Baptism of Married Lesbian

[phkrause]

Baptism of Married Lesbian at Chico Adventist Church Prompts Statement from North American Division

February 13, 2016:    The North American Division (NAD) of the Adventist Church issued a statement today about a baptism which took place at Northern California’s Chico Adventist Church.

http://atoday.org/baptism-of-married-lesbian-at-chico-adventist-church-prompts-statem/

 

[Gerr]

On 2/17/2017 at 8:51 PM, phkrause said:

Baptism of Married Lesbian at Chico Adventist Church Prompts Statement from North American Division

February 13, 2016:    The North American Division (NAD) of the Adventist Church issued a statement today about a baptism which took place at Northern California’s Chico Adventist Church.

http://atoday.org/baptism-of-married-lesbian-at-chico-adventist-church-prompts-statem/

 

 

[Gerr]

How sad that those who affirm what Scripture teaches are labeled with what has become pejorative terms like "right wing" & "ultra-conservative" 

[CoAspen]

I read both the Spectrum and Today articles. The articles should provoke interesting discussions on what is the role of the church when it comes to baptism of peoples........but as usual, it was/will be about sexual orientation. It(articles) should also lead us to examine our beliefs on what it means 'to  love one another as God loves us'. We have to many 'pat' phrases and quotes when it comes to both subjects. Doesn't learning mean to examine all of our beliefs, past present and future for progress? Or have we learned everything there is to know?

[Gerr]

It is certainly proper AND necessary to reexamine our believes now and then.  However,  if we keep reexamining the 4th commandment, will there ever come a time when Sunday becomes a/the sanctified day?

If we reexamine and reexamine the 2nd commandment, will idols eventually become acceptable?

Shall we reexamine and parse, reexamine and parse Lev 18:22 & 22:13 until such unions become biblically acceptable?

[Gary K]

5 hours ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

How sad that those who affirm what Scripture teaches are labeled with what has become pejorative terms like "right wing" & "ultra-conservative" 

Gerry,

It just goes to show you how much of this movement is political rather than spiritual.

[CoAspen]

Gerry, Not sure why you feel the need to drag the subject away from topic with the commandments comments. I never mentioned them or alluded to them. I have been in this church for my whole life and continue to learn. It is never to late to exame our attitudes and dealings with others. But that it is most often shifted away from and the focus placed on the persons activity. 

[CoAspen]

I feel like I read a totaly different article/s than some who are commenting.  I read nothing about how our treatment of others or attitudes is politicol in any way. A red herring at best and quite often used to dismiss certain 'hot potatoes '!

 

[Green Cochoa]

11 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Doesn't learning mean to examine all of our beliefs, past present and future for progress? Or have we learned everything there is to know?

Quote

     I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps-- the first, second, and third angels' messages. Said my accompanying angel, "Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance.  The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received." I was again brought down through these messages, and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. I saw individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the foundation. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform to examine it and declared it to be laid wrong. But I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform and exhorted those who had stepped off to cease their complaints; for God was the Master Builder, and they were fighting against Him. They recounted the wonderful work of God, which had led them to the firm platform, and in union raised their eyes to heaven and with a loud voice glorified God. This affected some of those who had complained and left the platform, and they with humble look again stepped upon it.  {EW 258.3}

Some of us here will not be stepping off the platform to examine it.  I hope you will step back up upon it too.

[CoAspen]

Another attempt to to change focus and stop dialogue on an important subject....treatment of others! Not sure what the above subject is trying to say, maybe smugness in current growth, I don't know?

 

[APL]

32 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Another attempt to to change focus and stop dialogue on an important subject....treatment of others! Not sure what the above subject is trying to say, maybe smugness in current growth, I don't know?

And many take the sixth commandment which says do not kill, and then flip it and say killing is allowed and ok and have no problem destroying the lives of those that God has called such as the woman being talked about.  They would rather sacrifice her than have mercy.  Matthew 9:13 But go you and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

[CoAspen]

Quote

Therefore, the church must provide freedom and protection from social marginalization (Gal. 6:1) and must point people to Christ (Matt. 22:36-40) for forgiveness, redemption, and a new life ( Rom.  8:4-14; Eph. 4:13).”

