Sabbath Sermon: Adam and Steve

[Tom Wetmore]

People may tolerate certain sins, but that doesn't make them less sinful.

Missing the point...

[JoeMo]

fc says "Jesus won't "cleans you" of homosexuality, unimore than Jesus won't grow your leg back."  Granted that it is the extreme exception rather than the rule, I have witnessed both.  I just don't understand why God grants this miracle to some and not others.

 

I'm NOT saying God is arbitrary, inconsistent or whimsical; I'm just saying I dont understand why God grants miracles in these areas (and others like miraculously taking away an addict's craving) to some and not others.  I'm not meant to understand.

 

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your waysand my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is 55:8-9)

[fccool]

fc says "Jesus won't "cleans you" of homosexuality, unimore than Jesus won't grow your leg back."  Granted that it is the extreme exception rather than the rule, I have witnessed both.  I just don't understand why God grants this miracle to some and not others.

 

I'm NOT saying God is arbitrary, inconsistent or whimsical; I'm just saying I dont understand why God grants miracles in these areas (and others like miraculously taking away an addict's craving) to some and not others.  I'm not meant to understand.

 

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your waysand my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is 55:8-9)

 

I think you are talking about homosexuality... and not the growing back of the leg, when you say that you've witnessed both.

 

The issue really is about the reality of the mechanics between divine and this world.   You are correct, we paint a picture of God that's rather arbitrarily "performs miracles" in some lives, and not in other.   The issue is that these miracles tend to be "in the eye of the beholder".   I really hope you see what I'm saying.

 

It's not really an issue of what God can and can't, or will or won't do.  

 

Let's say I desperately needed a $5,000 for whatever reason... and I prayed and prayed, and I got it through some unexpected means.   Think about what it implies.   It implies that God would have to alter the will of some people for me to get this $5000... or that He would have to provide information for a person would would give willingly in some supernatural way, which usually tends to be the natural means of communication, and which usually turns out to be just that - we ascribe something to God, because it happen to coincide with some other events. 

 

So, there's really no way to tell, if that's the case.  Maybe God didn't want me to have $5,000 and I still got it.  That's the thing   It's a bit off topic, so let's get back to homosexuality issue.

 

Being different is not a sin.  You can't make a sin claim from mere deviation of something from the norm.  For example, being left-handed is extremely unnatural when it comes to human function in our society.   In the past it was a sign of all sorts of things... and people had to hide it.   People today hide that fact in some settings that still have superstitious ideas.   Think about it.   Our entire culture revolves around "right" concept, and "sinister" (latin for left)... virtually in every language, right is associated with positive qualities, and left with negative.   Ontologically,  it's merely a different biology function.

 

Today, you wouldn't make a case that left-handed people should be "healed" of their left-handedness.   Why not?  Mainly because there's nothing in the Bible that would seem to condemn it, but people in the past still found ways to make a point that being left-handed is a bad thing.

 

Really, homosexuality is not that far off.   There are direct condemnation of the act in the Bible, but if you really understand history, such condemnation had more to do with rape, humiliation and theft, than it had to do with homosexual condition.   Yet, there are demands to "heal" this condition on bases of few verses that are just plucked at face value without any proper evaluation of historical context.  It's not as simple as simply reading and declaring.   Words link to concepts, and when semantics lands on something entirely different... we have a problem.

 

Here's the very basic run-down:

 

1)  Yes, even from perspective of human biology men-woman relationship is preferred as ideal

 

2)  Such relationship in context of our world is never ideal, especially when we read as a guidelines from Biblical narrative.   Some people are a-sexual, some people are impotent, some people can't have children, and some people are homosexual.   Either way, 99% of marriage relationship is not about sex.  In fact, later in life it stops being about sex all-together. 

 

3)  Homosexuality is a condition, just like a-sexuality is a condition, or left-handedness is a physiological condition.   Sure, some are more emotionally engaging, or disengaging, but it's simply a condition of difference, rather than a condition of inherent "wickedness".   Wickedness has to be justified by certain standard of reality prior to running to the Bible to condemn something as wicked simply by placing a label on it.  

 

For example, when you tell me that murder is wrong, I may ask why it's wrong.   If your answer "because God says so"... then it's a non-answer in context of the why question.   It's circular redundancy that has no reference to our reality of consequences.   Murder is wrong because it robs another person experience of life.  Same goes for theft, and even complex ideas like Sabbath and having no other Gods.   There is some moral justification behind certain ideas other than "God says so right here".

 

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, you have to ask yourself... why would the monogamous homosexual relationship be wrong? 

