What is our church doing about this?

[John317]

Quote:

So let us hear your interpretations of it. May I suggest that you do your own independent study of what the Bible teaches on these issues and give us your Bible evidence and the conclusions you have drawn from it. I would love to read it.

Honestly ... I have no need to do as directed by you. I will do what I need to do. But I would very much like for you to do as I have asked ... and that is to stop telling people that what THEY believe and have faith in is NOT of the Bible and then putting yourself up by saying what they have is just opinion and what you have is what the Bible says.

I have heard this far too much on CA. If we have to put others down by saying their faith is only OPINION and your faith is "THE WORD OF GOD" ... then we might as well forget about drawing people to Christ.

What you have said is merely YOUR interpretation. What I have said is merely MY interpretation. We both feel that it is the WORD OF GOD. But that is our personal belief. We should not be so arrogant as to tell someone that their interpretation is just opinion and ours is truth. Let that person decide for themselves before putting them down.

Just my humble interpretation of what the behaviour of Christians should be if we want to share the LOVE of God. The Holy Spirit will do His job if we present it in LOVE and not arrogance.

I am not trying to direct you what to do. I was merely asking you to share your analysis of the Bible's viewpoint on the subject we're discussing, if you have one. What we could use is more participation, not less. So I am simply asking people what their understanding is of these things.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I will propose just one way to look at this rather than to condemn. Consider what SDA Chaplains do ... They have committed to serve ALL faiths. This "may" mean that they would do something they do not believe in ... this would be done for Catholics or for Jews ... or for Mormons ... whoever they are serving at the time.

In this scenario that I have outlined ... they may actually baptize a Baby for instance. I think there could be many NON- SDA rites that they might perform.What about communion to a Catholic? Let's be considerate to our brothers in Christ. Do we kick our Chaplains out of the church? Well then ... I don't see the Mayor as any different. But anyway ... before we crucify him ... lets be Christian enough to get his side. Then if we don't like what he says ... then we can stone him.

Where is our good friend Gregory Matthews? Gregory ... could you help us out and confirm or deny what I have said?

I first began to read this interesting thread today (December 1). I find it interesting enough that I want to comment on it even before I complete reading the entire thread.

In the few posts I have written, I find the issues of most interest to me to be:

1) John Street and his actions. I am not going to comment on this before reading the entire thread.

2) The assumed requirement of chaplains to accommodate the religious beliefs and preferences of the people whom they serve.

3) The assumed blessing of the SDA church on the efforts of those chaplains to accommodate the beliefs and practices of the people whom they serve.

My background: I have served more than 30 years as a SDA chaplain employed by the Federal government. I have served in the U.S. Army as a chaplain, and I presently serve as a chaplain for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

In addition I have also worked in a private, non-SDA, hospital as a chaplain for that hospital.

As a military chaplain I was at one time on the teaching faculty of the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School. In that capacity I taught clergy what it meant, and how to serve, as an Army chaplain. A major part of my work was to teach them how to serve the spiritual needs of the people whom they served, without violating their conscientious principles.

With this in mind fundamental dicta of the (US) governmental chaplaincies include the following:

1) Governmental chaplains cannot be required to perform any sacramental function that violates their religious convictions.

2) When a governmental chaplain cannot perform some requested sacramental function, that chaplain may be required to facilitate providing someone who can perform that function.

3) Protestant chaplains are expected to provide a worship service on Sunday that meets the general spiritual needs of their Protestant congregation.

The first of the above is a firmly fixed governmental principle. As a result, to be hired by the government, a chaplain must be permitted by his/her denomination to be employed by the government. In the SDA denomination, it is Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries in the General Conference/North American Division who provides the endorsement (as it is called) to the government that allows the chaplain to be hired. In addition, the chaplain only continues in employment as long as the denomination continues the endorsement. If that endorsement is withdrawn, the chaplain is fired. In other words, Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries has the authority to terminate my employment with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Yes, some things are different. The person distributing the Lord’s Supper is not an ordained Deacon, and a SDA. While the elements are distributed in the pews, I am willing to give them to people who wish to come to the front of the chapel to receive them. I probably do more weddings for non SDAs than the typical SDA pastor.

