Gays and Lesbians React to GC Denial of Approval

[John317]

9 June 2010

Who's Not Welcome at the General Conference Session?

By Bonnie Dwyer

“Big Tent Adventism” describes what Adventist Forum dreams for Adventism—an open church where all members are welcome. So it is the concept around which the Spectrum booth is planned for the General Conference Exhibit Hall.

The centerpiece of the booth is a “Welcome Table,” to showcase that all are welcome. Around the table will be the place cards for representatives of several small Adventist organizations.

When the names of those organizations were submitted to the General Conference, it became clear that all are not welcome at the General Conference.

Someone to Talk to, the organization started by Carrol Grady to provide support to the families and friends of gay and lesbian Adventists was denied approval by the General Conference to sit at the Welcome Table in the Spectrum booth.

The ministry of Someone to Talk to is evident in the responses it receives. “As a marriage, family and child counselor working with university students, I have been saddened by the prejudice and misguided notions about homosexuality that have been passed on to kids,” Barbara Hernandez of Loma Linda University wrote to Grady.

It has caused me to wrestle with the issues of the nature of humanity, expectations of God, salvation, etc. I’ve been amazed by the attitude of church leaders in ignoring issues which they don’t fully understand. So when I was handed your newsletter today, I was so very pleased that you have begun to meet the needs of confused, hurting parents.

While Someone to Talk to was granted booth space at the 2000 General Conference session, it was denied space in 2005. When Spectrum asked for a review of decision this year, the General Conference personnel decided to stick with the 2005 decision. Exhibit Manager Dean Rogers explained, “we told her (in 2005) that we would not give her a booth because her ministry varies from the teaching of the Adventist church on some points.”

Adventist Forum requested that she be allowed a place at Spectrum’s Welcome Table this year, and was advised that the GC “would maintain the decision that was made for 2005 Session. That is, not to approve the ministry Someone To Talk To as an exhibitor. I would understand this to include removing the place setting at the table,” Rogers wrote to Adventist Forum.

Grady says that her organization “does not advocate for changing the church’s position, rather its primary purpose is to help other parents and family members understand, love, and accept their gay loved ones and to encourage the church to do the same.”

Preventing any association of Adventism with homosexuality, however seems to be a priority of some people at the church headquarters.

In May, independent filmmakers Stephen Eyer and Daneen Akers received a cease and desist letter for improper use of the Seventh-day Adventist name for their proposed documentary Seventh-Gay Adventists.

“Your use and modification of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark in this manner is without permission of the GCCSDA and/or the church, and is likely to cause dilution by blurring the distinctive qualities of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark and by tarnishing the reputation of the mark. Your use of the mark in this manner is also likely to cause confusion among consumers who may mistakenly believe that the Church has authorized or approved your use of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark,” the letter read.

Given that the General Conference lost its suit against Seventh-day Adventist [sDA] Kinship in 1991 when U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaeizer determined that the “terms “Seventh-day Adventist” and “SDA,” as used by SDA Kinship are generic,” it is surprising that the Church is pursuing these filmmakers over use of the name.

When the Adventist Forum Board of Directors was informed of the decision by the General Conference to exclude Someone To Talk To, Director Larry Geraty said while he applauded the GC for, in the spirit of Christ, welcoming the concept of Big Tent Adventism, he was disappointed that it did not extend that welcoming to those being helped by the increasingly vital ministry of Carrol Grady.

Director Ellen Brodersen responded with a question, “Will Doug Batchelor be allowed to have a booth given his recent sermon on women in ministry that expressed divergent views from the church?” she said reflecting the finding by the Southeastern California Conference that Batchelor’s presentation did not accurately represent the church’s position. She then spoke of the universal need for help by members whose families are stressed in dealing with homosexuality, and wished that church officials could value the ministry that graciously serves these people.

"I could not be more dismayed.,” said Charles Scriven, board chair of the Adventist Forum. “Jesus was suspicious of respectability.

He was the friend of outcasts. Some church leaders want to reverse this."

Source: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/06/09/who_not_welcome_general_conference_session

[olger]

Dear church member, is the God whom you serve able to deliver you from the lion of immorality & perversion? Our God is able.

g

[SivartM]

"We love you and support you. So now just stop being perverted and we'll listen to you."

