Sabbath Sermon: Adam and Steve

[NJK Project]

Some interesting follow-up developments & responding articles on the PUC-JH issue:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2014/10/30/puc-legal-counsel-requests-removal-adam-and-steve-video

https://thecompassmagazine.com/blog/did-god-really-say-a-response-to-pastor-jonathan-hendersons-sermon-on-homosexuality

[phkrause]

Great article

[Sojourner]

I could not agree more with Omar MIranda, Steven Henderson has openly done more damage than healing on this issue and I do not believe for a moment that was unintentional, such is the power and obsession of the GBLTQ lobby to "bring on discussion" (always in their favour), that they do not care less who gets hurt, not unlike Hamas who openly sacrifice their own people for media to further their cause. His sermon is based on made up ideals passed off as supposedly proven scientific theory and the usual tired line that Bible does not mean what it says and that it does not actually matter if it does and so forth. As that other lady said in the article, I would not allow my children to attend their either and for the same reasons. 

[CoAspen]

All in the eyes, or ears, of the beholder.

[Tom Wetmore]

For those who have not seen the whole sermon...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJvQaqnfM-w#t=436

[Tom Wetmore]

I could not agree more with Omar MIranda, Steven Henderson has openly done more damage than healing on this issue and I do not believe for a moment that was unintentional, such is the power and obsession of the GBLTQ lobby to "bring on discussion" (always in their favour), that they do not care less who gets hurt, not unlike Hamas who openly sacrifice their own people for media to further their cause. His sermon is based on made up ideals passed off as supposedly proven scientific theory and the usual tired line that Bible does not mean what it says and that it does not actually matter if it does and so forth. As that other lady said in the article, I would not allow my children to attend their either and for the same reasons. 

I would just ask that you watch and listen to the whole sermon first before rushing to judgment on what Henderson is saying and what he is not saying. And consider whether Omar Miranda fairly represents the whole sum and substance of the message delivered by Henderson.

[fccool]

 

[fccool]

[Lauralea]

NJK Project:

"...But this abhorrent demonstration by Jonathan Henderson is indeed what the WO-opposed side had claimed, most tellingly by JH using the same example of “God letting Israel have a king” to justify that change. Then there are all of the other mind-boggling ways that the current SDA pro-sides such so amateurishly and shoddingly, even proof-textingly, twist and claim Scriptures for their position."

 

Yes this link between WO and homosexuality is very unfortunate but I am not sure if the fact that radicals embrace something is sufficient reason to reject it. However I am not closed to the idea it is somehow linked. I believe in extraordinary circumstances the Lord does use women to fulfill a role and function of leadership whether we call it being ordained or not. They are ordained of God to fulfill a function.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes this is unfortunate but I am not sure if the fact that radicals embrace something is sufficient to reject it.

Good point.

But I would urge everyone to actually see and listen to the sermon rather than taking someone else's word for it...

[fccool]

I think it's interesting to note in all of this exchange that there's very little "gay side" of the argument... as to what many of these people actually want. There are a lot of assumptions and lumping the "gay camp" to the one large homogenous entity, ignoring the individual differences in belief on this issue.   Most of the gay people don't want anything to do with the church to begin with, given that they are treated with passive-aggressive form of contempt.

 

Some gay people though, did grow up in church, and merely try to retain Christian identity while coping with their condition... and really that's their interest of discussion in this area.  From non-gay conservative end, there's generally a theology ideals that draw the lines without actually adequately considering how such lines exist merely conceptually and not existentially.  I think that's the entire point that Henderson is making.

  

[fccool]

Another issue that's relevant is the "substance of belief".   If belief is merely conceptual... it turns into an unsubstantiated philosophy that's rather vague and ambiguous and lacks reality.

 

The problem with idealistic approach of drawing distinct lines is that it's irrelevant as to what's actually happening in the church, and how we react collectively to such questions posed... and why we single out some issues and not other.