 

The common answer would run to all sorts of false-generalization about homosexuality that are simply not true in context of monogamous relationship.

 

1)  It doesn't have to revolve around child rearing (there are childless heterosexual couples).  It would be relationship in a context of best possible scenario of marriage-relationship in such context.

 

2)  For the most part a relationship is not about sex.   It's about sharing your life with a person who you trust and love.  Attraction does play a part, but it's only means to an end.

 

You simply can't make a good case for "harm" type of wrong when it comes to this type of relationship, thus it's not unreasonable to assume that the Bible speaks and condemns something entirely different.   For example, in the OT men would rape other men as a sign of power (they still do so in prison).   It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with humiliation and using sex as vehicle for violence.   I think it would only reasonable that such behavior would be thrown in with rape and sleeping around, which are all misuse of sex.

 

For example, it would be unreasonable to conclude that people in Sodom were homosexuals.   They were not.   Sex was used as means to humiliate people, be it male or female. 

 

When people are casting a doctrinal statements today, they simply lack that understanding.  They read the Bible, and they automatically cast their own preferences and cultural presuppositions. 

 

Again, the point is .... you have to make a very good case that homosexuality is something that a person should be "healed" of, because there's a lot of things we can throw in the same category.... and then (just like with my God wants me to have extra $5000 example) claim that when that happens it was God doing the changing.

[JoeMo]

fc asks: "I think you are talking about homosexuality... and not the growing back of the leg, when you say that you've witnessed both."

I haven't witnessed a "new leg" growing from a stump; but I have witnessed a leg grow a few inches in a few seconds during a prayer for healing.

 

Outside of that clarification, I pretty much agree with your post.  Just like He can grow the short leg or change a person from left-handed to right-handed (probably a blessing in countries practicing Sharia), God can change a person from homosexual to hetersosexual.  Just like a short leg or left-handedness, sometimes He might do so; but usually He doesn't.  I don't know why.

[Gerr]

Missing the point...

What did I miss again?

[Gerr]

That's exactly my point.   There are plenty of sins, yet the ones tolerated most ... seem to be the ones that are more prevalent in the congregation.

 

Everyone is Biblical literalist, until it's something about those whose struggles you can deeply relate to.  Then it has to be contextualize, we have to be understanding, we have to be patient, the world is imperfect and etc.   Until then, the lines are drawn in black and white.

 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/literalist-gluttony

Of course, we have to be understanding!  We ARE all sinners after all.  Perhaps the reason there is so much more focus on homosexuality is that many if not most of them are keeping it in the forefront with their demand for the acceptance of that lifestyle and same sex marriage as normal.  I've never heard of any murderer or gossiper or adulterer or glutton demanding recognition of such behavior as normal.

[Gerr]

fccool: "When it comes to the issue of homosexualty, you have to ask yourself... why would the monogamous homosexual relationship be wrong? 

 

The common answer would run to all sorts of false-generalization about homosexuality that are simply not true in context of monogamous relationship."

 

Not true according to whom?  Without a Divine fiat telling me what's right/ true and what's wrong/not true, I can justify any action I may want to do including robbing what belongs to you including your life. Everyone would do what is right in his own eyes.  God has declared same gender sex to be an abomination, just like idolatry and lying.  I am still waiting for the evidence that tells me that the CONTEXT of the traditional interpretation of this text is wrong.  

[Tom Wetmore]

Understanding. Maybe start by not framing the effort of the LGBT community as "demanding acceptance" or other confrontional characterizations that only harden and polarize. Rather seek to understand. Listen. And listen some more. Get acquainted. Learn. Try to turn the temperature down in the dialog.

[fccool]

Of course, we have to be understanding!  We ARE all sinners after all.  Perhaps the reason there is so much more focus on homosexuality is that many if not most of them are keeping it in the forefront with their demand for the acceptance of that lifestyle and same sex marriage as normal.  I've never heard of any murderer or gossiper or adulterer or glutton demanding recognition of such behavior as normal.

 

Gerry, first and foremost I think you need to learn to abstain throwing everyone on the homosexual side of things in the same category of those that "demand things" that you describe.

 

There is a civil rights issue to this subject that's completely irrelevant to what we are actually talk about, and that civil rights movement was actually triggered by the extreme intolerance based on improper religious view of this matter.   People were jailed, people were fired from their jobs, and people were castrated....

 

precisely because of their "lifestyle" was thrown in the same category as murdering someone.

 

But, that's not the issue that we are discussing here, and that's not the issue that Henderson is addressing.