In regard to the baptism of babies, this is not an issue in the VA as we do not have women giving birth in our hospital. Deliveries are contracted out to another hospital. They do not take place in the hospital where I work. Yes, I have worked in a private, non SDA hospital. I will discuss that later. The bottom line for me is that I have never baptized any person who is not making an informed decision to join the SDA (I am SDA clergy.) denomination. After talking to the people, that has never been a problem for me, not in over 30 years of ministry in a Federal government situation.

As I stated, I have never baptized a person who was not making an informed commitment to join the SDA denomination. This clearly tells you that I have never baptized a baby. But, I have worked in a hospital where women gave birth to children. As such, I have been asked to baptize babies. In such cases I have discussed with the parent(s) their understanding of baptism. In every case, they have accepted my suggestion that we dedicate the child to God. Sometimes we have gone beyond this to ask the Lord to bless and guide the parents as they attempted to raise the child. The result has been that I have never had a problem due to my refusal to baptize a baby.

Let me give you one such example:

It was Sunday morning, and I recieve a telephone call from a Social Worker at this hospital. Mary is a single parent, who is the mother of several children. She has come to realize that she cannot care for this additional child. Therefore, she has agreed to give the child up for adoption, by a Roman Catholic couple. All people are at the hospital waiting for Mary to personally hand the child over to John and Ruth. But, at this last minute, Mary has told the Social Worker and the Roman Catholic couple the adoption is off unless the child is baptized into the Baptist faith!

When I arrive at the hospital I visit with the Social Worker, and then Mary. I discuss with Mary her understanding of baptism, as she was taught in her Baptist faith.

Then I go to another part of the hospital to meet with John and Ruth. I find that a Roman Catholic priest is standing by to properly baptize the child as soon as they can get the baby to him. They are fit to be tied with the emotional pressure that they are under. They are not happy with the idea that the child would be baptized as a Protestant.

As I travel back and forth between Mary, John, Ruth, and the Social Worker we reach a common agreement. A short time later the baby and the five adults meet together in the hospital meditation room. We begin with a service of thanksgiving for Mary who in a time of stress in her life chose to deliver the child, rather than abort, and for her courage to place the interests of this baby girl first and to give the child up for adoption. Then, we lay hands on her, and ask the Lord to honor her in the decision that she has made in regard to this child and to give her special guidance in her future life, and the courage to follow the guiding of God.

Then we do lay hands on the Roman Catholic couple. We thank God for their decision to raise this child. We ask that God will give them special guidance as to how this child will be raised, and the courage to follow the leading of the Lord.

In the end we dedicate the baby girl to God. We conclude with prayer.

The time has now come for Mary to hand the child over to the care and keeping of John and Ruth. Mary asks for a few minutes to be alone with the child. She is given that. She then hands the baby over to Ruth.

We all leave the hospital.

NOTE: I will continue to read this thread (So far I have only read the first two pages.). As I do so, I may decide to comment on other issues such as the ceremony that Street conducted. But, I want to see what others have said first.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

John317, I really admire someone who is open and honest like you are. Thanks for sharing. Yes, you will always be a homosexual and though you may be that, you still are my brother in Christ and I will accept you and support you as you are.

Thanks for saying that.

Such is my view, and I say the same to all of the other people here who are homosexual.

I happen to believe that just is an alcoholic remains an alcoholic, even when that person no longer uses beverage alcohol, a true homosexual reamains a homosexual even after the practice of homosexuality is given up.

But, whether practicing homosexuality, or not practicing it, that person is my brother or sister.

[Gregory Matthews]

Is rape a pervision?

Some appear to think that although it is wrong, it is not a perversion.

I will suggest that rape is a perversion.

Rape is about violance.

Sexual intercourse, as God created it is never about violance.

Violance expressed in the form of sexual intercourse is a pervision of what God has given us.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If we use what the dictionary and others indicate is hostile and inflammatory ... does an apology need to be made?

If someone seems to be hostile toward another, the best course of action is simply to ask the person what they intended to say and take it at face value. In this thread, I connected the word "terrorist" to the accusation of fundamentalist Muslims. Richard has clarified that he didn't mean just terrorists but all fundamentalists including the papists that killed the saints during the Dark Ages. So I accept his clarification without trying to insist he intended something else.

