on Educate Truth, so that moderate Adventists among us come to realize the depth and extent of the problem that Adventism has in attracting extremist fundamentalist personality types.

Dr. Taylor said......

"Contemporary Adventism has stopped attacking our Roman Catholic and Protestant friends because Adventism, at least as represented by moderate and progressive Adventism, has not abandoned Scripture. Jesus talked about love and acceptance. Bigots within Adventism talk about anything else than love and acceptance. Modern Adventists take Scripture seriously and understand from where traditional Adventism got its anti-Catholic views-and it wasn't Scripture. It was from the culture of 19th century America."

Let me say, this is about as warped and as far left as you can go. Historic Protestantism has always identified the Papacy as the antichrist system. Even before Luther and the Protestant Reformation, bible scholars identified Rome as  the "little horn" of Dan. 7.

And it had nothing to do with the "culture" of the 19th century in America. I wonder if Dr. Taylor has read any church history? Or maybe he hopes the readers are not informed on this subject, and thus he can make this comment with some show of credibility.

His non-biblical view of acceptance without repentance is equally far from any scriptural norm. Love never sets aside the law. Nor the necessity of repentance. But if you can accuse people of being "unloving" for defending the biblical norm, you may prejudice others who miss the point.

This goes along with the accusation of "legalism" if you defend the scriptural norm of salvation.

But, since Dr. Taylor apparently has little or no use for the bible, we need to consider his remarks in that context.

As long as people know where he is coming from, then they can evaluate his comments as being in a non-biblical framework. And draw their conclusions based on this reality.

Well, then, what would you expect from Dr. Taylor and his supporters? Certainly not some viable conclusions based on scripture. So, for those who read his comments, keep this reality in mind.

Bill Sorensen

Ella M

To Daneen:  Many thanks for courageously bringing to light the suffering of many Adventists faced with the trials of being gay.  I used to wonder why anyone would choose such suffering, but after hearing from individuals through my work I know this isn't a personal choice in most cases.  There are also differing degrees. I have come to the conclusion that it is something like a disability, and there is nothing wrong about having a disability. What is evil is treating those with disabilities as if it were their fault.

Apparently those who have vehemently denounced these people have not studied about homosexuality from a professional point of view.  Nor have they studied the Bible enough to recognize its theme of love and salvation for sinners of which we all are.  I am chagrined at such generalizing and mean-spirited stereotyping. Not all gay people can be put into the same category.  Just like heterosexuals there are people who choose to become sexual addicts, which makes me wonder why these same accusers don't put this in the same category as adultery.

On the other hand we do expect all single members to be celebate--that is the biblical ideal. Shouldn't the same be true for gay people?  But I am not certain if even celebate gay people would find acceptance in many churches, and that is a sin of the church and its members.The situation as it is now will only drive people away.  With spritual direction and a loving church maybe many more would have victory over their cravings.  It does need to be addressed, and I think this is a way to do it.

Please change the title!  It will cause more problems with those you want to reach and could end up ruining your project. Try something that would reveal the heart cries of the suffering like "I Want to Come Home" or "Let Me Come Home" "You Left Me Out" or "Don't Leave Me Out" with maybe a subtitle of "The Cries of Gay Adventists."   "Don't Lock Me Out" "The Closed Door."  (I can see on the cover a lone figure walking away or walking away from a church)

Deleted by AT moderator. Note: We are being stricter in enforcing that comments stick to the original post, including those from AT people. Lets please all abide by the guidelines.

Bill, This digression started when you made the following remark : “Let me say, this is about as warped and as far left as you can go. Historic Protestantism has always identified the Papacy as the antichrist system. Even before Luther and the Protestant Reformation, bible scholars identified Rome as the "little horn" of Dan. 7.”

Deleted by AT moderator. Note: We are being stricter in enforcing that comments stick to the original post (acknowledging that a comment earlier by one of our own may have instigated). Please abide by the guidelines ~ Editors

Deleted by AT moderator. Note: We are being stricter in enforcing that comments are not sabotaged and do stick to the original post. Please abide by the guidelines ~ Editors

Deleted by AT moderator. Note: We are being stricter in enforcing that comments are not sabotaged and do stick to the original post. Please abide by the guidelines. 

I am entering this discussion very carefully because it generates such deep emotions.  First I want to make it clear that Adventist Today is not supporting the so called "liberal" agenda on this subject or the "conservative" agenda.  Our role is to provide a safe place for people to discuss and learn and grow regarding the great issues of our day.  Adventist Today is also very supportive of the Adventist Church as our guidelines on this website declare.

Second, I am very interested in the spirit and attitude with which we come to the discussion of controversial topics.  It is true that it is much harder to show love and sympathy in words which reveal only about 7% of our communication.  Jesus made it clear that His disciples are not revealed by what they know, how much truth they proclaim, but by how they love one another (John 13:35).  Truth does not save us.  Jesus saves us.  Antagonistic attidudes do not win people to your viewpoint and in the end say more about the individual writing than the subject itself.    Ellen White has much to say about the priority of loving attitudes such as  "If we would humble ourselves before God, and be kind and courteous and tender-hearted and pitiful, there would be one hundred conversions to the truth where now there is only one." 9 T 189.

I see a woeful lack of this spirit in many of the comments on this subject.   In case you wonder where I stand.  I am totally supportive of the Adventist's church's historic stand on gays and lesbians.

At the same time I seek to love everyone of them to the best of my ability and quite a few attend and are members at my church.  We need to remember  that slavery and polygamy would never be endorsed by us today yet God not only accepted them in the Bible but He even gave instructions on how to treat slaves well and marriages well.  God did not rail against these injustices and pervisons of His will.

We need to remember that all of us are born sinners, selfish, call it genetic if you like. (There is much argument just how sin is passed on). But God also promises that through the New Birth experience what we were born with can be overcome and changed or controlled.

Here is a question to challenge you.  Has homosexuality become as pervasive in our culture (or is becoming perversavice) as slavery and polygamy were in Bible times so that we should learn to deal with it in the same way that God dealt with it?  I believe that slavery is a sin.  That polyamy is a sin.  Yet God worked with those people and did not condemn them.  Let's stay on the subject and not get off into the Pope and other "interesting" topics.

