"It Is a Myth that Homosexuals Cannot Change"

Last month, a public letter called "A Solemn Appeal" was written by a group of concerned gay/lesbian Adventists (including some anonymous heterosexuals) as a means of increasing dialogue in the Adventist Church on the controversial topic of homosexuality. I saw this letter as more than "increasing dialogue."

As an open-minded Adventist, I have often debated in my own mind the issue of homosexuality. I fully supported Adventists Against Prop 8 on the grounds that the State of California had no business defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman by using a religious viewpoint. I stood with many other Adventists who advocate for a clear separation between church and state and who vow to protect the rights of others.

Then I read "A Solemn Appeal" and drew my line in the sand. I surprised myself, as a progressive Adventist, by doing so.

While I accept and embrace gays/lesbians with extended arms of grace to experience worship, communion, and fellowship in my spiritual community, I have uncharacteristically found myself having to question "how far am I willing to go before I call the sinner to repentance, as Christ did when he repeatedly told those He healed, 'go and sin no more?' "

So what did this come down to? I cannot in good conscience accept one of the points in their "A Solemn Letter." The moment this petition asked for my signature to advocate for a gay lifestyle (specifically sexual intercourse), I felt a spiritual tug in my heart that something just wasn't right. The last bullet point states,

We believe the same Jesus who said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” might say today in regard to this issue, “Marriage was made for humans, not humans for marriage.” We believe God wants homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals, to enjoy the many blessings of a monogamous, committed relationship – companionship, support of each other, a greater understanding of God’s love, and emotional and sexual intimacy – needs with which He created all of us."

I saw many of my friends, acquaintances, and those I engage with in conversation on other blogs who I admire and highly respect sign the petition. Many of those friends view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship. For them, Adventist gays and lesbians who love Christ and practice the two greatest commandments of Matthew 22:36-40 in a faithful marriage are safe under this hermeneutics.

This is the hermeneutics suggested by Christian activist, and homosexual, Justin R. Cannon. I wrote a review and commentary of his work here. Check it out for more background.

For a few days after "A Solemn Appeal" was posted, there was the strong familiar urging to join the groupthink of this thoughtful letter and sign the petition to advocate for rights and justice on behalf of our GLT community. I agree with my friend, the Loma Linda religion professor, who left a farewell message on his last blog posting stating that "the issue of sexual identity is not at the heart of the Gospel, but ... the issue of justice is." Dr. Nam further states, and I also fully agree that "God's high call for righteousness includes in our time to recognize the full humanity, dignity, and equality of bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgendered children of God for the way God made them--both in society and in our church community."

Looking beyond these parameters that has caused so much divide amongst Jesus-loving Adventists, and allowing that last bullet point in "A Solemn Appeal" to speak on its own, I was forced to ask myself a difficult question: At what point do I dismiss the authority of scripture to accommodate my surrounding culture?

This time, I had to stand on my own two feet. I had to call a spade a spade.

I won't debate what the Bible says on homosexuality because it is an issue that I continue to discover new ground through careful Biblical study. I expect the saints will do a fine job commenting ad nauseam the usual proof text methods about abomination, fornication and make insensitive remarks about how God did not make "Adam and Steve."

At the same time, I don't side with religious conservatives who often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms. One needs to study the Bible responsibly, inspect the original language, context and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. It may reveal something else you've been brought up to believe.

I leave you with a lasting impression that comes from the personal view of a well-respected Adventist pastor who shares the conservative Biblical view. What makes his view different is that, if you must label this pastor, he's a loving progressive, not a Bible-thumping fundamentalist. With his permission below is an e-mail I received from him. It has been slightly edited to protect privacy. I'm using this to state the difficult position I find myself in, at the expense of outcries from the thoughtful liberal/progressive camp. If a "thinking pastor" feels this way, there is hope at least, for some in the GLT community to perhaps think the same:

Homosexuality is a big issue in the Adventist church. I have many of them attending [our church] so I know how sensitive we must be. A year ago, I preached [on the topic]. In that series I made it very clear that marriage is only between a man and a woman. God gave me the words to say it in such a way that I did not discourage the gays from continuing to attend. We have even had a gay man [participate] in the praise team. I had met privately with him to get an agreement that he was not practicing the gay life style. There are no sinless people on our praise team. So [our church] is an Adventist church where gays feel welcome.