[fccool]

 

Not true according to whom?  Without a Divine fiat telling me what's right/ true and what's wrong/not true, I can justify any action I may want to do including robbing what belongs to you including your life. Everyone would do what is right in his own eyes.  God has declared same gender sex to be an abomination, just like idolatry and lying.  I am still waiting for the evidence that tells me that the CONTEXT of the traditional interpretation of this text is wrong.  

 

If you interpret text "traditionally", then you have to essentially run to Catholics and ask them for forgiveness and acceptance, because tradition will only get you thus far.   Some actually care about original context, and not the traditional interpretation. 

 

You haven't really responded to any of what I've said, except for 1 sentence that doesn't actually explain why the context of interpretation is likely wrong.   But, again, the context of Henderson's talk doesn't dwell on this subject, because it's largely irrelevant.

 

Here's another talk of his to put a bit of perspective on this subject. 

 

[Gerr]

 

 

 

If you read again what I said, I did not say, "ALL" or "Everyone.

 

The civil rights issue is not the subject of this thread as I see it.  It is about whether the God of the Bible consider it sinful or not.  From a civil standpoint, it is nowhere in the same category as murder.  From a sin standpoint, they are in the same category as I see the Bible define it.  But just to let you know, since we are not a theocracy but a secular society, I have become convinced that they should probably have the right to civil union; and as citizens, have just as much right to the pursuit of happiness as anybody else.

 

  

 

 

[Gerr]

Understanding. Maybe start by not framing the effort of the LGBT community as "demanding acceptance" or other confrontional characterizations that only harden and polarize. Rather seek to understand. Listen. And listen some more. Get acquainted. Learn. Try to turn the temperature down in the dialog.

Okay, I'm listening.  What is the LGBT want from the Church?  Leave out the civil rights issue.  This thread is about how the God of the Bible view it.

[fccool]

Gerry,  what do you want from the church?

[NJK Project]

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.

 

 

From what I’ve seen and read on the WO deliberations, the fact of the matter is that Jonathan Henderson core view, also methodology and hermeneutics is not at all “radical”. It perfectly reflects the TOSC’s Pro-WO side, especially the “Third Option/Position 3” side, icnluding their own sample of similarly asinine “supporting” claims...and this “Israel and their King” argument is one of their fundamental tenets.

They just both/all just have the same shoddy and deficient, indeed, ironically enough for educated and learned leaders, mostly incompetent, way of doing Biblical “exegesis”, pointedly in regards to the passages which (translationally or contextually) seem to oppose their claims and view....And the telling thing is that this also applies to the WO-Opposed side when faced with similar type of passages. All of the TOSC sides then just either gloss over, or outrightly ignore, such passage..but yet they still claim that they are right based then on only a selective few passages.

JH has done the exact same thing in regards to the homosexuality issue. And the fact that his pertinent leadership superiors, or also those assembled TOSC leaders, either do not, or will not, do something to correct this whimsical way of studying the Bible is what is most concerning, but telling, here...

This is indeed quite the normative/accepted way of doing things and their, at least effectively, has been no authoritative way of redressing this, though a preempting and corrective way have already been clearly stipulated on paper, in Church Policies. So this is all due to a preferred lack of True/Biblical leadership....as if that will be acceptable for these leaders in their judgement. The various damages that this permitted/permissive way is doing, e.g. confusing the next generation of SDA, is condemning “evidence” enough against them (Ezek 34:1-22 = EW 36.2)

[NJK Project]

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?

 

 

It seems that you may be referring to Wayne Blakely of the “Coming Out Ministry” (with Ron Woolsey, Mike Carducci and Danielle Harrison’s):

http://comingoutministries.org/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBsgUO_0dJK6VDU6ObkSu_w

Rightly enough, he wrote a sternly scathing response article to Henderson sermon and, indeed rightly, called for the firing of Henderson for that “blasphemous” and ‘confusing’ pretense of a Biblical message!!

http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/10/14/qualified-in-the-journey-a-response-to-adam-and-steve

JH should indeed be at the very least, formerly censured (e.g for 6 months) by his conference/the Church, as stipulated in the Church Manual...if the Church was/is actually against the damage which he has done, indeed to “impressionable minds” of young/college students as Blakely puts it. Unlike older members, these young people are mostly still at a stage that they trusting take anything that comes from a pulpit, especially whatever agrees with them, as being surely the Gospel Truth.