[Dr. Shane]

Just so we set the record straight, here are the two insults that have been directed at John317. Richard came in second, piling up on top of the insults Coaspen had already made.

Coaspen:

Quote:

Now we have a better understanding of how Islamic radicals and radicals of other 'religious' groups feel justified in their rhetoric.

Richard:

Quote:

We wonder why Islam practices acts like wanting to apply 40 lashes to an English teacher for naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

Clearly neither one uses the word terrorist. And we can give them the benefit of the doubt that neither intended the word terrorist. However I think it easy to see how the one being insulted could feel as though he had been lumped in with terrorists.

Richard:

Quote:

Terrorist has a very clear meaning.

Wikipedia - Definition of terrorism:

Quote:

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as "terrorism." A 1988 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements...

The modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial...

...Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

[lazarus]

Greogory

Just responding to some the issues that I raised in my comments. The two scenarios I presented (baby baptism and performing worship service with gay priest) were kept deliberately vague by me to illustrate a point.

Let me just fill in the blanks as regards to the baby.

I was called to the unit in the early hours to visit a mother whose baby had been given a few hours to live. There was no catholic priest available. We make an attempt to contact a priest of the person is Catholic.

I explained to her that as an SDA Pastor I would be wiling dedicate her child to God, following the example of Jesus. I also said that babies are not old enough to understand the message of the gospel but God is certainly willing to bless them. I then dedicated the child and spoke briefly to her about the fact that this ceremony was also an expression of her rededication to God.

The doctor, who was present then said the mother really wanted to have the baby baptized. I could have refused but then I repeated what SDA's believe then proceed to sprinkle water on the baby's head and thanked the Lord the blessing of the child's life and for the forgiveness of sins that comes through Jesus.

In their minds I'm sure it was a baptism. I had made it clear as to what my belief was. I took the decision to meet her need.

If I had refused, I don't think there would have been a problem. I have refused before.

As far as John Street is concerned. I would not have done what he did but I do understand why he did it.

[Woody]

Quote:

If we use what the dictionary and others indicate is hostile and inflammatory ... does an apology need to be made?

If someone seems to be hostile toward another, the best course of action is simply to ask the person what they intended to say and take it at face value. In this thread, I connected the word "terrorist" to the accusation of fundamentalist Muslims. Richard has clarified that he didn't mean just terrorists but all fundamentalists including the papists that killed the saints during the Dark Ages. So I accept his clarification without trying to insist he intended something else.

So then, to get back to the context of this discussion .. why then did you write a long apology to your empolyee who "misunderstood" the meaning that you intended for the word 'ignorant' ?

[Dr. Shane]

It wasn't an employee, it was a subcontractor. The biggest issue was that he took it as a racist insult. I am white and he and his workers are Hispanic. I cannot afford to have subcontractors mistakenly believing I am a racist so it behooved me to go the extra mile to clarify what I had said. What I had actually said was correct. Ignorant doesn't mean stupid. However many associate the two words together. Furthermore, 'ignorante' is used as an insult in Spanish.

[Woody]

Personally I appreciate very much the approach, care, love and beliefs of both Gregory and Lazarus. I could find no faults in either side or approach.

I am sure there are different situations and needs ... and who would fault either decision . It is good that you are protected so that no matter what decision you make ... you are not condemned for it.

A little tolerance for all beliefs goes a long ways. Praise God. And thanks guys for sharing.

[Woody]

Quote:

The biggest issue was that he took it as a racist insult.

Hmmm.

[Gregory Matthews]

Lazarus:

I was not directing any comments to you.

As far as I am concerned, based upon what you hve told us you did, you dedicated the child, and did not baptize it. It is quite Biblical to anoint a person with either oil or water.

While I have stated that I have never baptized a baby. I do not critize those who do baptize babies.

[Woody]

Quote:

I am not trying to direct you what to do. I was merely asking you to share your analysis of the Bible's viewpoint on the subject we're discussing, if you have one. What we could use is more participation, not less. So I am simply asking people what their understanding is of these things.