I am willing to enter a little into this discussion but I will not promise to answer every question that might be addressed to me.  What I seek is love and understanding.  I pray everyday how I can become more and more the person Ellen White longs for us to be,  "kind, courteous, tender-hearted, pitiful [compassionate)."

These are real people we are talking about.  I have relatives who are gay.  My wife and I have moved from not allowing his partner to sleep in the same room in our house to making up the bed for them to sleep in.  It has been a real growing experience for us (they are not Adventists).  We do not endorse their life style but they both know they are perfectly welcome in our home and they do come from time to time.  No one is converted by condemnation.  

Please, Please, meditate on John 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him."

Can we have the spirit of Jesus in all our discussion when we disagree?

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

Hansen, I agree with you that for much of the first century of its existence the Adventist church did not clearly proclaim righteousness by faith.  But as you point out.  Ellen White was in the forefront of trying to get that corrected.  She's the one who said we'd gotten dry as the hills of Gilboa, she promoted the message of Jones and Waggoner in 1888. 

Today, you're more likely to hear grace-oriented sermons in an SDA church than anything smacking of legalism.  Arguably, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and pastors are scared to preach on distinctive doctrines like the Sabbath.

Bill.  It seems that the bible has a waz nose, you can bend it whichever way you choose and it seems you believe I do the same.  You ignored John 3:17 entirely and quoted your texts which I do believe in.  However, that is beside the point.

Since it is clear from your last post that you believe AT has no redeeming value I wonder why you would invest so much time in a group of lost sinners who seem to be beyond the pale.   You are all over our website which means you have some interest in us but I don't understand why?

What are you trying to achieve?

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

Truth Seeker

To continue with the 19th century fear of Jesuits is neanderthal.  The Jesuits hardly know Adventism exists and if they did, what would they have to worry for?  It is some Adventists who still carry the anti-catholic torch when it was in vogue more than a century ago.

 Adventists would be better served to worry about the many who leave the church on a daily basis.  A simple check of the figures of baptisms in the first world countries and those leaving the church would be a reminder that few, if any, or leaving for other religions, least of all the Roman Catholic.

Bill:

You wrote:

"You state, no one is converted by condemnation. You are wrong. The law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. So Paul says, "I had not known sin, but by the law." And David said, "the law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul."

All this shows that condemnation is how people are converted. And without it, the gospel is useless and powerless."

There are many, many people who need no further condemnation. Life has done that to them already.

I am glad that God does not have a cookie cutter approach to people but will not snuff out a smoldering wick or break a bruised twig. (Isaiah 42:3) For such people, it is God's kindness, and not condemnation, that leads them to repentance and trust. (Romans 2:4)

I admire your zeal. But I do not believe that the picture you paint of God is an accurate one.

Dave Dildy

Ella M

Dear BS:

I can certainly understand why all those people you counseled with AIDS were angry!  I will bet you turned away a few who were looking for compassion and acceptance as individuals and a God who loved them.

I am reminded of Jesus as He wrote in the sand while the Pharisees stood with their piles of rocks to stone Mary.  He was gentle and caring toward her.  In fact He was always on the side of the "sinner" against the Pharisees who were so hard on the weak.

Get down on your knees and repent of your hard-heartedness!  After all you did say you thought people needed to be condemned to change!  (I don't think they can change without God's love and knowing Him as love.)  

Why are you on AT if you are so at odds with them?

"I admire your zeal. But I do not believe that the picture you paint of God is an accurate one."

Dave Dildy

Many, Dave, have no clue of the agenda being advocated on these dialogues or in the church. You are correct. "The goodness of God leads to repentance." and this is coupled with "Saving some with fear, pulling them out of the fire."

Only when you realize the modern SDA agenda is not to lead people to repentance, but rather, just accept everyone just as they are and there is no need for repentance.

In a not so subtle way, they are attacking the bible, the law and God's authority over  His people. We should be preceptive enough to see how the modern "gospel" is being used to negate the law of God.

I suppose it will become more obvious as we near the end. But we should have a clear understanding of law and gospel or we will be swept away with the tide.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Bill, I do pray for our friend Taylor.  He chooses to answer the real questions of creationism in a way not comfortable to me.   If I had to label people, he would be in my "liberal" box, too.  But, Bill, I pray for you more.  There are times I hope that you are "tongue in cheek" when you say what you say, but you have talked like this too much for me to believe that.  No, I don't put you into my "conservative box"  because i know some loving, Christ-like "conservatives" who are very strict at following their Lord but have His love.  I hope I am not judging, but your writings don't strike me that way.  Just look at your answer to our good A Today editor. Do you really think his call for "love" is a "liberal Adventist" position?  The Jesus who said "they will know you are my disciples by your love for one another" must be in anguish as He hears your confused idea of judgmental holiness.  I love you for Christ's sake, Bill, but I know a lot of "liberals" (whose theology disturbs me) that i would rather be around, I think!  Sorry to be hard on you since there are a couple of others on these pages that seem to me to misunderstand the "eternal gospel,' but your answer to the editor was just too much for me!    I guess I have to echo his comment, "what is your purpose here?"  

Bill has introduced a text which bears on this discussion in more than one way:

 "Therefore the Law has become our tutor [schoolmaster] to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."

The word translated as "schoolmaster" referred to a trusted servant who acted as a chaperone in Greek society. Among his many duties was accompanying young males as they went about town. In part, he was there to discourage the attention of older bisexual/homsexual men looking for young lovers.

Bill has sugested that the work of the law as a schoolmaster is to condemn; however, there are other ways, grace oriented ways, of looking at the law in the roll of a schoolmaster. The individual in question, the tutor/schoolmaster, played a roll in counselling his charge, in protecting him, and as a trustworthy companion.

A very early use of the term torah, in the book of Job illustrates the roll of the law as an instructor or teacher :   "Please receive instruction from His mouth And establish His words in your heart" (Job 22:22 NASB).

A careful study of the use of the term "law" in the NT indicates that sometimes the entire OT is called law. The commandments are contained in the law. The law leads us as a schoolmaster, not necessarily through condemnation, but through instruction.