I have some twenty books on homosexuality and have read widely and the myth that they keep presenting, even in this ["A Solemn Appeal"] statement, is that homosexuality is a born condition just like being born left handed. This is not the case. There is still a huge debate going on concerning the origins of the homosexual orientation. And even if we could prove that it was genetic that still does not mean it must be OK. There are many traits we receive that are genetic since we are all sinners that are not OK. Some great examples are physical deformities. We don't say they are OK just because they are genetic.

In a letter to the editor [of a Christian magazine] some years back I pointed out that the whole point of being born again was to overcome our cultivated and inherited tendencies to evil. Again it is a myth that homosexuals cannot change. In my own extended family there is a practicing homosexual, whom we love deeply and his partner, and a member who was a lesbian for a number of years and is now happily married [to a man] for many years. I have conversed with others who have changed as well. So again, when the homosexual group makes blanket statements in these areas they are not really helping their cause.

I end with a prayer. Because I do not have all the answers, I pray that I, and you, continue to set aside any instilled fears and prejudices and allow for the Holy Spirit to open up our minds in compassion to make truth known to us, just as faithful gays and lesbians continue to do the same. I share the same commitment as my friend Julius (who may not agree with my stance) that we need to work through these issues with much prayer, study of Scripture, patience, trust and humility in each other who make up the Body of Christ.

Note [edit]: Is homosexuality a condition that cannot be changed? I invite you to take the current reader poll located on the sidebar.

The Kingdom Is Here

Many talk of their desire to have lived when Christ walked the earth. They imagine that if they were present with the master teacher that somehow their lives and their church would be quite different. But, they are mistaken. The things that we long for, the closeness that we imagine, the truths we think we would then understand are more available to us today than ever before.

The Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to be closer to Christ now than when He lived on earth. If we truly believed this, how might it make a difference in how we lived and in how we ‘did church’? It is easy to grow complacent, secretly believing that living the Kingdom of God was for the disciples of long ago.

The truth, however, is that the Holy Spirit makes living a vibrant life and one of restoration possible for every person that desires it. The Holy Spirit knows no limits, no bounds, and no exclusions. Any true seeker may find. As Jesus reminded us, “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone opens the door, I will come in and eat with them.”

We are living in a time of great invitation. The call of Jesus is going out across the world, “If anyone…” Are we open to meeting the needs of a hurting world? Are our arms and hearts open wide to anyone who might need the loving touch, the kind word, or the helping hand?

By studying the life of Christ we are made aware of the importance of the ministry of compassion. Jesus did not engage in the politics of the day, he did not debate theology or preach doctrine, nor did he shut himself away from anyone. Instead, he reached out to whomever had a heartfelt need and poured the love of Heaven through himself out into the world.

If we compare our lives to His, how do we measure up? How much time everyday do you spend in loving service to others for which you do not receive any type of reward or wage? Is there any group of people that you believe are excluded from the ministry of compassion through Christ, any group that you would not be willing to serve? Do politics prejudice you towards others? If someone has a different set of doctrines or doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you, can you still be in loving support of them? How inclusive are you? Where do you draw the line, or do you have a line? Do you think Christ excluded anyone?

These are difficult questions and they strike at the root of our own wounding and sense of scarcity. Imagine with me, a different way of being in the world—a way where we are healed of our sense of separation from God and from one another—a way of being where we do not draw lines of division and square off with one another in debate and conflict. Do you realize how much our current paradigm alienates us from one another and from the world?

