Bullying

[Woody]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-j-bel...;comm_ref=false

When Carrol Grady received a phone call telling her that her organization, Someone To Talk To, was being disinvited from having a booth at this week's North American gathering of Seventh-day Adventist teachers because "this convention is not the right venue for your group," she was shocked and distressed. With only one week before the start of the convention this was painful news to absorb, to say nothing of the expense already incurred personally by her and her volunteers.

Someone To Talk To is a ministry to Adventist families and friends of gays and lesbians. Grady is the 76-year-old founder. "I found it difficult to understand how this venue was not right for our group," she says, "when we are a ministry directed toward young people who are often the target of bullying in our schools and one of the themes of this convention is bullying and harassment in schools. What students and teachers often need is simply someone to talk to." Grady wrote a book, "My Son, Beloved Stranger," and ultimately founded this ministry after walking with her own gay son through the challenges of being gay and an Adventist Christian.

Grady immediately wrote an e-mail to Larry Blackmer, North American Division Vice President for the Office of Education, asking for the courtesy of an explanation. Blackmer replied saying that several unnamed people complained about her organization's support for gay marriage. Other education officials then allegedly voted to ban her booth from the convention.

Grady's website does indeed express sympathy for marriage between same sex partners as a vital part of their mental, emotional and even physical health, should they choose marriage. While not attempting to be thorough, the opinions expressed on her website are backed up by research. Still, Grady says, the booth was not about promoting gay marriage, but about preventing bullying for all students, including gays and lesbians.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church's official position is that, "sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman." This places Someone To Talk To's viewpoint outside the official church doctrine. Other Adventist leaders wonder whether every booth is being submitted to the same scrutiny.

"Are all the booths being screened for doctrinal purity?" asks David Ferguson, recent past Church Relations Director of Seventh-day Adventist Kinship, a ministry that provides a safe, spiritual and social community to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex current and former Seventh-day Adventists around the world. "Are other organizations being excluded based on their beliefs about the age of the earth or the ordination of women?"

The convention website does indicate that there are rules for exhibitors to abide by but fails to make those rules available.

Being a gay, lesbian or bisexual teenager in the United States is risky business. While the greatest mortal threat these teens face is from themselves, studies suggest that all of us bear the responsibility. According to The Trevor Project, gay, lesbian and bisexual teens are four times as likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers, and when combined with rejection from family and other important adults in their lives, the suicide rate for LGBT teens skyrockets to eight times the rate for those coming from supportive and accepting families, according to the Family Acceptance Project.

Schools are a particularly dangerous place for gay teens. According to the 2009 National School Climate Survey nearly 85 percent of LGBT teens report being harassed in school and nearly two-thirds report feeling unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation.

Grady and her team decided to go to Nashville in spite of the ban on their booth, to talk with individuals about their ministry and hand out their materials, but Grady now says she has been informed that security will be prohibiting the distribution of material in the convention facilities. "They can't stop us from talking to people," she says. "If they want our material we can go outside and give it to them off the property."

In conjunction with these events, Adventist filmmakers, Daneen Akers and Stephen Eyer are screening their recent documentary, "Seventh-Gay Adventists: A Film About Faith on the Margins," on Tuesday in a nearby venue not officially connected with the Teachers' Convention (info here). Akers is being told by teachers that an email was sent from regional education superintendents that the time of the film screening would be a good time for them to hold a mandatory meeting of all their employees.

One teacher who did not want to be named said, "The teachers were told that Tuesday evening would be their only free evening to rest or explore Nashville. Some were also planning to see 'Seventh-Gay Adventists.' Now, in several conferences, teachers are being summoned to a mandatory meeting." Some see this as a direct attempt to block teachers from seeing the film which portrays three Adventist couples (two gay and one lesbian), products of Adventist education themselves, as they express their love for the Adventist church and its teachings and their struggle to belong.