 

For example,   I believe that I should live in the healthiest possible manner.   I also believe that I simply don't do enough to live in such way.   Those are two very antithetical beliefs that can create a great deal of cognitive dissonance.   Our brain ends up dealing with cognitive dissonance quite pragmatically, by constructing the perception reality that minimizes such dissonance.

 

So, the fact that I believe in an ideal is elevated, and the fact that I'm not currently the ideal is filtered, unless someone casts it back into question... and it causes all sorts of uncomfortable emotions, because the cognitive dissonance is resurrected.

 

 

Our churches today is an example of suppressed cognitive dissonance, which is actually being suppressed via focusing on issues that "we are collectively not".   That's why the gay issue is so popular in our church .   I mean think about it.  Think about all of the societal problems we are dealing with in our churches:

 

-  Preventable health issues and obesity epidemic

-  General stress and overworking

-  Marital stress and abuse

-  Child abuse and neglect, which extends beyond not beating your children.... but essentially leaving them to be raised by marketing and gaming industries

-  Debt issues

-  Monetary and time mismanagement

.....

 

All of these are far from ideal.   All of these, we find people who find themselves unable to overcome.

 

We can go on and on.... YET, the gay issue tends to be so controversial.  Why?  

 

Why don't we have heated debates on whether living the life of self-induced and justified obesity is a sin?   Well, because there wouldn't be many people left in church today if we hammered that point day in and day out.  We'd make a lot of women and men feel worthless, and they'd probably cry themselves to bed chocking on ice cream....

 

Yet, when it comes to drawing the definite and bold lines on homosexuality...   hey Bible is very clear, and we must take that stand.

[Lauralea]

I know a man who was formerly a practicing gay and now speaks in SDA churches. He is spiritual and vibrant. He used to be mad at a relative for not condoning his lifestyle. Now he gets it. Lets compare it with say some other activity we can't remain in the church while practicing. Is it really doing anybody any favors to say, you can be a member in regular standing and do this? If we did, would it not be confusing? Would people know they needed a different lifestyle?

[fccool]

I know a man who was formerly a practicing gay and now speaks in SDA churches. He is spiritual and vibrant. He used to be mad at a relative for not condoning his lifestyle. Now he gets it. Lets compare it with say some other activity we can't remain in the church while practicing. Is it really doing anybody any favors to say, you can be a member in regular standing and do this? If we did, would it not be confusing? Would people know they needed a different lifestyle?

 

Where do yo draw the line though?  I've mentioned a whole range of problems in churches.   For example.  Not taking care of your body is a sin.  Gluttony is a sin.   There are plenty of people who are obese and overweight.

 

Would you say that we are not doing anyone a favors to say that you can be a member while being obese?   The question really about singling out convenient conditions that are generally not prevalent in the church as a whole.   Where do you draw the line? 

[Gregory Matthews]

The fundamental issue here is that which is related to the nature of the Church:  Is the Church a haven for people who have reached a specified level of sanctification and if that is true, what is that level?  Or, is the Church a hospital for the sinners who are broken and  bruised? 

 

 

NOTE:  While one can take a position at either extreme end, there are also positions in-between the extreme ends. 

 

It should also be noted that acceptance of a person into membership does not imply acceptance of issues that they may be facing in their life.

[Gregory Matthews]

Not taking care of your body is a sin.  Gluttony is a sin.   There are plenty of people who are obese and overweight.

 

Would you say that we are not doing anyone a favors to say that you can be a member while being obese?

 

I am reminded of a congregation that got a new pastor.  It was quickly noted that the new pastor was obese.  Soon after his arrival he recieved an unsigned letter telling him that if he did not make substantial progress in losing weight within the next 30 days the author of the letter would stop attending services.

 

So, the pastor shared with the congration, publiclly, of his recent battle with cancer, the damage that had been done by the medications that had saved his life and his current clinical condition as it related to his weight.