A real problem with the homosexuals seeking Christian fellowship is that they reject the instruction of the law and want to affirm homoeroticism as compatible with Christian faith.

Terrence M. Finney

 It amazes me how unchristian some of the comments are. It must be wonderful to be so sure you are right and others are wrong. We should rejoice that there are young people as courageous as Daneen and Stephen. If I knew where to send it, I would gladly make a monthly contribution to their project. I am not interested in the tax deduction. 

Hansen said....

"A real problem with the homosexuals seeking Christian fellowship is that they reject the instruction of the law and want to affirm homoeroticism as compatible with Christian faith."

And an equal problem, Hansen, are those who want to patronize their desires and accept them without any exhortation to repent.

Your comment on the law as a schoolmaster is relevant. But remember, in Galatians where Paul uses the idea, he states the law as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.

His obvious concern are the Judaizers who follow him everywhere and urge Gentile Christians to participate in some form of the ceremonial law. Even claiming this necessity for salvation. Then Paul affirms the function for the ceremonial law is to point to Christ.

When the ceremonial law has done its job, its function is complete and has no futher office.

The ten commandment law can also apply in a qualified way by way of parallel and contrast. It condemns the unbeliever for their sin and then points to Christ as the Savior. But the moral law is not terminated in the way the ceremonial law is.

The moral law continues to function as a "rule of life" for all believers and not temporary as in the case of the ceremonial law. And thus, the moral law also continues to function as a schoolmaster, even for believers. Thus, it does not qualify for Paul's comment, "until the seed should come." Which implies it is done away when Christ comes.

Faith in Christ does not negate the moral law and its ongoing function both as a rule of life and a continuing "schoolmaster".

But this is how apostate Protestantism whould have us understand the book of Galatians, and in fact, all of Paul's writings and the new testament.

And now, many in the SDA church concur with this understanding which is false and non-biblical.

If should be obvious, that if the moral law does not continue as a rule of life for the Christian community, neither can it be a schoolmaster if you are a "believer". In this scenario, faith in Christ necessarily does away with the ten commandment law.

And in a more general way, it simply does away with the bible as the norm for Christian doctrine and substitutes a "spirit ethic" in place of the word of God.

Love then takes the place of the moral law and in this scenario, obviously, we can call no one to repentance since we have no standard to determine right and wrong.

I realize that what is more than obvious to some of us, is incredibly obscure to many others who fail to consider the final and complete implications of their so-called "gospel".

As for myself, I happily find myself in the camp of those historic SDA's who were called "legalists" by the Christian community in general for defending the law of God. And am equally unmoved by the novices in the SDA church today who side with these apostate Protestant Christians and call me and others legalists for defending the word of God.

Never was any denomination more "Babylon" than is the SDA church today. Who worship "they know not what" and defend apostacy on every hand. As I said in the past, "I have heard the dragon roar, and it wasn't Rome."

I am also aware that people generally attach themselves to some denomination and then conclude they are "saved" as long as they defend "the church". As far as SDA's are concerned, they could not possibly believe that defending the church and defending God and His word could ever be two different things.

As long as this view is embraced by the majority of the members, the church will never repent nor reform. It would be impossible for this to happen by virtue of this false theory. The Catholic church as well as bible history confirms this reality.

Bill Sorensen

Bill, That's your interpretation. You are welcome to it. Other people might see it differently. The idea that the "law" in Galatians converts us through condemnation is not a new idea; however, there are better reasons to understand the function of the law as instructing us. In one sense, the law does inform us that we are condemned. In another sense, it reveals to us a solution in Christ.

When David says the law converts us, there is nothing there to suggest that it does so through condemnation. That's your interpretation. One might just as well understand that the law converts us by revealing Christ and the plan of salvation.

With regard to homosexuals, it seems quite plain that they are not willing to hear instruction, at least most are not.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion about the interpretation of Galatians. The editors have indicated that they want posts to stay on topic.

Demeaning those who disagree with you as novices doesn't do much for your cause. It does disgust people who otherwise might be interested in what you have to say. Personal abuse is not usually helpful. I'm learning the lesson myself. Hopefully we can learn it together, as David Newman suggested.

Hansen said......

"Personal abuse is not usually helpful. I'm learning the lesson myself. Hopefully we can learn it together, as David Newman suggested."

We don't approach all people in witnessing the same way. Jesus didn't, and neither do I.

If you went with me to my jail ministry this afternoon, you would no doubt find a different Bill Sorensen than the one who responds on this liberal anti-SDA ministry.

And I won't apologize for how I deal with the spirituality of this ministry in a non-patronzing way. I am aware that some may honestly read and even respond who don't really know what the issues are really about.

I am also aware that some homosexuals know and feel the need to find Jesus and be converted. But in most cases, they are a minority. Most want to "cry baby" all over the church and seek acceptance claiming they just can't help themselves and God created them this way, so it must be His fault.

We can apply that argument to any sin, can't we?

I want something that is not mine, and it's not my fault, so I can steal and be justified in doing so. God created me this way. It certainly applies to adultry as well as any and all other sins.

The sad part is this, flaming liberals "buy" into this sick argument and find some satisfaction in forgiving them in some magnamious way.

Your comment on the schoolmaster was this.....

" In one sense, the law does inform us that we are condemned. In another sense, it reveals to us a solution in Christ."

That's what I said. And I also said, "The goodness of God leads us to repentance." Coupled with "Saving some with fear, pulling them out of the fire." and "Knowing the terror of the Lord, we pursuade men."

Simply put, the gospel does not negate the law, nor does the law negate the gospel.

The law is in effect 100% of the time and thus, the gospel is in effect 100% of the time.

Obviously, those who undermine the law as a rule of life, also undermine the gospel for what value does any gospel have if the law is no longer in effect?

The 2nd and 3rd use of the law in our historic Protestant heritage are bound together and this principle is non-negoatiable.

If the SDA church were not so ignorant of our historic Protestant heritage concerning law and gospel, we would not see so much "Babylon" confusion in the church today. And the homosexual movement wouldn't even get a hearing.

Would someone who said, "I steal cars for a  living and don't intend to repent, be considered a candidate for a church elder?"

If not, why not? If a homosexual can be considered for church membership without changing their life style?