Why would anyone do that when their "analysis" would be considered "mere opinion" ... unless it agreed with what the accepted Biblical interpretation.

[lazarus]

Gregory,

I didn't feel you were pointing fingers at me but because you raised the issues I just felt the need to clarify what I had posted.

Its Ok.

[Woody]

You both COOL !!

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, I hvae now read thses 15 pages! Since I have stated I might make some comment in regard to Street, I feel some obligation to do so:

I am not going to comment on the major issues of homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, as they have been raised here.

My comments will be somewhat disconnected, and in no order of priority.

NOTE: Let it be understood that I, as an Adventist minister would not perform the wedding of a homosexual couple regardless of any right given them to marry by the law.

1) Let is say that I am a county clerk in a State that has legalized homosexual marriages. Two men come to me and request a license to wed. What is my obligation? Do I have the right to refuse to grant them a licence to marry in view of the fact that the law allows them to marry.

NOTE: I raise this question as it may (?) be that the answer to this applies to Mr. Street.

The answer to the question that I have raised is a very clear NO. As a clerk, I have taken an oath to apply the law evenly to all people, as the law exists, and not to apply it in a favored manner, or as I wish it existed.

My granting the homosexual couple the license to wed is simply a function of my role as the county clerk. It no way is it a function of my personal beliefs, or that of my denomination.

If I were to refuse to grant the couple a license to wed, I would have disqualified myself from holding the office.

If my personal beliefs prevent me from granting such a license, I would have been morally and ethically bound to have resigned at the time the law was passed.

NOTE: The same above applies to a civil judge who is asked, as applied by the law, to perform the wedding of a homosexual couple. Judges are sworn to apply the law as written, equally adn fairly to all. A judge who cannot do so should resign.

2) It is clear to me that Mr. Street did not perform a wedding. He did not violate the law, as I understand it. Therfore he cannot be charged before the SDA chuch with performing a homosexual marriage. A wedding and marrige did not take place.

Let us say that Mr. Street lived in a State where homosexual marriages cold take place, and that Mr. Street, who was not a SDA clergyperson performed such.

Would it be appropriate to discipline Mr. Street for doing so?

Doing such would not involve an official act of the SDA church and/or a SDA clergyperson. Such an act could not fairly be considered to represent the SDA chruch.

In Nevada there are authorized people who make their living by performing drive-up marriages. If one such was a SDA, would the denomination attempt to place any restrictions on them? What other classes of people would/should be excluded? After all, would we want to allow the civil marriage to take place where it was believed that one party was not likely to remaian faithful to the other?

3)Can we distinguish between a civil marriage and a religious marrige; betweeen a civil marriage and a SDA marriage; between a marriage conducted by a clergyperson and one with no such recognition?

4) In a situation where it is believed that the marriage is not on Biblical grounds--this is much more than mere homosexuality--is is possible to ask that God will help the people to remain faithful to each other?

I remind you that in Holand the SDA denomination my allow men and women who are living together, sexually involved, and not married, to become members of the SDA Church. Is it possible for a prayer to be made that in such a non-ideal relationship that God will lead, and help the couple to remain faithful and committed to each other?

Well, I do not know all of what Mr. Street did. But, whatever it was, he did not represent the SDA chruch. He did it as an individual. I doubt that anyone believed it represented the SDA chruch.

At this time, I do not know enough to suggest that he should be disciplined by the denomination.

However, as a SDA clergyperson, based upon what I think took place, I would not have done what he did.

A fundamental question to me is that as to how Christians fit into the seccular life of the community in which the Christian lives.

[cardw]

Quote:

Clearly neither one uses the word terrorist. And we can give them the benefit of the doubt that neither intended the word terrorist. However I think it easy to see how the one being insulted could feel as though he had been lumped in with terrorists.

You a making up insults. In the quotes you made from me there is no indication what so ever that I was calling anyone a terrorist. I used the word Islam. Its prejudiced to say that all Islamic believers are terrorists.

In all the definitions of terrorist they all include the use of violence. The only confusion in the definitions of terrorism is when is the use of violence for political and ideological goals not terrorism.