 

The situation was compounded by the fact that many people in the cogregation assumed that the unsigned letter had been written by a specific couple in the congregation.   That couple denied that they had written it.   But, some are not convinced.

 

NOTE:  I do not attribue the thought expressed, in the quote above, to the actual thought of the person who entered it.

[Lauralea]

Where do yo draw the line though?  I've mentioned a whole range of problems in churches.   For example.  Not taking care of your body is a sin.  Gluttony is a sin.   There are plenty of people who are obese and overweight.

 

Would you say that we are not doing anyone a favors to say that you can be a member while being obese?   The question really about singling out convenient conditions that are generally not prevalent in the church as a whole.   Where do you draw the line?

Rather than develop some new conventions I guess I am saying not to eliminate the ones we already have

[fccool]

I am reminded of a congregation that got a new pastor.  It was quickly noted that the new pastor was obese.  Soon after his arrival he recieved an unsigned letter telling him that if he did not make substantial progress in losing weight within the next 30 days the author of the letter would stop attending services.

 

So, the pastor shared with the congration, publiclly, of his recent battle with cancer, the damage that had been done by the medications that had saved his life and his current clinical condition as it related to his weight.

 

The situation was compounded by the fact that many people in the cogregation assumed that the unsigned letter had been written by a specific couple in the congregation.   That couple denied that they had written it.   But, some are not convinced.

 

NOTE:  I do not attribue the thought expressed, in the quote above, to the actual thought of the person who entered it.

 

I hope such disclaimer is unnecessary and obvious... but let's take this case further, since I believe it's relevant.

 

So, the obsity of the pastor is rationalization in such instance because of certain non-standard condition that changes biology of his body... resulting in implications beyond his control?   I hope you see where I'm going with this.

[fccool]

Rather than develop some new conventions I guess I am saying not to eliminate the ones we already have

 

  But my point exactly is that the ones that you do have are build around tolerance of things that congregation struggles with, and singling out and decrying things that congregation doesn't struggle with.

[Lauralea]

  But my point exactly is that the ones that you do have are build around tolerance of things that congregation struggles with, and singling out and decrying things that congregation doesn't struggle with.

Not mine but the ones the Adventist Church has. I agree with them, the concept being that there are lines and boundaries that are open denial of profession of faith. It is not especially my burden to do something towards people who cross the lines. It is important people  know there are lines for themselves as well as for the church and those influenced by their actions. We do need to love others who are sinning but we do not need to love the sinful behavior. Still working with the process personally. Once knew a woman with a substance abuse problem many"loved" her too much to address, even though she was driving passing out drunk in some cases. She was not my best friend by any means (long story) but talking to her prompted her to go to a Christian self help group after she prayed about it. All the ignoring her behavior did not have any apparent helpful effect on her in terms of her addiction. She thought it was not that big of a deal until she prayed about it and God impressed her it was a very big deal.

[fccool]

Not mine but the ones the Adventist Church has. I agree with them, the concept being that there are lines and boundaries that are open denial of profession of faith. It is not especially my burden to do something towards people who cross the lines. It is important people  know there are lines for themselves as well as for the church and those influenced by their actions. We do need to love others who are sinning but we do not need to love the sinful behavior. Still working with the process personally. Once knew a woman with a substance abuse problem many"loved" her too much to address, even though she was driving passing out drunk in some cases. She was not my best friend by any means (long story) but talking to her prompted her to go to a Christian self help group after she prayed about it. All the nicey nice did not have any effect on her in terms of her addiction. She thought it was not that big of a deal until she prayed about it and God impressed her it was a very big deal.

 

I don't think we should let people rationalize destructive behavior.   It's certainly not something I would advocate, and that's not entire the issue here, thus invoking alcoholism is not entirely relevant or comparable.

 

Homosexuality is a condition, like blindness is a condition.  Ideally, people aren't blind.  Neither they ideally are homosexuals.  But both are stuck with reality of dealing with their condition. 