But you say, "I should not call people who advocate or even question the validity of such a question 'novices'".Maybe "sick" would be a better word....eh?

Well, as you said, I have an opinion and so do you. I think mine is scriptural and defensible and see no continuity in yours. Although I doubt you embrace the homosexual movement either in the church or in the world.

Bill

Terrence M. Finney

What is a novice in the SDA church? One that is unwilling to excoriate those that disagree with them. I believe that real elder statesman, as apparently some claim to be are much more open to the arguments of others. Am I a novice to believe that the homosexual is my brother and deserves my love and concern and not my hatred?                  

"Truth is hate, to those that hate Truth"

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light" - John 14:6 

Bill, This thread is about homosexuals and those who film them.

Since the editors have demonstrated their desire to keep the thread on topic, I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion on other topics. 

Considering the numerous theological errors of the Reformers, it is a mistake to consider the positions they took "nonnegotiable."

We've had these discussions before.

www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com

Terry, here is the web address for Stephen and Daneen: http://www.sgamovie.com/  They are indeed wonderful and courageous young parents! 

Carrol

Terrence M. Finney

Thanks Carol:

It seems to me we should encourage young people that are trying to open up the dialogue. Terry

I'm a fourth-generation Seventh-day Adventist, baptized at the age of 7, and active in leadership and service to the church until my homosexuality was discovered when I was 25.

At the time, I was volunteering as announcer and programming manager for a LifeTalk radio station in Southern Indiana...

All I remember is how cruel the response was, a board member of the station, a church elder lured me to the radio station under false pretenses, and upon arrival, the return of my keys to the facilities was demanded, and I was treated as if I had stolen money, equipment, or in some other way had malicious intent in my volunteer service. It was very painful.

But the wonderful news is... Jesus never treated me that way! He's kept my hand in his through the power of His Beautiful Holy Spirit, and I now know that the people in our church that react negatively and with a spirit of judgment toward homosexuality are unaware that they are not representing the true nature and personality of Christ Jesus... remember his response to the religious accusers and judgmental crowd? He who is without sin cast the first stone...

My walk with Christ is leading me into to a complete sacrifice of physical intimacy. My path is to be a content, and yes celibate homosexual Seventh-day Adventist. I really think that's God's Ideal for me in my life.

Today I still attend church,  and love being a part of several service opportunities here in Florida. Despite the bigotry and wrong attitudes by some, I still LOVE the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a distant second to the number one Love in my life, Christ, Jesus.

But WHAT ABOUT all the other young people in our Church, and those who visit our Church who are never given the opportunity to grow and mature as Christians and allow the work of sanctification to take place in their lives. We as a church should be ashamed of our silence, indifference, and un-Christ like attitudes towards precious homosexual human beings. Jesus blood was shed just as much for them as for heterosexuals, and to despise and mock, ostracize and disfellowship gay members... it's blasphemy!

I've even seen an SDA minister up on the platform pretending to lick the ear of one of his elders during a sermon in an attempt to mock homosexuals... this is not something that should be allowed to happen. It does nothing to advance the Kingdom of God, it only hurts and degrades it... I left church that day feeling very sad that no one in the entire congregation of over 400 people challenged him, in fact the congregation could be heard laughing at the spectacle...

May God help us all Love and accept people where they ARE, so that Jesus can get them to WHERE THEY NEED TO BE!!!

Sorry guys for getting off topic is my last few posts.  Let me respond to this statement quoted in the introduction of this topic:

"As one Adventist religion professor recently told a Kinship gathering, "You have two incurable conditions–you're gay and you're Adventist, and it's awfully hard to stop being either one of those things." 

The quote above is un-biblical and sets up gays and bisexuals up for being thrown into the lake of fire!  Yes, we need to love gays like all sinners, but they need to know that their lifestyle is sinful and incompatible with being a Christian.  Also, I noted that the filmmakers were against Prop 8 in CA.  Thank God that it passed!  Homosexuals should never be allowed to have legal marriages or have children for that matter, the existence of Western civilization is at stake.

Thank you all for staying on topic.  There are many interesting side trips we can take but they do not help with us trying to understand how to reach and love our gay brothers and sisters as Jesus would reach them.

I am pleased with the attitude and spirit of most of you who post here.  I am, however, concerened about the blind spots some others have when it comes to defending truth.  Please read carefully this counsel from Ellen White.

"Christ prayed that His disciples might be one even as He and His Father are one. In what does this unity consist? This oneness does not exist because everyone has the same disposition, the same temperament, and thinks in the very same channel. All do not possess the same degree of intelligence. In a church there are different gifts and varied experiences. In temporal matters there are a great variety of ways of management, and yet these variations in manner of labor, in the exercise of gifts, do not create dissension, discord, and disunion.
"One man may be conversant with the Scriptures, and some particular portion of the Scripture may be especially appreciated by him; another sees another portion as very important, and thus one may present one point, and another, another point, and both may be of highest value. This is all in the order of God. But if a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists of viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light.
"The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinion, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance. Satan can sow discord; Christ alone can harmonize the disagreeing element. Then let every soul sit down in Christ's school and learn of Christ, who declares Himself to be meek and lowly of heart. Christ says that if we learn of Him, worries will cease and we shall find rest to our souls.

. . .

"What can Christ who is so forgiving, so patient with all our mistakes, so rich in mercy and love, think of our hardhearted criticism and faultfinding? Love for your erring brethren will produce far greater effect in reforming them than all your harsh criticism. Let all the faults and emotions of the heart be after Christ's order. Let self be put out of sight. The Lord would have the thoughts and the language and the experience of Christian life be far more attractive than it is today. If they are not more like Jesus they can never receive the light of the world. Our work is between God and our own individual souls. . . . Is your work for the Master of that character that you will hear the words, 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant'" (Matthew 25:21)?

In Manuscript Release #898 printed in Ellen G. White Manuscript Releases, Vol. II , pp. 261-9,

Now I realize this could get us off the specific topic but if we were to spend a little time on the spirit and attitude with which we come to people who differ from us it would be very worthwhile.