Dr. George Babcock, Principal of Hinsdale Adventist Academy in Hinsdale, Ill., finds the timing of the ban on Grady's booth and the sudden change of the convention schedule to be more than coincidental. In his own school, a non-discrimination policy that he pioneered two and a half years ago, expressly forbidding discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation or gender identity/expression," has recently come under attack by angry parents and other constituents. Pressured by the Illinois Conference administration, the statement was overturned last week and replaced with the standard North American Division non-discrimination policy which does not address discrimination based on religion, physical handicap or sexual orientation.

"Carrol Grady has literally become an adopted mother and grandmother to hundreds of gay and lesbian Adventists who have been rejected by their families and the church. It's hard to imagine not wanting Carrol's message and resources to be available to educators. She's all about loving all of our kids, including our LGBT kids and stopping bullying in schools," says Akers. "Just this week I received emails from two Adventist young people who are contemplating ending their lives because they are at the point of total despair." Anti-bullying advocates like Grady, Akers, Eyer and Babcock see bullying in schools as a matter of life and death and are using their voices and relative influence to bring a reluctant denomination to face this reality squarely.

[olger]

It's comin...

g

[Naomi]

Yup

[Woody]

Doesn't sound like it to me.

Her effort was resisted and stopped.

[M. T. Cross]

It's comin...

g

Can you expand on that as I have no clue what you think is comin?

[olger]

Doesn't sound like it to me.

Her effort was resisted and stopped.

Like female headship, it will be back. Be patient.

[Gordon1]

There's more than one issue here.

Why are school students dwelling on sexuality? The Church should be addressing that problem with greater vigor. I'll guess there is more heterosexual activity among SDA students than with the LGBT crowd due to numbers. But it seems that loose morals for the straight crowd are much overlooked, partially because the adults set poor examples.

It's unlikely the LGBT issue would be sodominant and pervasive if the door hadn't first been opened by the permissiveness of straight students (and their parents and teachers and pastors).

[bonnie]

Like female headship, it will be back. Be patient.

Why is it necessary to have special groups? Don't bully this group and this one and so on.

Why don't parents and teachers "teach and enforce you don't bully anyone?

Does it matter if they have gay parents or themselves are gay?

Our sons didn't have to understand why someone was gay or different,they didn't need to be specifically educated to understand.They needed to know they did not have a right to bully anyone.Didn't matter if they were gay,obese,handicapped,big ears and buck teeth,dressed funny or poorly,different skin color,or spoke with a accent.

If your child has not been taught to not bully others,PERIOD,they will bully anyone when the opportunity comes up.

I am sure my boys did their share of teasing but they knew better than to EVER want us to find out they had bullied someone because they were different or lived differently than we did.

How many different org. do we need to prevent bullying?

[Gordon1]

Yes Gerry, of course it will return. The reason Tom Wetmore vigorously denies the connection between women in church leadership and LGBT clergy rights is because he does not see that God's order has been reversed, and it's much more than a slippery slope once that happens. (Not picking on Tom, but he's been the most outspoken denier of this growing and certain trend.)

BTW - It will be shown that women's rights are not the root of this rebellion. It goes much deeper and can be traced back to the spiritual formation and NLP nonsense which many ministers were sucked into, thinking they could make a name as great preachers. (Just as the serpent offered Eve a better way.) That was the undoing of God's way for His people.

Does anyone really think this was brought into the seminaries by reform-minded Protestant Bible teachers?

For those who have forgotten the recent testimony of an Oakwood graduate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxspVl0HbY

[Gordon1]

Jesus never bullied anyone. He is our example and solution.

[Woody]

Jesus never bullied anyone. He is our example and solution.

[olger]

Yes Gerry, of course it will return. The reason Tom Wetmore vigorously denies the connection between women in church leadership and LGBT clergy rights is because he does not see that God's order has been reversed, and it's much more than a slippery slope once that happens. (Not picking on Tom, but he's been the most outspoken denier of this growing and certain trend.)

It is clear that the next item on the liberal agenda for the SDA Church is the normalization of homosexuality. They're very bold and forthcoming about this on sites like Spectrum and AToday.