[doug yowell]

Unlike Spectrum, perhaps we don't know as much about the Someone To Talk To ministry as Bonnie Dwyer would have us think we know.The article fails to expound on the "why" theme enough to make an accurate judgment.Maybe the church really is non-redemptive and maybe the STTT ministry is "inclusive" of homosexual behaviour. Given Spectrum's historic agenda, I'm always wary as to their objectivity in reporting these things."He that speaks before he hears the whole matter, it's a shame and a folly to him." On the other hand,the strong connection to the WO issue made by the SECC rep should not go unnoticed.

[fccool]

Being homosexual and practicing homosexuality is two different things. We need to realize that there is in fact a difference. There are people who are born with hormonal imbalances that confuse the gender preference issues. These people tend to have homosexual tendencies in either gender.

We should definitely teach homosexual lifestyle as a abnormal lifestyle that is inconsistent with God's procreation plan, but we likewise should not reject any homosexuals who are abstaining from the practice, yet are openly homosexual in nature. To say that homosexuality is a sin, also would mean that mental and physical disability is a sin. Homosexuality goes far beyond choice, and depends heavily on human physiology in most cases.

[SivartM]

...we likewise should not reject any homosexuals who are abstaining from the practice, yet are openly homosexual in nature.

Should we reject homosexuals who disagree with the official view of the church on this issue?

[fccool]

If our view is that church is not a place for sinners, then we should (in which case we should purge the church of most Adventists). If our view is that church is a place for sinners to come to repentance, then certainly we should not.

[doug yowell]

If our view is that church is not a place for sinners, then we should (in which case we should purge the church of most Adventists). If our view is that church is a place for sinners to come to repentance, then certainly we should not.

I thought the church was supposed to be a place for sinners who had already come to repentence. "For such WERE some of you" not "For such ARE some of you".If not, then no one should be kept out!I think Paul's letters to the Corinthians should have made that clear.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know what positions this "Someone to Talk to" takes but our church should have some ministry reaching out to gays and their families.

[Woody]

I think currently the church is in the denial and/or avoidance mode. The subject is like a rotten apple.

[SivartM]

I don't know what positions this "Someone to Talk to" takes but our church should have some ministry reaching out to gays and their families.

But... then they would have to talk to gay people.

[fccool]

I thought the church was supposed to be a place for sinners who had already come to repentence. "For such WERE some of you" not "For such ARE some of you".If not, then no one should be kept out!I think Paul's letters to the Corinthians should have made that clear.

I'm not talking about people who reject Christ here, but people who reject Church doctrine. Two different things, although our church loves the control of saying who belongs and who does not... ironically ... we vote people in . It's not Biblical version of church membership.

In short... "Those who have no sin... cast the first stone". But of course, it should not be separated from "Go and sin no more".

Yet, the reality is that we will sin, and that we are in no lesser need of the Savior than homosexual who practices immorality.

My point is that he/she has far greater chance of repenting, while surrounded by the community of the loving believers... rather than to be ejected by the community of the Pharasies who stone the sin out of people.

Church is not only a club for Christians, but also a shelter for sinners to come to eventual repentance. Sure, some will not, but it does not give us right to decide their salvation or "church membership". God decides that... not us. We can't vote God's decisions in.

[Dr. Shane]

I think currently the church is in the denial and/or avoidance mode. The subject is like a rotten apple.

I think some parts of the church are but not the entire church. Pastor Ron Woolsey has been on a lot of Adventist TV programs. I would like to see him have his own program. I think that would reach out to a lot in the gay community - especially those in the church and the closet.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I thought the church was supposed to be a place for sinners who had already come to repentence. "For such WERE some of you" not "For such ARE some of you".If not, then no one should be kept out!I think Paul's letters to the Corinthians should have made that clear.

I'm not talking about people who reject Christ here, but people who reject Church doctrine. Two different things, although our church loves the control of saying who belongs and who does not... ironically ... we vote people in . It's not Biblical version of church membership.

In short... "Those who have no sin... cast the first stone". But of course, it should not be separated from "Go and sin no more".

Yet, the reality is that we will sin, and that we are in no lesser need of the Savior than homosexual who practices immorality.

My point is that he/she has far greater chance of repenting, while surrounded by the community of the loving believers... rather than to be ejected by the community of the Pharasies who stone the sin out of people.

Church is not only a club for Christians, but also a shelter for sinners to come to eventual repentance. Sure, some will not, but it does not give us right to decide their salvation or "church membership". God decides that... not us. We can't vote God's decisions in.