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

A discussion of law, grace, repentence, forgiveness, etc. is not off topic.  In fact it goes directly to the heart of this topic.  I can't imagine that we'd be having this conversation if all people with same sex attraction had the attitude of TelevisionBen, whose testimony I greatly appreciated.  I simply do not believe that any Adventist congregation would have a problem accepting TelevisionBen, who acknowledges that it is not God's plan for him to act on, and build his life around, his same sex attaction, and who has resolved to remain celebate.  I sincerely hope and pray that no Adventist congregation would reject him. 

What is controversial is that notion of a grace that doesn't require repentence.  This notion of grace, or tolerance, or love, or acceptance, or whatever, requires that the church must welcome into its midst, as members in good standing, people who are acting on their same sex attraction, and who are open about doing so.  This is the real issue, and a discussion of whether that type of "grace" is biblical or a counterfeit that uses deceptively similar language is directly on point.  And to the extent that this is what Hansen and Bill have been arguing about, they haven't been off topic.   

The activist homosexual agenda, both in the world and in the church, is normalization of the homosexual lifestyle.  In the world, this takes the form of insisting that marriage should be re-defined from one man and one woman to any two unrelated adults.  In the church, it takes the form of insisting that the church accept not only the person with same sex attraction, but the active and open homosexual.  This project hasn't proceeded very far in the Adventist church, but we need look no farther than the Episcopal Church USA to see the endgame. 

I am afraid the documentary film called "Seventh-Gay Adventist..." may not accurate represent all gay people especially "normal" gay individuals like myself.

I take umbrage with the portrayal of gay people in the interview with the straight filmmakers found in the current online issue of Adventist Today in the article "Seventh-GAY Adventists Documentary: An Interview with the Filmmakers."

In fact, it really annoys me when I read things like...

"In Lincoln, Nebraska, they filmed gay Adventists talking about attempting suicide, about feeling alone and alienated and struggling hard to reconcile their faith with their sexuality."

Well, I have never considered suicide because I am gay. I hate conservative groups continually portraying gay people as being suicidal. It's perpetuation of an unfair stereotype that does not exist in my circle of gay friends. We need to stop the film from being one-sided. The film makers need to make an effort to be fair and balanced by representing all types of gay people.

Everybody feels alone and alienated at times, especially when you don't fit into the norm of the crowd whether it is in a church or at a gay beach. That's life. Get used to it grow up and move on with your life. Not everybody in this world is going to like you...they may not even be smart enough to realize you're gay unless you tell them.

Here's another gem that get me going...

"One 39-year-old man told them about his ongoing depression since he came out in 1997..."

We are portrayed as being depressed because we are gay. Well, I get depressed because of Seasonal Affective Disorder which has NOTHING to do with being gay and more to do with my Vitamin D deficiency. Most people get depressed at some point in their lives.

And another... "Everybody said they prayed mightily to be changed."

Here's a news flash...not all of us have prayed to be changed! Unlike what the film makers believe.

I have faith that God knew exactly what type of sexual orientation to instill into my brain before I was born. And, I firmly believe that I can serve a useful purpose for the Lord as a gay man by working within the SDA church to bring light into the darkness of many SDA's lives who live void of true love for their fellow Christians.

Many of us live a very normal existence where being gay is not that big an issue in our daily lives. We are more concerned about our relationship with God, with our family and friends, and about living our daily lives here on earth by developing a loving Christ-like character so we will be prepared for translation into our perfectly orientated heavenly bodies .

Personally, I am more concerned with trying to live a Christian life (not necessarily an Adventist life) that truly exemplifies the love of Christ so that others can see a loving individual and be drawn to the peace of mind which comes from being a believer in Jesus. I care less what others think of me because that, after all, is really their burden. If someone in the Body of Christ ostracize me from their church because I am a gay man then I just feel sadness for them and have pity on them for being so far removed from the example of Christ and His unconditional love for others.

We are told to love God first then to love others as we love ourselves. Those are the two great commandments. Unfortunately, too many SDA's and as well as other Christians think it is their responsibility to separate the wheat from the tares BEFORE the harvest. Seemingly, they appear to believe that they do not have to love others who are of a different color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation from themselves. Sadly, our church has an in grown denominational attitude of hate when it comes to mixing it up by associating with people different from ourselves. Hence, the segregation of churches (and even Conferences) by ethnicity within the SDA family which is especially prevalent in the United States. Continuance of this denominational approved segregation may eventually lead to a new group of bold SDA churches (made up of both homosexual and heterosexual members) which are more open and affirming for Seventh-Gay Adventist. The goal is to have Sabbath-keeping churches that actually put into practice the love of Jesus through the Christian sprit of inclusion and where there is no place for the pharisaical attitude that some of us are just better than others.

I do believe that the words of Christ as recorded in Matthew 7:21-23 will apply to many surprised Seventh-day Adventists who awake in the second resurrection. This is especially true for some of our highly regarded preachers who seem to know all of the amazing facts as to the truth and its 28 rules and regulations but failed to grasp the real message of Christ's ministry that our true character is revealed by how we treat our fellow human beings.

Here's another perspective on "Jesuit scheme?" (see November 2, 2009 above)

It was written... 

I hope Adventism will reap what it is sowing. Getting a reputation as the most sinner friendly church in town would no doubt please the sinner apologists. When are the schools, such as Loma Linda Academy or PUC Prep, going to start walking the walk instead of just talking?

Openly sinner teachers NOW should be the rallying cry. The employment of openly sinner teachers in Adventist schools or openly sinner pastors, which first?

If sinners are embraced by the church in fellowship, there is no reason they should be denied leadership positions, including being primary and academy teachers as well as church pastors. Sinner roll models who influence the psychosexual development and moral paradigms of students are people who can go a long way in removing the stigma from sinners. Good luck.

Well, isn't that special! 

Yes, good luck finding somebody who is not a sinner.  After all the Word tells us that WE ARE ALL SINNERS. 

Is any one sin more or less of an abominaion to God, save the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Sprit?  Is a murderer less offensive to God than a fornicator? Is an adulterous affair (see God's Law #7) less of an abomination than two gay people in a loving committed monogamous relationship which allows them to understand first hand the loving intimate relationship Christ wants to have with his church?  

By the way, who among us is without sin?  We are all sinners.  Is there anyone here who can truly cast that first stone?