Quote

What a convoluted justification for condoning what God has forbidden.

Say what??? How in the world would someone read into the first statement what was said in the second??

[B/W Photodude]

 

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! -- Isaiah 5:20

 

[Green Cochoa]

47 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Say what??? How in the world would someone read into the first statement what was said in the second??

Is it perhaps the fact that the first statement is skipping all mention of confession, repentance, or freedom from sin?  1 John 1:9 says "If we CONFESS our sins" before any mention of forgiveness of them is made.

[Gerr]

10 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Gerry, Not sure why you feel the need to drag the subject away from topic with the commandments comments. I never mentioned them or alluded to them. I have been in this church for my whole life and continue to learn. It is never to late to exame our attitudes and dealings with others. But that it is most often shifted away from and the focus placed on the persons activity. 

Sorry if the mention of the commandments was distracting you.  It was merely to show that there are some things that are settled beyond controversy.  We may never be settled on HOW they are applied.  That we can keep studying. Now, if the pastor who baptized the lesbian believed what Scripture says that same sex relationships are an abomination, would she have performed the rite?   Would she baptize someone in a relationship with another woman other than his wife? But there are those in the church who think, it seems to me, that if we study and re-study, parse and re-parse those texts that somehow the practice will become not so bad and perhaps even acceptable - progressives?  as opposed to the "right wing" "ultra conservatives?"

[Gregory Matthews]

This subject is worthy of consideration and of discussion.

However, when the discussion is focused on a specific situation the boundaries do change somewhat.  It should be noted that the Northern California Conference was directly involved in this specific situation.  It should be noted that there is much about it that has not been made public.  Frankly, in situations like this I agree that out of respect for the humans involved there are limits as to what should be made public.  We, do not have to know every detail.  As we do not, it is probable that some of our speculation is incorrect.

NOTE:  I have privately made some specific suggestions, in a positive manner, to responsible denominational officials.  I consider this to be more appropriate than to engage in public discussion absent knowledge of important facts.  Those officials have responded to me in an appropriate manner.

[CoAspen]

Gerry, 

Quote

 The articles should provoke interesting discussions on what is the role of the church when it comes to baptism of peoples........but as usual, it was/will be about sexual orientation. It(articles) should also lead us to examine our beliefs on what it means 'to  love one another as God loves us'.

Above is what I suggested would be an interesting discussion. But, I did say it would most likly focus on'sexual orientation. Was I not correct? The elephant isn't what the church did, but rather our own attitudes on how others should be treated and what baptism really means. It is not just about homosexuals, but many others as well. Our eyes burn bright with righteous indignation when the subject of homsexual and church come up, but would you be surprised at all the others who have been baptized with sins, according to some, in their lives and still practicing the same? Would it surprise you that in the past people have been rejected for baptism, such as ring wearing, and other 'standards' imposed by humans? So, no, I don't believe the subject should be discussed just because this was about homosexuals, but rather our attitudes.

[CoAspen]

Quote

If we CONFESS our sins" before any mention of forgiveness of them is made.

 

Being just a little picky that everything was not mentioned that would assure you of what was intended in the statement. What is happening in the heart is between the individual and God. Not you and me. 

[phkrause]

It seems to me, that even though the article doesn't go into all the specifics, at least in my mind, that the individual must of made some kind of commitment? Otherwise I would think that they would not have baptized her at all? Don't you think?? Because I would think that she will always be a lesbian, just like an alcoholic, for the rest of her life?? I could be wrong! She is not any worse of a sinner than anyone of us!

[Green Cochoa]

38 minutes ago, phkrause said:

It seems to me, that even though the article doesn't go into all the specifics, at least in my mind, that the individual must of made some kind of commitment? Otherwise I would think that they would not have baptized her at all? Don't you think?? Because I would think that she will always be a lesbian, just like an alcoholic, for the rest of her life?? I could be wrong! She is not any worse of a sinner than anyone of us!

