Adventist Today posts critique of Mark Finley without even one quote from Finley

[RonCorson]

 Formatting is from my blog so it is a little different here.

A recent article on Adventist Today website entitled Why Do Our Leaders Insist On Holding the Judgment Now? By Loren Seibold takes direct aim at a video presentation by Mark Finley. The article manages to accuse Mark Finley and Ted Wilson or attempting to judge and exclude LGBT people from the SDA church. Strangely doing so without giving even one quote from either man. The article begins in the 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs by writing: 

“Why, when these men in Silver Spring choose topics to address, do they so often choose to talk about who they want to keep out of the church? 

They teach that we’re supposed to gather everyone in for Jesus’ return. But if God is calling everyone, saint and sinner alike, why do our church leaders disapprove of so many of them here and now, for so many reasons? 

After reading Loren Seibold’s article I watched Mark Finley’s video. Mark Finley's Sermon: What The Bible Really Says About LGBTQ+ 

After watching the presentation I failed to see much of any of the things that Loren Seibold saw in the video. Then looking at the article comments on Facebook it appeared that none of the commenters had watched the video either. I am always suspicious of anyone that writes about someone and does not use any quotes at all from the actual person they are criticizing. In general, I find that they will be arguing against a fictionalized version of the person rather than what the person actually had to say. Since it is now possible to easily transcribe audio from video’s on a computer, now more than ever I question those who manage to write an article without quoting some portion of the actual words of the person they are criticizing. 

I will use speech to text to aid in this article. Mark Finley begins his presentation this way:

 “Does the message of the Bible align with the current rise and acceptance of the lgbtq+ community or does it contradict it. Join me as we open the word of God and study the scriptures.” 

Finley then introduces the reason for the presentation.

 “Why have I chosen to speak about this subject now, there's some specific reasons for that first I'm concerned about the direction that our society is going concerned about how that direction impacts the church I love I'm concerned about the Next Generation I'm concerned about young adults who are inbibing a message that may not align and does not align with scripture I'm concerned about children whose minds are being saturated with information regarding lgbtq+ Community you see I'm concerned so it's out of that concern out of that care out of that love that I speak today.  Now there's certain things that have led me to this conclusion that it's time to speak now let me give you some examples of that here just a few recent incidents that have motivated me to address this issue of human sexuality first on July 3 2023 the New York Post reported that at the recent New York drag queens March activist chanted, and hear their words, we're here we're queer and we're coming for your children this seemed outrageous to me it's shocking but it's not surprising in recent years such blunt outrageous rhetoric has become commonplace two years ago the San Francisco gave Men's Chorus released a YouTube video in which 81 of its members sing a song with the refrain "we will convert your children happens bit by bit quietly and subtly you'll barely notice it.” 

Under the YouTube description  for Mark Finley's sermone we find this: 

Here are the chapters: 00:00 Introduction - Why is it Time to Speak Up? 14:48 Christian Response to LGBTQ+ 18:08 Biblical Perspectives on Gender and Sexuality 48:28 Official Position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church” 

I did not see any hate or judgment aside from the common judgments about sin which is pretty widely known throughout the Christian world. What it appears to me is that Seibold is not happy that Finley is not affirming the LGBT views. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that a church should affirm this conglomeration of group's views as they are often at odds with themselves. There are such groups as Gays Against Gromers and there are groups who encourage indoctrination in schools with gay activists and encourage children to social transition, some even physically transition. Clumping together small minorities and thinking they are unified is a completely fictitious view of reality. 

Seibold then presents us with this: 

Is judging sinners the church’s job? Not according to Jesus.

Three verses 

Here’s a parable from Matthew 13 that I’ve seldom heard preached by Adventist churchmen. It starts with a farmer seeing that his fields have a bumper crop of weeds among the wheat. His farmhands think that the best way to handle it is to stomp out into the field and tear up the weeds right away.  

But the farmer says that uprooting weeds will damage the wheat. 