Perhaps its time to call for all sinners to leave the SDA church and just allow the Holier-than-thou's to fill the pews. 

Guy - Have no fear.  The filmmakers gave no indication that they intend to document a representative slice of homosexuals.  From what I understood of the interview, the film is meant to humanize the people that are shunned from our church because of their sexual orientation. 

This film could be important for many reasons, the first being that you'll no longer have to refer to yourself as normal, with quotes surrounding the word normal, as if you either really, really mean you're normal, or you're normal in a a somewhat abnormal sense.   

You sound like a guy with a fantastic sense of self awareness and a healthy self-esteem, which has no doubt served you well throughout your life.  You are extremely correct that depression is neither the exclusive domain of gays, nor an inherent part of every homosexual.  However, not everyone's journey to self-love and self-acceptance either starts or turns out like yours.  It is all too common for a young homosexual, especially in the SDA community, to at some point try to pray away their gay, to ask God to take away this cup.  All the other emotions described by the filmmakers are there, too, and understandably so. 

Our SDA community tends to be close-knit (note the delicate hint of understatement here.)  It's common to go to school, socialize, work, and worship with the same people.  When one is shut out from this circle and told they'll burn in hell, too, especially as an adolescent, the results can be devastating (though it sounds like you escaped from this fate, thankfully.) 

I hope that someday, you won't be the exception.  This film could be a part of this change.  Sorry if it offends you or others, but I hope you'll forgive any possible shortcomings in light of the help it might provide those whose path was less smooth than yours. 

Guy - I saw your second post after I posted my reply to your first post, and just wanted to compliment you on your "sinner" post. 

In spite of my expectations to the contrary, I hope that some people here will see your point.

David Read,

Back in the late seventies, Colin Cook was on the rampage in Adventism. We didn't realize it was a rampage, then. He was on the verge of becoming much more than an xgay. He was setting forth some profound insights into justification by faith based on Romans 4. I became aware of his work through a friend. She incidentally mentioned that he was a former gay. The real focus, if I remember correctly, was on what seemed like some ground breaking insights into theology which transformed lives.

It was as if someone was finally getting it right. With that rightness came the power of the Spirit that we all longed for.

Of course, it was all a sham, a scam, a fraud, which disappointed and injured numerous people.

Getting theology right, as much as I'm sorry to say it, is not the key to victory in Christ, at least not for me. I have gone from legalistic perfectionist to antinomian evangelical, yet I still struggle with personal sin. Perhaps the guilt and self loathing I felt as a perfectionist made things worse. I definitely recommend a healthy cross centered perspective for those who are real sinners, not just the timid kind.

I'm sure Colin Cook has struggled. His story was just too good to be true. And it was. His theology inspired at least some people, yet it did not deliver him completely and forever from same sex attraction. I hope it made the issue easier for him to deal with personally. It appears that he has not given up. Not sure what to make of things now. I don't plan on getting any counselling or massages, I know that.

 http://faithquestradio.com/about_col.html

I still believe Adventism to be primarily a toxic environment for gays. I'm cheered to read the testimony of our friend who obviously has much more going on than just  being gay. Good on him. "Gays getting on with their lives" would make a good title for something.

Some of the stories I hear from Adventist gays and/or their families are just sickeneing. "Dysfunction," "toxic," "disorder," are the subscript to everything they say.

Too bad. I knew some fairly well adjusted gays who, outrageous though they were, made good company from time to time.

Thanks so much for your comments, Guy. We are acutely aware that we are a heterosexual couple making a film that in some ways we don't have the personal experience to validate. We do work hard to make sure those who do have the personal experience are advising us. However, in some aspects, the fact that we aren't gay allows us access and credibility in some circles because we "don't have a horse in the race," to paraphrase someone who recently commented on Spectrum. I'd argue that we all have a very big interest in increasing our compassion quotients though, and we all benefit from engaging in a conversation that might (might--I get discouraged when I read some of the truly vitriolic comments here) result in greater understanding and openness. 

I just wanted to assure you that we are definitely making sure that we include LGBT individuals who are happy and well-adjusted. This doesn't mean that they didn't go through a period of self-doubt and depression. I agree that there is often a misconception that all gay individuals are unhappy and suicidal. What I've found is that it's crucial for individuals (and this applies to all of us) to have congruity between their religious belief system and their daily lives. When these are in conflict, deep distress occurs. If you scroll through the comments here, you'll see the sorts of deeply hurtful attitudes individuals have faced. I'm thankful you have not had this experience. And we'd love to hear from you. Feel free to contact me offline (daneen@daneenakers.com). I'm especially curious to know if you're able to worship in an Adventist church. What many LGBT individuals have told us is that it's almost entirely out of the question to attend a church if they are in a relationship, but even if they aren't, if they are known to be gay there is often suspicion and misconceptions (e.g. a man who "testified" at the recent Andrews conference on marriage, homosexuality, and the church was told, "We know how to watch pedophiles, but we don't know what to do with you..."). I do think this is slowly improving, but it would be a misrepresentation of the deep trauma many have suffered (e.g. at the hands of Colin Cook and the church's endorsement of him) to say that, on the whole, we don't still have much work to do! 

Mr. Read - I just wanted to say thank you for articulating your point,one that I share with you, so well. I also appreciated what you said regarding TelevisionBen and hope he never again has to go through the mistreatment he received from the radio station.

I seek to be a compassionate, kind, and loving Christian everyday, but I also want to be like Christ in standing up for what is right.  It seems to me that society is asking more and more every day, for us to stop calling sin by its rightful name.  Calling sin, SIN, has gotten to the point of becoming politically incorrect.  If I'm talking with one of the guys from church and he opens up to me about the married woman he has been sleeping with, am I being judgmental by telling him(in a loving way) that what he is doing is a sin?  I know that there are church members today that are much like the villagers of the Salem witch hunt era, who want to searched out the SIN just so they can point their finger and call out the sinner.  Those people really need a lot of prayer, but there are a lot of honest church goers that are attacked and called words like bigot, hate-monger, homophobe or simply labeled as intolerant, simply for calling sin what it is, when they are confronted with it.  I want to be like the Christ who spoke those tender words to Mary, without forgetting to be like the Christ who chased the money changers from the temple.  I am not a bigot, and I don't hate anybody.  I want all to be in the kingdom, even though I know that many will choose not to be there.  