Now I take responsibility for using the word ignorant. That's exactly what I meant. It doesn't mean you are stupid. It means you don't know what you are talking about because you haven't done enough research or analysis or reading, etc.

Now I have to make an ethical choice between being honest or being nice. I find that when people are nice and they mean something else that is offensive because they are lying to me. Now if you want me to use another word besides ignorance I am open to suggestions. But the truth is you didn't know the difference between Islam, Muslim, and terrorist. To me that is clearly ignorance.

Now I actually looked up your reference to terrorist on Wikipedia to understand WHY the definition of terrorist is controversial. Here is the answer from Wikipedia.

Quote:

Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.

All of these have nothing to do with a belief in fundamentalism and application of religious law within one's own group. This was the context of my illustration. What I was trying to illustrate is that fundamental thinking can lead to violence. The devaluing of women as Jim was strongly implying in the way that he worded his interpretation of Lots actions clearly treated women as objects.

The Bible is filled with laws that have the death penalty as a punishment. They are no different than what is happening in Sudan with the British teacher. This is an iron age ethical system.

When we try to interpret Lot's actions as if he was a modern rationalist we create some pretty sick thinking. The only reason Lot is declared "righteous" which means "right doing" is because the writer of the book thought Lot was doing the right thing. The writer of the book thought that women were property. This is obvious because the legal system outlined in the Old Testament treats women as property.

I am open to disagreement, but don't complain when I call you on your lack of research. You can call me on the same thing.

[Woody]

Quote:

I remind you that in Holand the SDA denomination my allow men and women who are living together, sexually involved, and nor married, to become members of the SDA Church. Is it possible for a prayer to be made that in such a non-ideal relationship that God will lead, and help the couple to remain faithful and committed to each other?

Praise God Gregory. I did not know this. Good News. And YES ... It is possible to pray that a non-ideal relatonship can be helped by prayer. God is all powerful. He takes us where we are and works from there.

God is GOOD !! If only we all had the same patience , love and tolerance.

[olger]

Greg said:

Quote:

If my personal beliefs prevent me from granting such a license, I would have been morally and ethically bound to have resigned at the time the law was passed.

Olger said "A-men."

:)

[John317]

...I remind you that in Holand the SDA denomination my allow men and women who are living together, sexually involved, and nor married, to become members of the SDA Church. Is it possible for a prayer to be made that in such a non-ideal relationship that God will lead, and help the couple to remain faithful and committed to each other?

They certainly should by all means be welcome to worship and participate in Sabbath School class. But it would be wrong for them to be recognized as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. It is in direct conflict with the Bible's clear teaching, as, for instance, in 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10, Lev. 18: 22, Romans 1: 24-29, and 1 Tim. 1: 10.

We should rather be praying for them that they will be convicted of their sins and accept God's power in their lives to overcome them.

As a former member of the gay Metropolitan Community Church, I'm very familiar with all the arguments given for believing the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I'm sad to say that I fully expect that we will hear the same arguments being made within our own church.

When it comes to the SDA church in Holland accepting practicing homosexuals as members, I am not surprised it might happen there. The church is influenced by the world to a great extent unless it makes a conscious effort to resist it by clinging to Christ and the Word of God. And of course the Netherlands accepts homosexuality. I could easily imagine the church in San Francisco accepting practicing homosexuals as members also, if it doesn't already do so.

I'm not saying this because I dislike homosexuals. I'm not at all personally offended by them. I would be with them now, except for my convictions, based on the plain teachings of the Bible, that God doesn't want people to do those things.

[Woody]

Quote:

We should rather be praying for them that they will be convicted of their sins and accept God's power in their lives to overcome them.

You guys can pray that God will do this in MY life also. Honestly ... it is a work of a lifetime. There is not stopping place. And I could provide all the Bible quotes and Ellen G. White quotes for that also. But we NEVER come to a place where we accept enough or ALL of the power of God that we need.

However ... if they can not be a part of the Body of Christ until they have accomplished this unatainable task ... then I had better turn in my membership credentials.

I am totally "unworthy" and I place my Salvation in the hands of Christ.

Some here it would seem have the philosophy of :

Blood plus Works = Salvation

My belief is that ...

