Ex-Gay

[Sojourner]

The testimony of Matthew Esquivel - "The story of my journey of freedom from homosexuality into restored identity in Christ". 

In his case his experience is that deliverance ministry set him free. 

Thoughts? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcUPg4cqlkk#t=38 

[Tom Wetmore]

Time will tell.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have not viewed the video, so I cannot comment on it.

 

Many years ago the Seventh-day Adventist Biblical Research Institute published a book by a professor, as I remember, Ronald M. Springett, titled:  HOMOSEXUALITY IN HISTORY AND SCRIPTURE.    It may be purchased today for $8.

 

I consider that book to be a classic and very valuable.

 

That book points out that homosexuality is defined (at the time it was written, which in my thinking carries over  into today) in two (2) different ways.  One way is to define homosexuality by  behavior.  If one practices the behavior, one is homosexual and if one ceases to practice the behavior, one is no longer a homosexual.  The other definition is based upon orientation and desire.  My personal position is that homosexuality should be defined by orientation and desire.

 

Behavior can be changed.  Based upon that definition, homosexuality can be "cured."  However, orientation and desire has not been demonstrated to be changeable in any major manor.  The claims of such are few and far between.  They can probably be explained by the reality that sexuality exists on a line that goes from point A to point B.  Sexuality is not a fully either or.  There are gradations between A & B.  The demonstration of this lies with people who are bi-sexual. and asexual.

 

So, now the first question that may be asked is:  What is the basis for Matthew saying that he was a homosexual?  Is his claim made on the basis of behavior, or on the basis of orientation and desire?  That should be followed up by the question as to where he was on the line between A & B.

 

Once that question has been answered, Tom's point is well taken:  It remains to be seen.  The SDA Church has a history of people demonstrating that their claims of release from homosexuality were unfounded.

 

NOTE:  I think that Springett was a professor at Southern Adventist University in the Religion department.

[Kevin H]

This is a sad situation. A couple of my close friends have had to deal with this issue. It hurt to see the pain they have gone through. Two of them had "changed" studying Eli Siegel's Aesthetic Realism. However things happened after Mr. Siegel died and for most people the change parts did not work. As my two closest friends, one still finds his change in place (and that he sees it as a change in orientation and desire) the other has not.

 

This is a topic that I have to admit I find uncomfortable to talk about and think about and wish it did not exist (at least wish all my friends were straight). There are those of us who are naturally homophobic. I confess to be one of these. This makes it an even harder issue to face. It is so much easier to talk about Women's Ordination.  But face it we must. People are indeed suffering. Yes, we have our proof texts. But there is problems with their contexts. I've seen what my friends have gone through and others and we need to pray for them.

[Gregory Matthews]

Problems with proof texts:  Yes, for some the problems are more than for other texts.

 

Again, I recommend the book I mentioned.  It mentions various texts and says that some, not all, should not be used. 

[JoeMo]

One of the churches in which I am active openly accepts gays in whatever stage of recovery they are in (including no desire to recover).  By the grace of God, I am not particularly homophobic; so I am OK befreinding LGBT's. Most gays and lesbians seem to have a sufficiently sensitive radar to know who they can "hit on" and who they can't.  Those who have inadvertantly hit on my have only done so once; and fully rspect my sexual rejection.  They also appreciate that I don't reject them as friends.

 

I totally agree with Gregory that we are all somewhere on a spectrum of sexual orientation.  I also like his distinction between "behavior" and "orientation"; and the treatability of both.  Some people claim to be "experimenting" (which is beyond my sense of adventure); while others claim to have known they were "different" from their earliest memories.

 

The church mentioned above is affiliated with an organization called "Where Grace Abounds" - an outreach to people with any sort of socially "unacceptable" sexual issues (not just homosexuality) who are dealing with the spiritual conflicts involved with these issues.  Some claim to be "cured", some who were "cured" have fallen back; some have made no progress at all.  Our view is that Jesus loves them all equally; and we are to support them at whatever stage they are. 

[Gerr]

This is a sad situation. A couple of my close friends have had to deal with this issue. It hurt to see the pain they have gone through. Two of them had "changed" studying Eli Siegel's Aesthetic Realism. However things happened after Mr. Siegel died and for most people the change parts did not work. As my two closest friends, one still finds his change in place (and that he sees it as a change in orientation and desire) the other has not.

 

This is a topic that I have to admit I find uncomfortable to talk about and think about and wish it did not exist (at least wish all my friends were straight). There are those of us who are naturally homophobic. I confess to be one of these. This makes it an even harder issue to face. It is so much easier to talk about Women's Ordination.  But face it we must. People are indeed suffering. Yes, we have our proof texts. But there is problems with their contexts. I've seen what my friends have gone through and others and we need to pray for them.

Problem with "context"?  Yes, I can sympathize with their problems because there are sins of my own that I am  having problems overcoming as well.  But is there no power in the gospel to deliver?