(And the compounding fact, from my perspective/analysis, actually is that there, as patent before, literally was not a single substantive true and/or exegetically valid statement claim in that talk by Henderson...yet he just keeps on building on that “foundation of sand” and no one in the Church(‘s leadership) care to hold him to account...except, as typical, of course for those who became concerned about losing money from threatened future non-enrolment, i.e. the PUC’s Legal Counsel)

Moreover this young adult generation is statistically right a pivotal age demography in regards to continued membership in the Church. So they thus can be more ready to emotionally accept, and hang on, to such ‘agreeing claims, even if they are not Biblical so (cf. Acts 17:11), and then remain on as the shaping next generation.

So they of all SDA “soils”/generations should be protected against such unbiblical seeding which will indeed later bring forth spurious, and detrimental, fruiting in the Church....It is all consequentially related...

[JoeMo]

NJK says: "So they of all SDA “soils”/generations should be protected against such unbiblical seeding which will indeed later bring forth spurious, and detrimental, fruiting in the Church....It is all consequentially related..."

 

Why do people always take such a defensive view of things, "we need to be protected from"; "we need to defend against", "we need to avoid"?  We need to go on the offensive and take Jesus to the streets, workplace, and places of leisure.  We need to demonstrate the love and grace Jesus to the world.  If that means accepting LGBT's as part of our congregations, so be it.  If it means having Bible studies in bars, so be it.  If it means having "church" in a jail, do it.

 

We have 2 sets of kids - one group older and one group younger.  We sheltered the older group of kids - Home school, SDA school, very little movies or TV, no sex humor or potty humor,  never exposed them to people drinking and smoking, etc.  When they finally moved out of the house and into the world; they didn't know how to handle it.  A couple of them still face challenges overcoming the temptations of this world.

 

The younger kids were consiously and selectively exposed to "the world" at an early age; and when they left home, there were no problems - straight A's in school - no drugs, drinking, or sexual experimentation (at least that I'm aware of)  They already knew how to hold their values in a society with lax and diverse values.

 

No matter what their issues, if/when people truly meet Jesus, He can deal with all their issues as He sees fit; and deals with them where they are in life.

 

Maybe if we "saints" would start treating other sinners the way we (as sinners) want to be treated, the "other side" wouldn't complain about how they are abused and/or shunned by the church.

[CoAspen]

>>>They just both/all just have the same shoddy and deficient, indeed, ironically enough for educated and learned leaders, mostly incompetent, way of doing Biblical “exegesis”, pointedly in regards to the passages which (translationally or contextually) seem to oppose their claims and view....And the telling thing is that this also applies to the WO-Opposed side when faced with similar type of passages. All of the TOSC sides then just either gloss over, or outrightly ignore, such passage..but yet they still claim that they are right based then on only a selective few passages.<<<

 

We are indeed blessed to have one so knowledgeable and all knowing of others thought, ideas, spirituality, etc to be able to make such a statement.

 

(..back biter...comes to mind, isn't there a text somewhere about Gods thoughts on such.......????)

[Gerr]

Gerry,  what do you want from the church?

Fellowship.  Friendship. Affirm me when I'm doing right.  Correct me when I'm doing wrong.  Help me when I'm in need.  Sympathize with me when I'm grieving.  Rejoice with me when I have something to rejoice about.  Be my family.

[Gerr]

NJK says: "So they of all SDA “soils”/generations should be protected against such unbiblical seeding which will indeed later bring forth spurious, and detrimental, fruiting in the Church....It is all consequentially related..."

 

Why do people always take such a defensive view of things, "we need to be protected from"; "we need to defend against", "we need to avoid"?  We need to go on the offensive and take Jesus to the streets, workplace, and places of leisure.  We need to demonstrate the love and grace Jesus to the world.  If that means accepting LGBT's as part of our congregations, so be it.  If it means having Bible studies in bars, so be it.  If it means having "church" in a jail, do it.

 

We are at war, JoeMo, and not against flesh & blod. Therefore we are duty bound to do certain things, like defending or giving warning.

Ez 3:17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18  If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand." 

 

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Eze 3:17). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

It takes a lot of prayer and divine wisdom to know just the right balance.  You don't want to turn a child loose in the streets on the one hand..  On the other hand, you don't want keep an adult on a leash either.  Trying to protect my son from the "world" we sent him to church school from grade 1 through high school.  For most of those years, he was treated like a pariah.  I suspect it was jealousy over his scholastic achievements because he really was a very nice and gentle kid.   So when he finished high school, we decided to let the rope loose, and let him spread his wings and fly.

[JoeMo]

Gerry says, "We are at war, JoeMo, and not against flesh & blod. Therefore we are duty bound to do certain things, like defending or giving warning."