[Tom Wetmore]

Since my name has been taken in vain here, let me make my point abundantly clear. The supposed connection between WO and gay rights issues is completely without foundation. That one inevitably leads to the other is utterly without any proof or credible real evidence. I have done the research to try to confirm the supposed connection and found none. I have repeatedly asked for the evidence and have been given nothing but a repetition of the bald assertion.

It is merely hysterical and desperate speculation by those without a convincing argument against WO that hope to close people's minds completely by pandering to homophobia. It is a false guilt by association ploy to distract and divert attention from the issue at hand.

I am not disputing that gay rights will more aggressively pushed at the church. But connecting that to WO is just a despicable act of desperation by those seeking by any means to undermine and cast aspersions on WO and those advocating for it.

[Bravus]

Yeah. The church *might* be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century... by about the beginning of the 22nd.

[fccool]

Quote:

It is clear that the next item on the liberal agenda for the SDA Church is the normalization of homosexuality.

It's not the issue of "normalization". I don't think that homosexuality will ever be viewed as "normal". "Normalization" is not what gays are fighting for. They are merely asking to respect their choice and "condition".

There's this really silly idea that "liberals" are out to do that and this. Liberalism has more to do with pursuit of objective truth than anything else. Conservatism tends to trade truth for traditional orthodoxy.

No, homosexuality is not normal. It does not mean however that conservatives have the right to choose what gays will do with that "abnormal preference". There are plenty of abnormal preferences. Some people smoke, some people drink too much, some people are gluttonous, yet no one picks on the fat people in church, for example. No one in church is crying about the "normalization of obesity". People are very sensitive when it comes to the issue, and the church understands. Some people simply have predisposition to obesity. They will die obese, no matter how hard to try otherwise. And the church ACCEPTS it and UNDERSTANDS it. It does not accept it as normal, but it accepts it as understandable. That's the homosexual issue in a nutshell.

Homosexuality is a very easy target for Christian conservatives, mainly because it does not point back to them, except for very few rare cases (like Dick Cheney's daughter, or Ted Haggard). Therefore, it's easy to chalk up any criticism of such approach to the "liberal agenda".

If "liberalism" is consistent with truth and integrity, then what does it matter? It's only a straw-man label that's then used as an excuse for irrational orthodoxy.

[Tom Wetmore]

[JoeMo]

Some of you sound like people wake up one morning and make a conscious decision whether to be gay/lesbian or straight. I would imagine the thought process would go something like:

"Hmmmm.. Gay/lesbian or straight? Straight people are pretty much universally accepted and healthy; gays are ostricized, bullied, beat up and marginalized; plus they are exposed to all sorts STD's that heterosexuals don't get as often. In addition, there are few if any legitimate churches that will accept me. I'm a rebel and I'm a risk-taker; and I don't need God! What the heck - I'll be gay/lesbian!"

Really??!! I don't know any gay people who volunteered for that position. Most of the ones I know felt like a round peg in a square hole before that were even aware of their sexuality; and are currently either chronically depressed or total pagans because they are rejected by the majority of straight society and mainstream religion. It's a wonder that any of them seek Christ at all, given the way they are usually treated if they are "out". Others just cower in secret; dreading to be "outed".

Sin is sin; and forication or adultery will get you into the lake of fire just as fast as homosexual behavior - maybe faster.

I am not gay; nor do I support promoting gays/lesbians into leadership positions in the church. I do not support putting known foricators and adulterers into church leadership positions, either. That being said, I do support thier right to worship God through His Son Jesus.

The church exists to heal sinners; not to protect the healthy. If we as Adventists refuse to reach out to the GLBT community (or drug addicts, or alcoholics, etc., etc, etc), we are not doing the work Christ gave to us. If all we do is cower in our pews to protect ourselves from the world, we might as well just shut our doors and go home.

Working with Jesus to Promote Salvation for All,

JoeMo

[olger]

Hi Tom, As in the case of the Episcopalian Church, the adoption of female headship weakens an organization's ability to "say no" to the homosexual agenda.