Is it really true that there is no "worse of a sinner than anyone of us"?  Must every sinner continue in his or her sin and remain a sinner?  Was Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross really in vain?  Are we all going to simply be lost because we cannot obtain victory over sin?  Does the Bible admonish us in vain to "endure" to the end, to "fight" the good fight of faith, to "resist" the devil so that he flees from us, and to know and understand that God will make a way of "escape" from temptations?

[Gary K]

16 hours ago, CoAspen said:

I feel like I read a totaly different article/s than some who are commenting.  I read nothing about how our treatment of others or attitudes is politicol in any way. A red herring at best and quite often used to dismiss certain 'hot potatoes '!

 

Look at the world around you.  What are the big political movements of today?  Homosexuality is great.  Cross gender is wonderful.  If you believe in God's word you're an extremist and a hater.  That's what the world says about those who believe what God has to say.  Those political views are now being expressed daily, and with the same rhetoric, inside the church.  And you cannot see this?  Maybe not.  You pretty much express the same beliefs the world does.  However, the world and God will always be at odds.  They stand for diametrically opposed principles.

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

Is it really true that there is no "worse of a sinner than anyone of us"?  Must every sinner continue in his or her sin and remain a sinner?  Was Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross really in vain?  Are we all going to simply be lost because we cannot obtain victory over sin?  Does the Bible admonish us in vain to "endure" to the end, to "fight" the good fight of faith, to "resist" the devil so that he flees from us, and to know and understand that God will make a way of "escape" from temptations?

Exactly, what I was saying! I agree with your post Green!

[CoAspen]

Gary K, I said nothing about politics, you are bringing it up, I feel to avoid the matter/subject of what I think is worth talking about. Since you and others don't, start a thread with your thoughts!

[phkrause]

Exactly CoAspen, one thing we don't need is to get this thread into talking politics for sure!!

[Gregory Matthews]

The denomination has a process for dealing with alleged sin.  Its members should have enough information to be assured that denominational officials took seriously the charges and that the process of dealing with the alleged sin was carried out.

In this process, those who deal with the alleged sin should be made fully aware of the facts.  But, the world-wide membership does not need to be made aware of every aspect of    those  facts.

Let me give you two actual examples of which I am aware:

1)  Sam defended himself against a charge by stating that he had been unable to maintain an erection.  The world-wide public does not need to know that fact and does not need to know the name of the woman involved.  By the way, Sam ended his ministry and his credentials were   revoked.

2)  Joe, as a young man, admitted to making false charges against Ralph and knew at the time  the charge was false.  A decision was made that the public did not need to know that Joe had admitted that and that Robert and  Sue lost their employment with the denomination for the role that thy had in Ralph making the false charges.  Joe has gone on with his life and put that past behind him.   He is now an ordained SDA minister and engaged in active ministry.    

I understand that in #2, you may not understand why certain details were not made public.  Well, sometimes issues are vey complex and there is no perfect and good way to resolve issues.

In these  complex issues sometimes the best solution may be to keep some information restricted to people who are directly involved in making the decision.  The SDA process identifies who should be involved in determining who should decide and other out side of that do not have a right  to know every fact.

In addition some cases do not clearly establish guilt.  I am reminded of a well known case where a woman made charges against a SDA clergy person.  He denied them and at a trial the decision was made that hiss guilt had not been established. 

Due to my background in psychology and the people whom I have worked with who were both offenders and victims, I have stated that I believe that woman and also believe that the decision that the guilt of the man had not been established was the right one to make.  Folks, we  are humans and our systems are human.  In realty, only God can give a perfect judgment.  In this case,  I will be the first to say that the public does not need to know the explicit details as to why the decision found that the charge was not sustained.

NOTE:  In my background, on several occasions I have worked on the side of women who made such charges against people.  This has included helping  them to process their charges through the established denominational procedures.