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” 

Lord help me, but I cannot interpret this in any way except that we’re not to perform the judgment in our churches now, but leave it to the Lord to do in the end. To the point of Elder Finley’s recent anti-LGBTQ sermon, I see nothing here about ripping out the weeds unless they change into wheat.

We have already seen that judging sinners is not the purpose of Finley’s presentation but note the description of Finley’s presentation is now called “anti-LGBTQ”. We clearly see here that the main problem with Finley for Seibold is that LGBTQ is not affirmed. This point is so far the only idea I will agree with Seibold on; Finley is not affirming LGBTQ+ ideas, Whatever they are. I think that is wise not to affirm a wide swath of ideas even if the current culture pretends to do so. 

So what about this parable. Is the parable about the church or about the world? Well, we don't have to guess about that because the parable is explained in Matthew 13:

³⁶ Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”³⁷ He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. ³⁸ The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, ³⁹ and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.⁴⁰ “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. ⁴² They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

So contrary to Seibold the subject here has nothing to do with judgment in our churches, now or even in the future. In fact, in an agricultural-aware world no one waits for the harvest to weed a field and they certainly don’t go out at harvest time and collect the weeds first and then go back and collect the grain. Let’s pretend for argument that it is a grain like wheat. No farmer would go out when the grain heads are full and stomp around their field to collect weeds and then go out and collect the grain. Thus they ask for an explanation. It only works if there is a supernatural force like angels involved.

Seibold misuses his first Biblical text and tries to make it say something it does not say. The very idea that Christians do not make any judgments is something no one ever heard of before the last few decades. It certainly has no biblical basis. For those wanting further information about judging see. Is It Ever Right to Judge Others?

His next verse is the parable of the rich man and the banquet. After quoting it he writes:

“Please, Mark and Ted, tell me how you can read this parable in any way except to say that the most vulnerable, most needy people are invited to come into the kingdom?”

He does this without showing where either Mark Finley or Ted Wilson have ever said that all people are not invited into the kingdom. Certainly, in the video nothing like that is said and really even if one is not affirming of the LGBTQ+ constellation of views that would not mean that they are not invited into God’s kingdom.

Seibold I think knows how weak a position he has and that is why he does not actually deal with anything Finley said. Instead, he says things like this:

“Mark, you want new members in our churches—but do you know the kind of gauntlet you create in congregations for all members, old and new, by the kinds of judgment you made in your video?”

If Seibold believes Finley has made such judgments why not list them, give us some examples. Instead, Seibold goes to absurd conclusions, they must be what Seibold thinks but other than his half-baked impressions give us something real, something firm, and not just things like this:

“Do you realize that people are listening to you, then the next Sabbath examining their fellow church members for the sins you’ve suggested to them? You’re making some congregations into little courtrooms, with people spending most of their energy debating women pastors and LGBTQ people and theological heresy.”

What congregations are becoming little courtrooms? Why should the view of affirmation be accepted and no other perspectives viewed or it becomes a waste of energy? Are there such things as theological heresy and are they worth the time to clear up? It would be nice if Seibold took some time to deal with any of those in-depth, rather then making emotional declarations that have no basis in fact. 

It would have been far better for Seibold to have dealt with Mark Finley’s conclusion. Here is his concluding thoughts: 

“Each one of us because of the Brokenness of sin have certain passions, desires, orientations but by the grace of God we can choose not to act upon them so having the orientation does not justify the action I may have a predisposition because of the Brokenness of sin to more easily get angry than somebody else but by the grace of God I can be changed so because somebody has a predisposition for that, somebody may have a passion because of genetics because of social environment because of things that happen and you think they may have a passion for sexuality outside of marriage a male for a female but because they have those passions and drives does not mean that they act upon them they make a positive choice for the grace of God to change their life the same thing is true with lgbtq relationships and lgbtq orientation or tendencies or desires the orientation may be part of our beings but God's grace is great,