I was very excited to see someone willing to take on thislong over-due project and when I became aware of it, I contacted you andconveyed my thoughts.

Having recently had a fair about of focus on this topic, Iwas pretty sure you would be interested in my story and the years and years offrustration I have dealt with over this topic and the church.

What was surprising to me was that I never received aresponse by email, or in person which could easily have occurred at Andrews University in October.

This has posed a number of questions with regard to theslant of the film. It would appear that the stories you collect must fit acertain criteria and follow a certain objective.

If you don’t cover the story from various perspectives, thefilm will not have as much impact as it would if you make sure you are coveringthe reality of the topic and the various approaches that Gay Christians have dealtwith it.

I feel that the more transparent you make the film, thebetter the outcome it is going to have in being Christ driven. Wouldn’t that beat the top of the list as far as what isexpected to be the result of the viewers?

Isn’t the objective to open the doors of the church andwelcome Same-Sex Attracted individuals to God’s house of worship? Praying for them and with them and includingthem in God’s worship services. Is it not the intent to drive home the ideathat God is love, and He loves all?

By eliminating certain viewpoints it would seem that youwould then become guilty of the very thing you are pointing out to the Adventistchurch.

God’s love is inclusive. By excluding those you may notagree with, your project has a degree of failure.

I personally wish you huge success in presenting a balancedand very long overdue focus on this topic. The result I hope you obtain is oneof God’s love being reflected to all His children. Not just the ones the churchis currently comfortable with.

Many of God’s rich blessings to you,

Wayne Blakley

Since I have no reason nor will I alter my approach to how I respond to the various posts, this will no doubt be my last. [edit]. Besides, I already made my points. Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

[rest of comment deleted]

Moderator's Note: Mr. Sorensen is correct. Due to many attempts to encourage Mr. Sorensen to engage our forums with civility and respect, and warnings to tone down his derogatory rhetoric--all of which were ignored, Mr. Sorensen has been banned from posting comments on our website. 

Hi Wayne--Being on the road with a 10-month-old while trying to work out production details has indeed made me much more behind than usual, but I don't think I've gotten an email from you. Please do try again (daneen@daneenakers.com). I think you'll note in my comment above that I even relayed an anecdote that you told at the conference.

Your story about "we know how to watch pedophiles but don't know what to do with you" illustrated very poignantly how even LGBT individuals who decide that celibacy is a path they are called to can run into challenges in churches who aren't used to this topic at all. I won't pretend that I wouldn't love to see the church treat same-sex monogamous, committed relationships in the way that we now treat re-married heterosexual couples (an example where we have really radically changed our practices based on practicality, for sure!), but I really resonate with

Aubyn Fulton's comment above and understand that Adventists of goodwill can and do disagree about homosexuality. Thanks for what you've done to engage in the conversation and share your story. 

David,

How do you reconcile this statement with Jesus' own words:"I AM ... the TRUTH!"

Jesus IS Truth, and Life (i.e. salvation).

One of the things that Jesus saves us FROM is lies, deceptions of the devil. Again, He said:"And ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free" Please notice the order this occurs in, according to Jesus Himself (i.e. NOT freedom > truth, but truth > freedom, i.e. salvation from deception.)

To know Jesus is to know Truth and thus to have life.

The reason I challenged the initial interview was the statement that "God made me this way". The logical corollary to Jesus' statement is that lies are a form of enslavement. People who lie to you are trying to make you do what you would not otherwise do, especially and most pertinently in this case, the Devil lies to us in order to condemn us to death.

If "God made me this way" is a lie with respect to homosexuality, then the lie is intended to kill.That is why I questioned whether people encouraging others to believe this lie really do love them as much as they profess to.

I also do not hold with those who claim that disagreeing with them on this point is hateful and bigotted, although I understand why they might want to think so. But for such people to accuse more cautious believers of an unChristian judgementalism is pretty ironic given that the necessary consequence of their acusation is that these others will perish for disagreeing with them.

I honour Christians of all denominations who take the time and effort to reach out and help others in need, including the makers of this film. That doesn't mean I agree with them on every point of doctrine, nor should it.

But I refer you to my first posting, in which I reminded all here that we are instructed not merely to speak the truth but to do so with love.

In respect of which I cannot help but recommend to all - without fear or favour - once more the words of Jesus to His own people, as having the highest possible authority:

"Ye should have done the one, and not left the other undone"

Peace

AM

AnonyMouse,  you write: Truth does not save us.  Jesus saves us."

David,

How do you reconcile this statement with Jesus' own words:"I AM ... the TRUTH!"

Jesus IS Truth, and Life (i.e. salvation).

I was using truth as referring to doctrine, truths about Jesus.  Of course Jesus is the ultimate truth.  I was talking about how a person is saved.  A person does not become saved by believing or accepting a particular doctrine but by accepting Jesus.

When a person places their trust in Jesus they are accepted by God as safe to save, covered with the robe of Christ's perfect righteousness, they then experience the new birth and begin a life of transformation, of growth, and victory over sin.

However, the person who has overcome three sins is just as saved as the person who has overcome 500 sins.  We are not saved by how many sins we have overcome but by the perfect life of Jesus and His death.  The newborn baby is very imperfect but still a member of the human race.  The newborn Christian is very imperfect but still a member of God's family.

Good works will ALWAYS follow the born again Christian but they are never the basis on which God takes a person to heaven.  Only a perfect life can enter heaven and God credit's Jesus perfect life to the born again person. 

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

"I'm just wondering what the producers of this film hope to change in the SDA church.  I get the feeling that its goal is make our church Gay friendly, that is OK, if it leads to Gays repenting of their sins and giving up their homosexual lifestyle.  However, I have this sad feeling that it will lead young people to think that they can be a homosexual SDA and God loves them just the way they are, no change needed."

 I challenge them to either deny or affirm your "sad feeeling." And without spinning the response as do politicians.

I am cautious and somewhat anxious but optimistic as to where this is all going. My remarks here are affected by everything that I have noted from everybody and the various levels of attitude and emotion, not to mention true thoughtfulness on the topic.