It is only through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that we are able to move past these human limitations of pettiness and division. The Spirit alone is able to heal and restore the image of God within us. Salvation is for everyone. It is we who struggle to embrace the inclusive love of God.

We serve an abundant God. Perhaps we should start with ourselves—reveling in the outrageous grace of a compassionate Savior until we are so delirious with the good news that we our filled with compassion and love for others. The love of God crowds out any sense of superiority or exclusiveness. In fact, God’s love is so immense we will never, ever begin to wrap our minds around it. We can begin by writing a new chapter in our lives and in the life of our church. Let's start living the Kingdom of God now.

Doing it alone?

Do you ever get the impression that Adventists are evangelising the world completely on their own? That the burden of taking the gospel to the whole world is the task of Adventists all by themselves?

This issue struck me (again) yesterday as I was watching the latest Mission Spotlight. As I reflect on all the material we produce describing and praising the denomination's mission work, I find it hard to remember much talk at all about what other Christians are doing in spreading the gospel. Why is that?

Is it because we think we are the only ones who understand the true gospel?

Is it because we think that God is only using us to spread the gospel?

Is it because, deep down, we think that all other Christians are "Babylonians" and that we can't work with them?

Are we afraid that, if we worked with them — or at least saw ourselves as carrying out a similar task — we would have our uniqueness diluted and "the truth" contaminated?

I would love to see our Mission Spotlights referring to the work of other Christians in spreading the gospel. All groups are going to report on what they are doing themselves — that is entirely appropriate. But wouldn't it be good, just sometimes, to know that we are not out there alone? That other Christians are also spreading the gospel? That the burden is shared by others? And that, maybe together, we have a better chance of spreading the Good News of the kingdom throughout the world (see Matthew 24:14)?

The Importance of Parody

On April 01 (April Fool's Day), a post entitled Breaking News was posted on this blog which "announced" the repealing of the Investigative Judgment doctrine by the General Conference of SDAs. It brought some interesting reactions. A few were positive but many were highly critical of the decision to post it. Many were deeply offended at the parody; maybe because it struck at the heart of what many consider to be the unique doctrine that sets Adventism apart from all other denominations. The decision was made to remove the offending post — a decision I don't wish to debate.

However, I would like to suggest that parody (and other forms of "foolishness") are essential to a healthy, robust faith. Firstly, these forms of "foolishness" confront us with new ways of looking at something. They force us to look at things in a new way that can sometimes be very enlightening.

Secondly, they prevent us from taking ourselves, or what we think, too seriously. There is always a tendency to solidify doctrine as if it is written by the finger of God on stone. But Adventists do not consider human articulations of doctrine to be infallible or immutable (see the preamble to the 28 Fundamentals). "Foolishness" can remind us that some things are not as important or permanent as they seem.

And, thirdly, they give us an opportunity to reflect on possible futures that may, or may not, confront us and where our faith truly lies.

In regard to the parody posted previously, ask yourself: What if it had been true? Would you be able to live without the investigative judgment doctrine? Or is your identity so tied up with a specific belief that it would undermine your faith in God? If you are one of those who believes that the whole Adventist movement was built on the investigative judgment — that this doctrine is the whole purpose of the movement — what would you do if it was shown to be unbiblical? What would you have left if the denomination ceased to exist? Where would you go if you had no denomination left? What is your foundation? your bedrock? Is it truly Jesus or a particular set of doctrines?