[Gail]

Problem with "context"?  Yes, I can sympathize with their problems because there are sins of my own that I am  having problems overcoming as well.  But is there no power in the gospel to deliver?

Amen to that, Gerry! Not one of us is better than they because our particular weakness is not in that direction. We ALL have something that needs Jesus, and probably more than we like to admit to.

[LifeHiscost]

Not one of us is better than they because our particular weakness is not in that direction. .

How happy that makes us feel tells much about our closeness to the Master.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Gerr]

Problems with proof texts:  Yes, for some the problems are more than for other texts.

 

Again, I recommend the book I mentioned.  It mentions various texts and says that some, not all, should not be used. 

If proof texts are "problematic", what do you use to prove your beliefs?

[JoeMo]

You like proof texts, here's one - 

 

"Above all love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8)

 

Could the love God has for LGBT's and the love (don't twist the meaning of this word to suit a rebuke) these souls have for each other and God override the consequences of their sin? 

[Gail]

I would venture farther than that and say that God's love is the means of coming to purity and holiness for anyone who sins. Why? Because it transforms the heart. There is power in the love of God. I don't know how we can expect change from anyone otherwise.

But changes are secondary. The miracle that God's love accomplishes is a vision of His character to the soul. His love brings peace and acceptance which heals and transforms. It has a drawing power that counteracts the emptiness of the World.

[Kevin H]

If proof texts are "problematic", what do you use to prove your beliefs?

 

Gerry, the problem with proof texts is the possibility of taking them out of context or mixing them together in a way for a message different from what the Bible is actually teaching. It is like when Sunday Keepers use the text "One man may esteem one day..." against the Sabbath. We know that they are reading more into the text than what the text is actually talking about. They end up missing what the Bible is actually saying  and using the words against Sabbath keepers. Despite what they believe the text is saying, it is not attacking us for keeping the Sabbath. 

 

Are you suggesting that we should give up keeping the Sabbath because there are Sunday keepers who take that text out of context and use it against our practice of keeping the Sabbath?

 

If it is problematic for them to use their proof texts against us. And if we are using our proof texts in the same way against those people. What guideline should be go by than to seriously study the Bible and read the texts in their context.

[Gerr]

 

If it is problematic for them to use their proof texts against us. And if we are using our proof texts in the same way against those people. What guideline should be go by than to seriously study the Bible and read the texts in their context.

 

 

So we should give up proof texts?

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry, I did not write to the issue of whether or not we should use so-called proof texts.  My intent was to say that some of the texts that people used on this subject were problematic and should not be so used.  Please note that I said "some."

.

[Kevin H]

No, we don't have to give up proof texts as a principle. However we need to make sure that we are using it in one of 3 correct ways:

 

1. That we use it to talk about what the text is actually talking about.

 

2. We are using it in an analogy where it is appropriate to apply the principles from the context .

 

3. We can use the words, even if out of context, if they have a nice phrasing that we can apply to something that is Biblical.

 

But we cannot take it out of context to use its words to attack others, or to misapply the text to a different problem than the text is discussing.

 

As best I can tell, the Bible is condemning heterosexuals using homosexual activity in worship services to try to help out the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death, and basically condemning orgies. Heterosexuals raping another man in hopes of stealing his life force so that his garden will grow more food, his animals have more babies and for his wife to bear more babies. And that it condemns pedophilia.   

 

Now this is NOT to say that there are things in the modern homosexual community that does not fit under these condemnations, such as all the promiscuity that they tend to have. But that we have to be careful that we do not read more into these passages than the text is actually saying.

[The Searcher]

Let us begin by rejecting the term proof texts and, instead, use the term propositional truth.  Because that is what truth is.  God declares, "Let us reason together".  He puts forward truth, a proposition upon which he, God, desires us to ponder.  Truth is truth; nothing we can or anyone can do will make it otherwise.  But truth has no meaning unless we consider God's propositions.  We can accept his propositions or we can reject them, but rejection has a price tag.  God does not force any man or women to accept his propositions, but he would have us to understand that there are natural consequences if we do not accept these propositional truths.  God is not a bully who decided to create a reality in order to make our lives a living hell.  Rather, he desires to make our lives full and complete, even in the midst of sin.  He declares to us those propositional truths which, if accepted and acted upon, will give to us a very full and complete life and will bring us to a home where life will be lived to its fullest.  God knows, in his infinite wisdom, those practices which will make life full and which practices will destroy that fullness.  Sexual perversion in any form is sin because it has a long-term detrimental affect of which we are not aware.  It produces sorrow and its natural consequences are perverted minds and death. 