How then do we relate, how then do we really, what are some things that we can take away from the biblical principles regarding human sexuality I think they're at least five things and here they are

1st God has created all human beings through the fall and Brokenness of sin we all have Tendencies and propensities sorting that's one take away 

2^nd  god calls us to love not hate the Christian ethic calls us to be compassionate and respectful and accepting of one another 

3 to love doesn't mean we approve a lifestyle out of harmony with God's will the most loving thing we can do is to share the Amazing Grace of Christ that Forgives our past transforms our present and gives us hope for the future 

4  the lgbtq+ lifestyle is not in harmony with the Bible and according to scripture deviates from God's will and his sin 

5 through the grace of God all of us can experience New Life in Christ jesus invites it to reach out to everyone around broken Fallen in Seattle to reach out as Brothers and Sisters in Christ in loving tones to share the truth of God's word and kindness and compassion recognizing that if any man or woman are in Christ they are new creatures recognize that the grace of God the power of God is greater than any sin

 Mark Finley in the sermon quotes from a commentary put out by Andrews University on homosexuality. Why did not Seibold even mention that? A commentary put out by the SDA's premier theological school and that does not even get mentioned. Why?

 

 

 

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, RonCorson said:

Formatting

Ron, It doesn't matter what the Bible says. Homosexuals are going to do what they do, one way or another.  Desperate for affirmation from without, when their own conscience condemns them [or not], somehow getting permission from their church family comforts them. The SDA church is becoming less and less relevant in today's society. People don't care about what Adventists have to offer. Finding a group, any group, that wants to join the church is an opportunity for church growth. Lifetime Adventists who are gay, etc., are black mailing the church, i,e., if you don't affirm us, we will leave. Ultimately, the denomination will devolve to a group like those worshipping the golden calf or the baal worshippers at Carmel. Both scenarios likely involved homosexuality. The fact that the Levitical code contained prohibitions against homosexuality and cross gendering indicates that it was practiced in Egypt and known to the Israelites.

I guess Glide Memorial, formerly Methodist, has basically turned into a pagan celebration. They formally separated from their parent denomination. Interesting to see how the African brethren react to having the gay agenda shoved down their throat. It would probably be better for the denomination to split over this issue, than to cower over such an assault on the order of creation. America has been exporting homosexual filth for a long time. Now the denomination is doing it, although on the down low. An acquaintance of mine talked about an American Peace Corps worker who came to Nepal decades ago, introduced the young men in the school to homosexual debauchery. Will that become the new agenda of AFM?

[RonCorson]

On 8/19/2023 at 9:49 PM, Hanseng said:

Ron, It doesn't matter what the Bible says. Homosexuals are going to do what they do, one way or another.  Desperate for affirmation from without, when their own conscience condemns them [or not], somehow getting permission from their church family comforts them.

This is another thing that troubles me, of the Mark Finley and Loren Seibold presentations which one comforts? It seems Finley is far more comforting. It does not affirm sin but speaks of overcoming sin. That is the same sin for all of us. I don't want affirmation of my sin, it condemns me. I want the hope of salvation even if I can't overcome my sins completely. There is no real difference in our personal sins. But trying to be affirmed in them seems a problem, where is the growth? If I was as they say a Player as the urban dictionary would define it I would not expect any church to affirm me in that. I would expect the church to push me to be better. 

I am not a last generation perfectionists so I don't think any of us ever really overcome our sins, just way to many in our human separate from God condition healing does seem to be the work of a lifetime. But we should grow and work on getting better for ourselves and others. 