Blood = Salvation plus Works

A big difference in theology.

[John317]

It's not a question of the necessity of being sinless before one can be a member of the church. The church is a hospital for sinners, yes, but it is not a hospital for sinners who want to continue practicing sins. It is a place for Jesus our physician to help us be healed. But the problem is when people deny that what the Bible calls sin is really a sin. What happens when the church simply prays that members stay faithful to their sins, as long as they are not committing those sins with more than one person? Then the church becomes no longer a hospital for sinners-- it becomes a club for people to feel "you're OK, I'm OK" and healing ceases to take place because no one is acknowledged to need healing of sin.

That's the way it is in the gay churches. Everyone's doing just fine.

[Neil D]

They certainly should by all means be welcome to worship and participate in Sabbath School class. But it would be wrong for them to be recognized as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. It is in direct conflict with the Bible's clear teaching, as, for instance, in 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10, Lev. 18: 22, Romans 1: 24-29, and 1 Tim. 1: 10.

[snip]

I'm not saying this because I dislike homosexuals. I'm not at all personally offended by them. I would be with them now, except for my convictions, based on the plain teachings of the Bible, that God doesn't want people to do those things.

I wonders...I am reminded of where Jesus was when He was on this earth being critized...Religious leaders were complaining of Him that He ate with the "Winebibbers" and the "harlots" and the "prostitutes"...in other words, the low cast of our society. I am forced to ask myself in this discussion, where would Jesus be now?

I am also reminded of when Jesus complained about how the Law was used to exclude others from His presence.

From John 5:45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

And from Matthew 23-

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

I wonder...is there a way to allow these to come into the church and recieve Christ? Is there a way to allow a smoker to come into church while still smoking cigarettes outside of church? Is there a way of allowing a sinner into church while he still sins outside of church? Is there a way for any sinner [or saint] to grow in Christ Church? Can standards that our church holds dearly onto prevent people from coming into the church?

Oh, well...I don't expect an answer...at least, not an answer that is full of wisdom and, most of all...grace...

[Woody]

Personally .... I feel the church IS the place for ALL ... even those who do not sense their need to change their life with particular good works that you might desire them to have. If they can't be welcomed to the fold of Sinners to learn not to sin .. then where would they go?

None of us are any "holier" than another. We ALL sin and come short of the glory of God. I am sure there are actions in MY life that I have not come to a realization that I need to change. But it is IN the church that I can gain this understanding through the patient and loving teaching and understanding of others.

But it will not happen if we project the image that we are a club of people who have arrived at some particular point of holiness. I know of NO one who feels they can practice sin. But many have not been convicted of sin. That is something the Holy Spirit does and he can use our church to bring a person to that point. That is unless we shun those who have not achieved the conviction that we would like them to have.

I can see Jesus rounding up all the scum of the earth and welcoming them as equal partners IN the church. The bum on the street would be held as equal partner WHILE he was struggling with his alcohol and tobacco addictions.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

They certainly should by all means be welcome to worship and participate in Sabbath School class. But it would be wrong for them to be recognized as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. It is in direct conflict with the Bible's clear teaching, as, for instance, in 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10, Lev. 18: 22, Romans 1: 24-29, and 1 Tim. 1: 10.

[snip]

I'm not saying this because I dislike homosexuals. I'm not at all personally offended by them. I would be with them now, except for my convictions, based on the plain teachings of the Bible, that God doesn't want people to do those things.

I wonder...is there a way to allow these to come into the church and recieve Christ? Is there a way to allow a smoker to come into church while still smoking cigarettes outside of church? Is there a way of allowing a sinner into church while he still sins outside of church? Is there a way for any sinner [or saint] to grow in Christ Church? Can standards that our church holds dearly onto prevent people from coming into the church?

Oh, well...I don't expect an answer...at least, not an answer that is full of wisdom and, most of all...grace...

There is a big difference between coming to worship and learn and being a member of the Adventist church. I've said that they should be welcome to worship and study and pray, but membership in the church is not unconditional. For instance, see 1 Cor. 5:

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.[c] 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Immorality Must Be Judged

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”[d]