LGBT Group at Andrews

[Gregory Matthews]

In October,  Andrews University established/authorized an LGBT Care group.  Since them both questions and criticism of that action has taken place.  As a result, Andrews has issued an official statement which may be read at the URL below.

 https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/12/13/andrews-university-responds-questions-regarding-its-new-official-lgbt-care-group

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Secrecy:  In an Adventist environment, it should probably be the decision of the individual as to whether or not to tell others t hat they are LGBT.   From that standpoint, the group should not be open to people outside of that group who simply want to know.

 

[JoeMo]

I can see having an LGBT support group to help those people reconcile their attractions to the same gender with their relationship to Jesus; and encourage them to maintain their relationship with God and not become discouraged.  When the support group devolves into a meat exchange, it is no longer fit to be supported by the church (no denomination implied).  With other support groups, I know that AA is a great place to find a drinking buddy many drug "support" groups are great places to score.

I am concerned that the church (no denomination implied) is in danger of slipping from inclusion to compromise and eventually into apostasy.  I am thinking about starting a thread to discuss whether the church (no denomination implied) is meeting the world where it is to bring them to Christ, or whether we are compromising with the world to the point that we look just like unbelievers.  If the latter is the case, we are worse than unbelievers, because we are being hypocrites.

 

[debbym]

21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I said above "in principle" because I have questions about the secrecy that seems apparent with this group. Not sure what to make of that. ??

i believe it is about confidentiality because of the harassment the members of the group may have sustained.

[B/W Photodude]

15 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I am thinking about starting a thread to discuss whether the church (no denomination implied) is meeting the world where it is to bring them to Christ, or whether we are compromising with the world to the point that we look just like unbelievers.  If the latter is the case, we are worse than unbelievers, because we are being hypocrites.

Hypocrites, unbelievers, take your pick of names, but there is one other name the Bible uses ... wicked! As one pastor noted, wicked is for people who know or should know what is right and don't do it. Those who do not know what is right are not wicked, they are heathen. There is a bit of a difference. (This is not directly regarding the people at the center of this thread. That takes a bit more tact!)

[B/W Photodude]

18 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Secrecy:  In an Adventist environment, it should probably be the decision of the individual as to whether or not to tell others t hat they are LGBT.   From that standpoint, the group should not be open to people outside of that group who simply want to know.

In many areas of life you are entitled to privacy, be it healthcare (HIPAA), conversations with a psychologist, confessions to a priest, etc. So, the group parameters seem perfectly OK to me. Without intensely reading the referenced article, I would be concerned for these people if they were being led to believe that they were just OK and could continue the lifestyle. That would be serious damage from my viewpoint.

[B/W Photodude]

On 12/14/2017 at 10:57 AM, JoeMo said:

or whether we are compromising with the world to the point that we look just like unbelievers.  If the latter is the case, we are worse than unbelievers, because we are being hypocrites.

JoeMo in this statement was referencing "us(we)" in what i am assuming was the church at large. He said "or whether we are compromising", "we are worse than unbelievers", 
"we are being hypocrites."

27 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

alrighty, so its not "directed at the people at the center of this thread," so what does that mean, in English, please. Are you getting at the demons under every doily at Andrews, or is it a little closer to home, such as the people involved in this support group?

While the original topic was the group at Andrews, it seems to drifted off into the church at large. So, I was aiming that way also. However, I think in one of my other posts, I noted that if the group was leading members away from that lifestyle, good. If they were affirming that lifestyle, I think the words from Jesus was "better a millstone be tied around their necks!" When it comes to Andrews, I have heard it said that many in Michigan wish Andrews was located somewhere else!

[B/W Photodude]

32 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

What if this support group was telling them, however subtly, or covertly, that Jesus loves them, as is?  And that they dont have to qualify first to be loved by Jesus?  (John 6:37). Or would that be considered as "serious damage?"