 

I agree Gerry.  But what should our response be - cowering in our pews or counter-attaking the enemy in his territory?  We are God's "special forces"; and we need to go behind enemy lines to counter the enemy's deceptions and fear tactics.

[NJK Project]

NJK says: "So they of all SDA “soils”/generations should be protected against such unbiblical seeding which will indeed later bring forth spurious, and detrimental, fruiting in the Church....It is all consequentially related..."

 

Why do people always take such a defensive view of things, "we need to be protected from"; "we need to defend against", "we need to avoid"?  We need to go on the offensive and take Jesus to the streets, workplace, and places of leisure.  We need to demonstrate the love and grace Jesus to the world.  If that means accepting LGBT's as part of our congregations, so be it.  If it means having Bible studies in bars, so be it.  If it means having "church" in a jail, do it.

 

We have 2 sets of kids - one group older and one group younger.  We sheltered the older group of kids - Home school, SDA school, very little movies or TV, no sex humor or potty humor,  never exposed them to people drinking and smoking, etc.  When they finally moved out of the house and into the world; they didn't know how to handle it.  A couple of them still face challenges overcoming the temptations of this world.

 

The younger kids were consiously and selectively exposed to "the world" at an early age; and when they left home, there were no problems - straight A's in school - no drugs, drinking, or sexual experimentation (at least that I'm aware of)  They already knew how to hold their values in a society with lax and diverse values.

 

No matter what their issues, if/when people truly meet Jesus, He can deal with all their issues as He sees fit; and deals with them where they are in life.

 

Maybe if we "saints" would start treating other sinners the way we (as sinners) want to be treated, the "other side" wouldn't complain about how they are abused and/or shunned by the church.

Read through (e.g.) the letters of Paul, and the SOP, about having Church/flock “hedging” against false teachers and also exercising Church discipline and you’ll have the Biblical basis involved here.

I have no problem at all about (also) welcoming (non-member/believing) sinners into the Church, but effectively turning over the conduct of the Church to their sinful preferences and whim is an entirely different issue. 1 Cor 13:6 is clear as to what true “love” is all about...and it indeed not letting people have a lyingingly-false assurance that their living in sin is acceptable by God.

In regards to proper parenting, in my own schooling experience, I would have much preferred if I had not switched from SDA schools to public education from the 8th grade on....I literally could have been spared weeding through all of the falsehoods and overrunning societal deficiency issues in certain conducts. So I was glad to at least having had a proper and truth-filled foundations to work with. I personally don’t think that the later acting out of kids into sin is to be blamed on having been sheltered. (Prime case in point, sheltered (OT) Israel and their repeated vile apostasies (Isa 5:1-7))...It would seem to me that those later rebelling kids would just have found an earlier pathway to do so...i.e. to do what they preferredly would chose to do.

And, for children, preempting/protective measures are much better than corrective, if even then possible/productive, discipline.

[NJK Project]

>>>They just both/all just have the same shoddy and deficient, indeed, ironically enough for educated and learned leaders, mostly incompetent, way of doing Biblical “exegesis”, pointedly in regards to the passages which (translationally or contextually) seem to oppose their claims and view....And the telling thing is that this also applies to the WO-Opposed side when faced with similar type of passages. All of the TOSC sides then just either gloss over, or outrightly ignore, such passage..but yet they still claim that they are right based then on only a selective few passages.<<<

 

We are indeed blessed to have one so knowledgeable and all knowing of others thought, ideas, spirituality, etc to be able to make such a statement.

 

(..back biter...comes to mind, isn't there a text somewhere about Gods thoughts on such.......????)

The relatable -thought- that comes to mind in regards to your vacuous accusation here is John 4:22a because I am speaking from analytic observations and Biblical studying out...Had you even considered and/or engaged the (already referenced) supporting documentation before accusing and judging??!!!

[CoAspen]

   My quote was from your post...correct...and would your post not be considered judging and accusing? Do you understand what you are saying? Read the high litghted portions, what do you call that? Sounds alot 'an accuser of the brethern', or are your statements just truth?

[fccool]

Fellowship.  Friendship. Affirm me when I'm doing right.  Correct me when I'm doing wrong.  Help me when I'm in need.  Sympathize with me when I'm grieving.  Rejoice with me when I have something to rejoice about.  Be my family.

 

I would imagine that most of the homosexuals would want the same thing from a church.

[Gerr]

I would imagine that most of the homosexuals would want the same thing from a church.

I believe most churches would provide all those things to anyone who comes through the church door.  But  for the sake of the flock,  there comes a point of separation when someone continues to cling to a lifestyle that is anathema to church dogma. The same thing is done with schismatics.