 

We, as God believing and accepting that he is all-wise, all-knowing, should reach out to this community in order to bring them back from a life which is not full and eventually will lead to their death.  Our love does not desire to see them continue in the practices that will prohibit fullness of life, bring unfullment, and bring death.  Instead, we need to bring them to God, and help them to see that God has a better life for them.  Further, however, you define deviant behavior, it is still sin.  And God can remove sin and its power over our lives.  Let no-one think that God cannot change the desires and orientation.  Otherwise, we would all be in a quagmire.  History has shown us that God can change the desires, and he can change the orientation.  But it takes a total surrender of self to God.  Christians should fear lifestyles which bring an incomplete, unfulfilled, destructive life because it means a person will not reach their full potential.  We should hate sin as God hates sin because of what it does to the image of God in mankind.  Yes, we need to accept the fallen of humanity into our churches, but let it never be to allow them to continue in their fallen state.  We need to lift their sight to a higher plain of existence.  One in which they can achieve a full and complete life and obtain the riches of the fuller glory to come.

 

If your desire is to show love to the community of immoral behaviors without understanding that love's desire is for a better life for them, then you miss the point of God's love for all men and women.  God will accept them as they are when they come to him, but that acceptance is not based upon keeping them at their level of degradation.  God accepts them so that he might raise them above the power of sin over them.  He accepts in order that he might restore to them the image of God which was lost when they chose to sin.  And let none kid themselves, it is a choice.  As God declared to Cain, "Sin desires you and is at the door."  We have all sinned, and we all come short of the glory of God.  But that does not mean God wants us to stay there.  As James declares, it is our passion which seduces us, and we can rule our passion or our passion can rule us.  God can give us the power to overcome our passions and makes us conquerors.  So it is with those who practice immoral behavior, they can be overcomers through the power of Christ working through his agent, the Holy Spirit.  Our love must be more than accepting; it must include promoting a better lifestyle through the power of Christ to overcome.  If a homosexual or a prostitute or whatever immoral enters our places of worship, let it be understood that God brought them to us in order to present before them a more perfect way of liife.  We are to  show them the love of God who surrender his son in order to save them from their sin and bring them into a love relationship with him which will bring them from degradation to the plain of a full and complete life. 

 

Let us remember Christ's words, "I am come that they might have life, and that life more abundantly."

[Kevin H]

Good post Searcher, however it is missing the topic here. The issue is that the verses that we use against people dealing with the question of homosexuality does not address what they are dealing with.

 

What those verses are actually saying is that sex belongs in a sacred relationship at home. You are not to go to worship and have an orgy believing that uniting your life forces will help the gods of life gain the victory. Yahweh is the only God and all powerful and we are to trust in his salvation. Don't rape another man thinking that you are stealing his life forces, his food, his flock, his children. And do not have sex with children. The issues that these text deal with are not someone struggling with homosexuality, but heterosexuals performing acts of homosexuality (with the thoughts of it being a form of works to help out the gods, or a form of stealing from another.) and men having sex with children.  

 

The Bible also condemns promiscuity and adultery.  

 

While it gives guidelines for relationships, and we quote verses that superficially sound like they are dealing with the question of homosexuality, a study of the context finds that we are thus misapplying the text and taking it out of context.

[Gerr]

No, we don't have to give up proof texts as a principle. However we need to make sure that we are using it in one of 3 correct ways:

 

1. That we use it to talk about what the text is actually talking about.

 

2. We are using it in an analogy where it is appropriate to apply the principles from the context .

 

3. We can use the words, even if out of context, if they have a nice phrasing that we can apply to something that is Biblical.

 

But we cannot take it out of context to use its words to attack others, or to misapply the text to a different problem than the text is discussing.

 

As best I can tell, the Bible is condemning heterosexuals using homosexual activity in worship services to try to help out the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death, and basically condemning orgies. Heterosexuals raping another man in hopes of stealing his life force so that his garden will grow more food, his animals have more babies and for his wife to bear more babies. And that it condemns pedophilia.   

 

Now this is NOT to say that there are things in the modern homosexual community that does not fit under these condemnations, such as all the promiscuity that they tend to have. But that we have to be careful that we do not read more into these passages than the text is actually saying.

Yes, I agree that there are so-called proof texts that when in context really do not prove one's position.  It may in fact prove the opposite.  But you can contextualize and exegete what God said about homosexuality all you can and it just won't fly.  They are too plain/explicit/clear to be misunderstood.  The same goes for murder, adultery, and all sins He calls "abominations".  If you can contextualize and exegete the sin out of homosexuality, then so can we with adultery, gossip, drunkenness, etc. etc., including the sins that I personally struggle with.

[Kevin H]

Be sure that you are not coming to those conclusions by taking the texts out of their contexts and that you are not putting into God's mouth words and ideas that has not entered his mind and things he did not say.

 

Mrs. White was critical about there being people who quoted her a lot, but who were putting her words in a way to express their own ideas and not hers. Be sure that you are not doing that with your quoting of the Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

My point was that SOME (not all) of the texts used against homosexuality are not properly used.

[lukewarm]

There's a good movie on this topic called  Fish Out of Water. I watched it on Netflix. It explains the common 7 "proof texts" and puts them into context. Personally, I am an ally but regardless of whether you are prejudiced against the GLBTI community or are an ally, it is worth a watch. If nothing else, you'll know how the "other side" looks at these verses.