So you're recommending that there be no test of fellowship, no corporate judgments(including discipline),no common moral standard, and no distinction between the churched and the unchurched? If the church cannot vote God's decisions in, neither can it vote them out. Therefore there is no need for an organized,unified church body.Your suggestion implies that it is impossible for born again people to determine who is and who isn't a Christian by their overall behaviour.When Paul admonishes Timothy:"Do not lay hands on anyone hastily,not share in other people's sins...Some men's sins are clearly evident,preceding them to judgment..." what did he mean?

[fccool]

Doug,

1) I said no such thing. Nowhere close.

2) You approach to Christianity is obviously a puritanical one. Sure, there's admonition for discipline and correction... but it has to be done in love, not by means of hammering the truth and claiming to be better than those you are accusing to the point of denying them "fellowship". It's pharaseical mentality... hypocritical the very least.

The passages you are referring to are dealing with maintaining personal purity that are necessary for an elder. They are silent on issue of homosexuality and continuous struggle with sin by the members.

Biblically what needs to be done:

1) Edifying the members to follow the example of Christ and Godly people.

2) Correcting each other in love

3) The severe discipline is the last resort... not the first one. Neither you'll find ANYTHING about supposed "test of fellowship" (our version of it).

Bible is VERY CLEAR that judgment is not for us to assume/carry out... that verse right back at you:

"The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden."

When the sins of men are obvious, then we can approach them ... but not before examining our own lives. Such so the discipline results first from a personal discussion. Then from group discussion/intervention. Then and only then from corporate shunning as the LAST RESORT. You will not find many Biblical examples of such course.

The thing about our present "proof-texting" approach is that it completely ignores underlying message and the context... as well as the setting and the addressees. It's hillarious at times. I'll copy paste the following from the same book of 1st Timothy... and will create my own hamartiology and sotereology:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. "

Based on the above, the women should never teach by be silent and learn from men, because they were the ones who were deceived. So, in Sabbath school classes we should put this up above the door.

The point is that the church, just like nation of Israel should be the light to the world. If we are cloistered entity that kicks people out and shuns them based on their current preferences... we in fact impede the work of God. That's one of the reasons that I prefer not to bring my friends to the church, even though some of them would be willing to go. If they voice their opinions in the Sabbath school, they will be eaten alive.

If you read the entire Bible 2 things clear:

1) Judgment is reserved for God. Even in the OT people brought the matter before God, and God carried out the final judgment as far as the transgression went. God himself gave commands as far as "cutting people off".

2) We know that the fruits of the spirit are the evidence of the believers. Our homophobia goes along the lines with xenophobia of the Jews. We are no better than unsaved in a sense that we once were in the same place.

3) Our current leadership and membership order is not based entirely on Biblical concepts, but much of it stems from Catholic tradition of ex-comunicaiton and heretic chasing/witch burning.

Read the entire epistle to Timothy and you will see that it's all about personal responsibility and leadership by example. It's not about passing judgment on who should and should not belong to the church (denomination), because we don't know the heart of men and purpose of God for these people at their present and future time.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I'm not talking about people who reject Christ here, but people who reject Church doctrine. Two different things, although our church loves the control of saying who belongs and who does not... ironically ... we vote people in . It's not Biblical version of church membership.

How can one belong/join ANY church whose doctrine one does not espouse?

[SivartM]

Which fundamental belief addresses homosexuals?

Besides...

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed, and fifth, to commence persecution against such." John Loughborough, 1861.

[Woody]

It happens ALL the time Gerry. These people who might join ... probably believe in MOST of the doctrines and don't know of a church any closer.

[Gerr]

Which fundamental belief addresses homosexuals?

#1. "1. Holy Scriptures:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Le 18:22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Quote:

Besides...

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed, and fifth, to commence persecution against such." John Loughborough, 1861.

So we should not have any statements about what we as a church believe?

[SivartM]

#1. "1. Holy Scriptures:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Le 18:22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[Gerr]

I, for one, would not join a church with which I have major disagreements with.

[SivartM]

You consider this a major disagreement? Would people who disagree with you on this issue consider it a major disagreement?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Ah. So shall you be resigning from the church shortly also? We'll need to see a detailed report on how you are following every verse in the Bible

Like which one?

Quote:

.... (especially Leviticus).

If Leviticus is not good enough, how about this then?

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 6:9-10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[Gerr]

I would not join a church that give their blessing on PRACTICING homosexuals, practicing drug dealers, etc.

[SivartM]

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 6:9-10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.