 

Essentially, we can make a statement akin... people shouldn't be blind.   I don't think you should make a case that people should be blind.  They just are.  Now, you can then make a case that since people shouldn't be blind, they should really cope with their blindness by using alternative ways to read... like brail, for example.

 

In rare cases, people can partially recover sight using rare surgical procedures, but such is not the case for most blind people.

 

Therefore it wouldn't make sense to say "Hey, either you read like everyone of us, or you don't read at all".   It would be unreasonable demand in context of their condition.

 

It sort of the same with homosexuality.   They are unable to be attracted to opposite sex, for most of them.  It's their condition that largely stems from hormonal impact on their development, thus they are "blind" in a sense and are trying to cope with it.  Stating that it's a sin doesn't really help the issue in terms of their ability to deal with sexual attraction.   Sure, they can choose to be celebate, but in Biblical terms... It's not good for men to be single.   Thus they have a choice between struggling with their innate sexual drive for the rest of their lives which seems to be the only option.

[Lauralea]

fccool Alcoholism is something for which the tendency may be both inherited and cultivated. In that way they are similar. It begins inwardly and both are mental emotional and spiritual rather than solely physical. In this way they are also similar. Blindness is in most cases a physical condition first and does not begin with the emotions or inner man. Jesus said it is the things that proceed from inside the man that defile him.

 

And  both practicing alcoholism and homosexuality are behaviors that are incompatible with the standards of the early Christian church as well as the church today. I concur with these standards.

 

Even though different methods have been used to explain away Biblical texts on Christianity and homosexual behavior, one can give examples of Gentile believers who will be in the kingdom, or of women who were spiritual leaders, but there are no records of those openly living a homosexual lifestyle whose actions were condoned by any true prophet or by the church as a body- not one in the whole Bible and not one in the Spirit of Prophecy, not ever present or past.

 

For those not acquainted for the standards supported by the Seventh day Adventist Church, they may be found here

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJYR7LG5JFYC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=adventist+standards+adultery+alcohol&source=bl&ots=cE506TAmop&sig=ZhDgR3YPqHkM1tKPRpDJzL7WRLk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PVtdVPnwJoeYNqrJgJAK&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=adventist%20standards%20adultery%20alcohol&f=false

 

Paul said regarding homosexuality along with many other sins, and such were some of you , but you are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It says elsewhere that the name of Jesus will cleanse us from all sin. Homosexual behavior is a sin. Jesus can cleanse us from it. The blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse us from all sin- all but the sin we will not give up or acknowledge as sin, because if we do not acknowledge it as sin and go for cleansing, we cannot be cleansed.

[JoeMo]

fc and laura,

I am enjoying your conversation from the sidelines.  You are both approaching this as a debatable issue rather than turning it into an argument.  I feel strongly both ways - I don't know what the "right" answer is.  My personal feeling is that anyone who comes to the church should be accepted "as is".  Once they are adopted into the family of God (not correlated with being accepted by a church congregation),  God begins teaching them the Family values and the Family business.  He has different priorities for different people.  As we children learn the Family values and business (some of us kids learn slower than others), God will show us the next issue in your life He needs to deal with.

 

If a person is a promiscuous obese gay substance abuser with suicidal tendencies, and likes to beat people up, which issue does God deal with first?  It's up to Him.  The church's duty is to offer support, encouragement, and community to anyone seeking God, regardless of their current state.  The only reason for excluding them is if their "issues" clearly cross the line and threaten the safety and security of the church. That line is probably different for every church.

[LifeHiscost]

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....Lev 20

 

I'm aware of men who have found the strength to escape after years of behavior such as this, purely by placing their lives in trust to Jesus. Considering the fact that nothing that shall defile will enter the Kingdom, the better part of wisdom would seem to seek that solution, whatever the reason given for practicing the lifestyle.

 

…15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned....Mark 16

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

JoeMo, post # 151: Some very important insight.