Well, if they are telling them that Jesus loves them, then they are telling them truth. The "as-is" part I am not so sure about. I read one theologian who said you MUST HATE sin as much you love righteousness. Do they have to change before coming to Jesus? No. Can they be accepted into heaven "as-is", I strongly suspicion "no." To accept that you are gay and cannot change is unbelief. There are some strong penalties noted in the Bible for unbelief. Jesus even wondered if He would find faith when He returned to this earth.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are at least a couple of issues present in this conversation.

1)  The first relates to how one defines homosexuality.   One definition concludes that homosexuality is defined by conduct.  Under this definition,  one is a homosexual if one engages in sexual conduct with a person of the same gender.  If that sexual conduct stops, one has changed and is no longer a homosexual.

A second definition of homosexuality is defined by a preference for a sexual relationship.  If one prefers to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender one is either bi-sexual or homosexual.  Under this definition, one can cease having sexual relationships with a person of the same gender and still prefer such.  So, in this case, one  would NOT have changed. 

I follow the 2nd definition as I have listed it above.  I Did not chose my preference for a sexual relationship.  It can be argued as to the source for that relationship preference.  but, I Did nto chose it.  I can not change it.  What I can chose, is how I express that preference.  I can chose to express it wither with a person of my same gender of with a person who is female.  I can chose to express it solely with my wife, or I can chose to express it with multiple other partners.  that is my choice.

2)  The second issue relates to God's love and that hatred of sin.  In my understanding, the Bible is clear:  God deeply loves the sinful person, at all times.  Period.  The ultimate expulsion of sin from our individual lives will only occur in eternity.  We today, do not understand the full ramifications of the sin that has infected us.  It will only be rooted out in eternity.  If God did not love the person infected with sin, we would be eternally lost.  

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What if this support group was telling them, however subtly, or covertly, that Jesus loves them, as is?  And that they dont have to qualify first to be loved by Jesus?  (John 6:37). Or would that be considered as "serious damage?"

I think assuring them of Jesus' love for them is a good start.  I think encouraging them to seek divine help to give up gay activity for the glory of God and as a witness to God's redeeming power is important as well.  I understand that asking people to give up their sex life is asking a lot of people.

The news recently reported on evidence of an explicit genetic link associated with homosexuality.  See https://www.sciencealert.com/we-just-identified-genetic-evidence-male-sexual-orientation-gay-gene.   If such evidence is accurate, how can same-gender attraction be a sin?  Maybe the activity is a sin, but I have a hard time accepting that genetic predisposition can be considered a sin.

[deonisa]

I've come across this writer who has interesting articles on homosexuality (he is gay himself):

http://www.livingout.org/how-do-you-cope-with-sexual-attraction-as-a-christian-with-same-sex-attraction

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, deonisa said:

http://www.livingout.org/

Thank-you for this link. I back up to the main page a lot of times and found there to be a wealth of information on this website. Question is, how did another church figure out all this stuff when it seems some Adventists are trying to affirm people in this lifestyle? Anyway, here is a C S Lewis quote from the website:

CS Lewis on Homosexuality
 
"First, to map out the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. This leaves the homosexual no worse off that any normal person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying. Second our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (John 9:1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This suggests that in homosexuality, as in every other tribulation, those works can be made manifest: i.e. that every disability conceals a vocation, if only we find it, which would "turn the necessity to glorious gain." Of course, the first step must be to accept any privations which, if so disabled, we can't lawfully get. The homosexual has to accept sexual abstience just as the poor man has to forgo otherwise lawful pleasures because he would be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative condition.

What should the positive life of the homosexual be? I wish I had a letter which a pious male homosexual, now dead, once wrote to me - but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He believed that his necessity could  be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, a certain social role which mere men and mere women could not give. But it is all horribly vague - too long ago. Perhaps any homosexual who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g., by mock- or quasi-marriage with a member of one's own sex even if this does not led to any carnal act) is the wrong way."