That is an important link between them - one paves the way for the next. And there is another connection, an internal one.

Both are gender-related (sexual) issues that "mess up" God's creational order & distinctions. It takes very little imagination to see this kindred connection.

rejoice always,

Ger

[olger]

It's not the issue of "normalization". I don't think that homosexuality will ever be viewed as "normal". "Normalization" is not what gays are fighting for. They are merely asking to respect their choice and "condition".

[fccool]

Quote:

I have thought a lot about this. Liberalism is at war with established norms, thus they require every doctrine in the church to pass through a screening process where it can be re-interpreted. Many view doctrines as cafeteria where they pick and choose for themselves a suitable selection. Others, for reasons of their own, are absolutely determined to hollow out the core beliefs of the church - leaving little beyond a lingering sentiment to tie us to the work of the pioneers.

I'll repeat it again. What you call "Liberalism" in this case is primarily about fair judgement when approaching the issue of truth. "What we say is always right" is the position of orthodoxy and it is not a fair judgement. It's a judgement spoken from the podium to a group of silent people. That mode of knowledge propagation does not rationally present alternative views in a way that can be properly evaluated and thus creating a valid choice of possibilities.

You are not really speaking against "liberalism" here. Liberalism is merely another label that in the dark ages would be dubbed "heresy" and the people would be dubbed heretics. Only this time torture is illegal, but denying dubious "membership" is not. "Membership" is merely a silly way to maintain orthodoxy via club-like structure. True religion is a way of approaching God without such silly Catholic-like restraints.

Quote:

I respect people's right to make choices that I may not respect. If the consequences of that choice is that I forfeit the right to hold membership in a particular church or group, then I have chosen. To quote John Wesley, "You have chosen wrong, choose again and choose aright."

Again, what does membership has to do with anything. Is truth about pluralism, or is it about objective reality that's independent of what a particular club says about it? Sure, by joining the club one has to obey it's rules, but is that what Christianity and Adventism is?

Quote:

Your effort here to equate homosexual activity with obesity is no doubt praiseworthy, but regretfully, you fail to explain how these two can be "equated" without destroying our ability to distinguish between that which was meant for life (food) and that which is a perversion. It dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

It's really like saying that $2,000 watch is not a piece of jewelry because one needs it to tell time . I'll make it easy for you:

Obesity = perversion of proper food intake and taking care of our bodies

Homosexuality = perversion of proper biological sexual relationship

Both are dealing with pleasure. Both are dealing with necessity.

So, I ask again. When was the last time an obese person was excommunicated for his perversion of God's natural order?

Quote:

In the political arena, the left has openly taken up the cause of homosexuality, to explain (excuse) it and to defend it.

That's what "the right" would like to believe. The left has taken up a constitutional cause that this country has been founded upon. I don't think most of the left are comfortable with men having sex. I'm sure am not comfortable with an idea of it. But, I and the left realize that it's not just about "ME".

There nothing we can do about homosexuality. We can't prevent it. You can either:

1) Marginalize it and suppress it.

or

2) Accept that it's one problem that church is not going to solve by means of #1.

Quote:

Same goes for the church. Spectrum would be lost without their three coveted agendas (Darwinism, Homosexuality, and Female Headship). Why?

The only agenda that Spectrum has is to present the views that are ignored and are shelved by Adventist orthodoxy. Once again, there's a clear choice of orthodoxy over the truth. You can't arrive at truth by only having the one-sided set of ideas coming from the podium. There should be debates. There should be multiple views evaluated.

Conservatives are generally terrified of such mode of operation, because for ages they enjoyed the podium with bunch of people in the pews breaking silence with "amens" whenever they solicit it. When asked to present their ideas in a coherent, rational, and consistent matter, they are running for the hills and hide behind ab-hominem attacks.

Can we even have this discussion by talking about the issue and avoiding "liberals this, and liberals that'? It's silly and annoying way of avoiding a proper debate.