In Seibold's article, he tells the story that may or not be true, historians disagree about it, the Austrian army shooting at themselves. In the story as most tell it, not necessarily the way Seibold tells it. Here is a good version to work off of:

"Austrian cavalry soldiers were sent out on the night of September 17 to scout for Turkish soldiers around their encampment. While they were out, they came across a group of gypsies, who provided alcohol to the cavalrymen. Some sources say that this was free while others say that the alcohol was sold to the soldiers. The soldiers saw this as a chance to relax before the battle which was to take place the next day against the Turks.At some point during their drinking, a group of infantrymen came across the cavalrymen. The infantry soldiers wanted to join the party but were denied. This started an argument which turned into a fistfight and escalated into a brawl. Everything took a turn for the worse when a shot was fired during the fight. The shot was heard by the sober Austrian soldiers who were inside the town of Karansebes. These men were on alert for the Turkish forces that were set to arrive the next day and assumed the shot from across the river was the enemy. Records state that one of the soldiers in the town shouted “Turks!” which was heard by the soldiers across the river. 

The infantry and cavalrymen made their way back to the town, but it was already too late. The army was overtaken by chaos and disorder, and some of the soldiers tried to flee as they were not prepared for battle. The soldiers in town that saw the others cross the river assumed they were the Turks they were expecting, so they fired on the drunken soldiers. The drunken soldiers believed that the town had been overrun by the Turkish forces and returned fire.Some German officers tried to stop those fleeing by shouting “Halt.” The soldiers who did not speak German thought they were Turks shouting Allah as their battle cry." https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-battle-of-karansebes.html

So if we take the most reliable story, not Seibold's strange historians' quote that it was a prank, How would this shooting ourselves in the church have taken place? A group outside of the church comes back into the church shooting?

Seibold says: "The critics are not asking people to come to Jesus, but asking them to choose sides." Not sure how he gets to that conclusion especially when his title was "Is Judging sinners the church's job" Finley or Wilson, sinners just like everybody else are not asking people to come to Jesus? I seriously wonder how Seibold keeps his position at Adventist Today!

 

 

 

 

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, RonCorson said:

I am not a last generation perfectionist

If people who oppose homoeroticism are being condemned as last generation perfectionists, the bar can't get much lower. Homoeroticism is a sin, whatever the type of or reason for might be. Whether it's an anonymous encounter in the public restroom of a bus station or a committed "loving" relationship, it's sin. 

The toleration of and affirmation for this vile practice is, in some ways, as sinful as the practice itself, although not as debasing. That otherwise sensible people are affirming is really a mystery. There have always been gay groupies around, formerly derided as "fag hags" by the community itself. Now men are pandering to them as well, as if having a gay "friend" is some kind of a virtue signal.

There was a gay story line in the Sopranos saga. One that ended with the gay man being brutally tortured and killed by his former associates. I never heard a peep out of the gay community about the homophobia portrayed, even though homophobia was already derided by certain vocal elements of society. On a gut level, people, even the gays, knew that there was too much truth in that scenario, to protest against. I suppose it is possible that some true believers want their kids to grow up to be homosexuals. Others know that the Sopranos accurately reflected the views of the [silent] majority.

[RonCorson]

2 hours ago, RonCorson said:

I am not a last generation perfectionists so I don't think any of us ever really overcome our sins, just way to many in our human separate from God condition healing does seem to be the work of a lifetime. But we should grow and work on getting better for ourselves and others.

If you are going to quote me use enough context to know what I am talking about. 

 

35 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

If people who oppose homoeroticism are being condemned as last generation perfectionists, the bar can't get much lower. Homoeroticism is a sin, whatever the type of or reason for might be. Whether it's an anonymous encounter in the public restroom of a bus station or a committed "loving" relationship, it's sin. 

If you had done that you would have known that your statement above had nothing to do with what I said! Your use of a partial quote is very similar to the method that Seibold uses. It is not worthy of being taken seriously.

[Hanseng]

18 minutes ago, RonCorson said:

It is not worthy of being taken seriously.

I guess I misunderstood you. Sorry.

[RonCorson]

That is OK, just a word of advice putting context in the quote helps from making a mistake where you assume something that was not meant. We all often read things and because of a preconception may read it wrong. This is just an extra step to help overcome that very common tendency.