"Foolishness" is an important part of being challenged as we grow our faith. Back in 1994, Michael Frost wrote a brilliant little book called Jesus the Fool . In one of the chapters entitled Jesus the Jester, Frost draws on the role of the professional court jester to help us understand how Jesus was a "wise fool". He writes:

The professional jester was a unique and powerful member of the royal court. He was given license to utter the unutterable, to speak the word no court attendant would dare speak. So naturally he accrued great power, being able to influence policy and direct the affairs of the kingdom by highlighting the monarch's folly. It was de facto power, but power nevertheless. When the king became self-absorbed and out of touch with his own convictions in the rarefied atmosphere of the court, it was the [professional] fool who invariably was able to reframe his perceptions and find another way of seeing the situation. Of course, the fool managed such a feat by cloaking his message in the warmth of wit and laughter. (p. 53)

The essential skill of the jester (fool) is that of reframing. To reframe something means to take our present understanding of something and provoke a different perspective by changing some aspect of context, thus shifting our perception. We do this when we try to see a positive benefit associated with something that, at first sight, is negative. For example, we break our wrist and thus have to be off work for 3 months. At first, we might think this to be highly undesirable. How will we get all our work done? But then we might realise that we are overworked and close to burnout and that three months off work will allow us to rest and be reinvigorated when we return to work. The broken wrist has been reframed.

Parody, and other forms of humour, provoke us to reframe our current perceptions. Frost argues that Jesus was the great reframer. He reframed our understandings of the human condition, forgiveness, and our relationship with God and others. Jesus was a "holy fool", a wise jester, who used the unexpected to shock his hearers to reframe their understandings of God and our relationship to God. He was the reframer of conventional wisdom and religiosity in his day and the effects of his penetrating approach is still being felt to this day.

The "Breaking News" posted on this blog might have made us feel uncomfortable; it might have offended us. But Jesus brought discomfort and offense to the religious of his day. It might be worth asking ourselves just what our discomfort and offense may be telling us about ourselves when we read that "Breaking News". Maybe a reframe is necessary.

Rumors redux

Someone forwarded to me today an online newsletter put out by a prominent Adventist independent ministry. The newsletter claimed that some quarter century ago an Adventist pastor (one who just so happened to be big into survivalist training) dreamt that Jesus would return when America had a black president, "tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears" who becomes a "terrible dictator." The pastor in question is not available for comment, being presently dead, but the newsletter states, "Apparently, the story was verified to be true."

The newsletter adds that only "time will tell" whether there's anything to this, but they apparently felt the inevitable fear-mongering was worth the chance that there might be something to it. We'll all know for sure either way sometime in the next 8 years, right? I looked up the most recent newsletter by this organization, which reports that a lot of people have inquired about it, but they're too busy to look any further into it. I did notice that another newsletter referenced "the middle verse of the Bible," which is an urban legend--the Bible has an even number of verses. That says a lot about their commitment to accuracy--and the sloppiness of their sensationalism.

Never mind that Adventists have always believed that prophecy is utterly conditional. Or that this is but the latest in a long stream of speculation about presidents and current events. Before my time the first non-Protestant president stirred excitement. When I was a kid people feared the unknown Georgia peanut farmer, catapulted into the presidency, who was surely about to bring the end-times. Uh, nope. Then Ronald Wilson Reagan had three names of six letters each: 666. And Saddam Hussein was fulfilling the prophecies about Babylon. And Bill Clinton had a whole buncha secret black helicopters he was gonna use to impose martial law . . .

Of course, the right-wing hysteria that surrounded Clinton got flipped backwards when George W. Bush took over, and we were all supposed to rally around the good Christian president (and be absurdly upbeat about a war doomed to disaster). But now that a Democrat's back in the White House, the fear-mongering is back with a vengeance. I just pray that the anti-government attitudes that brought us Oklahoma City, the Atlanta Olympics bombing, etc. don't erupt in an even worse way. But with the world as wrecked as Bush has left it, there's plenty to truly worry about--not the least of which is the people selling fear.

BREAKING NEWS: [edited]

In an unprecedented and historical move, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists held a press conference on the front lawn of their world headquarters in Silver Springs, MD today...

[content removed by moderator]

Note: In the tradition of April Fools Day, we posted this calculated prank with no harm intended. However, due to the sensitivity of the topic and the large readership that follows our blogs, we thought the proper course of action was to remove the content to avoid any future misunderstandings, misrepresentations or allegations, and more importantly, to maintain our integrity.

Comments are closed.