I really believe that there is a need to figure out how to minister unto the homosexual community without condoning and/or propagating this lifestyle. Indeed, we should still love the sinner and not the sin. In the past (and thankfully to a great degree still in the present) we as SDA accepted people that had various addictions from smoking, drugs, and alcohol to habitual lying into our midst without encouraging immediate membership or leadership without repentance. Yes, we are all sinners as all have sinned, but Christ was not being rhetorical when He said, "neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more."--John 8:11 Likewise, note the condition presented in verse 12; "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." He received and even ate with what we would call reprobates, but He never left them to live in their darkness nor did He in any way leave them with the idea that it would suffice for them to continue to practice any wrongs that might exist. The same was true of Peter and Paul as well as with the other Apostles after their conversion. Indeed, Paul even spent much time dealing with how the church should handle those professing to be Christians while continuing to hang on to and practice known sin.

I truly believe that we are a "hospital for sinners and not a clubhouse for saints." How many have ever gone to a hospital in order to comfortably maintain a disease? Ok, I guess technically there are those that might fit that description, but the point is that the origional and primary purpose is for healing as well as for compassionate treatment. We are not just to preach God's love and grace, but to offer and provide healing as it is made available for us to do so. That is why we have Stop Smoking seminars, and provide other types counselling, clinics, and "schools." Even our cooking schools are endeavors to achieve a better and happier lifestyle. This is what love is all about in our ministry. We don't just say God loves you, but we show and TELL what God wants to do to help and heal you.

However, as Paul continually makes clear and as the true SDA knows of the "Three Angels' Messages," we are to make it clear as to the consequences of continuing to hang on to the world and the lust of the flesh in non-repentance. This too, is meant to be done in love. When that message is rejected, we are basically told to move on and shake the dust off of our feet. But never, never, never are we to hate the sinner. A Christian should indeed be sighing and crying (as in feeling pain and remorse) for the abominations that are resulting in so many lost souls. There should be true, sincere, and compassionate prayer going out for all as God would rather, if it were at all possible that all men should be saved. Notice that John 3:17 say, "for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." Likewise, 1Timothy 2:4-6 says, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

Christians indeed have a great commission regardless of how comfortable or uncomfortable they may be in carrying it out. For those that feel so adamantly too self-righteous to address or deal with this issue, you need to prayerfully consider your own state of spirituality and conversion.

In as much as I do not believe that those that are non-repentant should be given positions in the church, school, or organization, I suppose that I would be considered a conservative. Indeed, I believe that God made it clear that His love is unconditional, but the rewards are not. However, I believe it is terribly wrong to be critical, resentful, or hateful. While I do believe in freedom of speech and am more than glad to stand up for what I believe, I do not give my whole name here for the very reason that I have seen here in this forum. This is not an ideal world and I am concerned about my safety from those that do not truly support freedom of speech.

God bless all of you,

FloydT

It is becoming rather nauseous to hear repeatedly that we must love the sinner but not the sin.

Who will openly declare that she loves sin?

Some of us can easily recall a time when any SDA who was divorced and remarried was "living in adultery" --thus, "living in sin."  I can recall, as probably many older ones can, that there was a church board meeting ("inquisition") into the most intimate details of a married couple to determine whether it was "adultery" or simply incompatibility.  Abuse was not considered adultery, nor many other reasons.  After California became the first state to adopt "no-fault-divorce" there was a change within the church, that realized that it takes "two to tango" and attempting to declare the "guilty" or  "innocent" parties was something even judges refused to do.

Times and mores change.  Today, if all those divorced members were "kicked out" there would be a wholesale exodus. 

 Because homosexual orientation is a newer condition which the church has not previously confronted, stricter enforcement is suggested.  In a few years, it will be like divorce:  so common and accepted by the majority that acceptance in the church will be a non-subject.

"we do want to provide the fodder and the forum for a transformational conversation to happen–"

It appears this "conversation" is supposed to lead us to accept the practice of homosexuality as normal and OK. Regardless of what the supporters of this aberrant behavior say the SDA church has and will continue to follow the Scriptural injunctions that such practices are sin.

Truth Seeker

Has it ever occurred to anyone out there that if the church only reaches out to repentant homosexuals, it is not fulfilling what Jesus came to demonstrate, which was to SEEK and to save those who are LOST.  A lot of people, probably most homosexuals, look at Christians as a bunch of judgmental, self-righteous practitioners of doomsday for anyone who does not measure up to their  "standard."  Jesus scoffed at those religious hypocrites of his day and declared that the harlots and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of heaven before the "religious" scribes and Pharisees.  Was Jesus  sanctioning sin with such a bold statement? Not in the least.  But He certainly showed a bright light on the accountability of those "enlightened ones" who were in worse darkness than the "sinners" they looked down on.

"Christ's method alone will have success in reaching the people. The Savior mingled among men as one seeking their good.  He sympathized with them, ministered to their needs and won their confidence, and THEN (caps mine) he bade them follow me."  Ministry of Healing page 143. 

We seem to have a hard time loving people without somehow rationalizing that we are accepting their sinful habits in doing so.  This time worn cliche of "love the sinner and hate the sin" really doesn't cut it here.  While it is meant, albeit begrudgingly by some Christians, as a gesture of love, to many gays those words seem like a guided missile closing in on a target. To most homosexuals  their identity is so intertwined with their sexual behavior as to seem inseparable.  Does this mean the church needs to abandon or spin the Bible passages that condemn homosexual sex?  Absolutely not!

Again what was Christ's method when dealing with societies outcasts.  He didn't give the prostitute, who was dragged before him, a lecture on the evils of her trade.  He said, " neither do I condemn you."   He followed that with what I believe was an invitation, rather than a harsh command as some would portray, "now go and sin no more."

Jesus tells us to be fishers of men.  We catch them and He will clean them.  To catch fish you need the right bait. You also have to lure them with something better than what they can get where they are. Too many in the church are using the wrong method in trying to reach homosexuals.  Like the guy who had a broken horn on his car, when he drove up to the mechanic shop, the door was closed with a sign on the outside "honk for service."   That is the predicament most homosexuals find when they see the church.