Quote:

Because the liberal left has adopted most of the rudimentary elements of the world. Conservatives have their issues too, but they are not the ones pushing for the social & theological dismantling of established norms.

Why would they dismantle it? It would essentially force them to admit that they were wrong about something that they held and taught as true for so long - which is any orthodoxy's worst nightmare. Why do you think Jesus was nailed, because he wanted to preserve the "theological established norms"? If not for Marin Luther's "liberalism", you may be reciting hail marries right now.

Certain things should be dismantled, and certain things should be preserved. Adventism dismantled much of the protestant orthodoxy. You are doing nothing more than pleading a special case in this regard.

[fccool]

Quote:

I am not gay; nor do I support promoting gays/lesbians into leadership positions in the church. I do not support putting known foricators and adulterers into church leadership positions, either. That being said, I do support thier right to worship God through His Son Jesus.

It's a very shallow view of human being IMO. Mature people realize our limitations, and accept the limitations of other, helping them to improve these shortcomings (sin means missing the mark). Leadership has little to do with sexual orientation. By saying that gay people can't leaders is very similar to saying that women can't be leaders. I'd say that for gay people to face such enormous pressure and still maintain their personal integrity demonstrates great capacity for leadership.

It's the same issue as "Don't as don't tell". A leader can simply check "Not gay" box, and live gay in secrecy. I'd rather leaders to be honest than not gay.

The orthodox approach erases individuality and it is only concerned with making copies. If copy is not exact, then it's viewed as defective.

Perversion is a perspective, something that people don't get when it comes to holding people accountable for homosexuality. Many of the homosexuals are simply a man in a woman's body, or a woman in man's body. They did not ask to be born homosexual. They did not wake up one day and think "Hey, today I'm going to be attracted to men instead against any natural order of things". For their "build" homosexuality is as "natural" as heterosexuality is "natural".

Are we going to bean an out-of-tune clock with a hammer for showing a different time? What if you can't fix the clock?

And that becomes the question that's worth answering. What are we going to do? These people did not decide to be "deviant". I think it's a common sense that they can't help by be what they are and put up with all of the bullying, criticism, ostracism, and ridicule. And the place that supposed to accept them as they are shuts the door on them and says "You can't be one of us until you are like one of us".

It's very easy to take on homosexuality for Christians. It's one of the things that will make them feel morally superior without having to evaluate their own behavior for like flaws. That's why it becomes the sacred cow political and religious platform, while plentiful more problematic issues exist unaddressed.

[Naomi]

Thank you Olger ... here we go again! :)

[OzarkWoman]

[quote}Obesity = perversion of proper food intake and taking care of our bodies

[fccool]

This is complete BS!!! For some, it is a yes, for others, there are other reasons. My goodness, I gained about 30-lbs while doing chemo and I wasn't eating, just being sick is all. Yes, there is a small percentage of people who actually gain weight from chemo.

Feels terrible when people blame us for something that we have no control over, doesn't it?

Now imagine how you would feel if you were blamed for choosing to get cancer, and then banned from leadership positions because of the weight gain.

I, of course, was only generalizing. I did not mean to say that all of the weight gain is a direct result of overeating. I apologize if that comment hurt you in any way. My point was in fact that obesity is something that people have hard time controlling, whether they are willing or not. So is homosexuality.

[Gail]

Feels terrible when people blame us for something that we have no control over, doesn't it?

Now imagine how you would feel if you were blamed for choosing to get cancer, and then banned from leadership positions because of the weight gain.

I, of course, was only generalizing. I did not mean to say that all of the weight gain is a direct result of overeating. I apologize if that comment hurt you in any way. My point was in fact that obesity is something that people have hard time controlling, whether they are willing or not. So is homosexuality.

I would like for people to get the idea somehow that if one is gay, overweight, has mental illness, is FAS or a prostitute or single or elderly, that the church is a refuge and loving place where one can feel whole.

Perhaps if the church was such a place there wouldn't be a need in society for every minority to feel like rebelling in order to be heard.