7th-day Adventists and the gay marriage issue

[divya]

This gay marriage issue is something else, so here is the question for us as SDAs who are true believers in religious freedom...

Should we be supporting a legislative ban on gay marriage?

Since we believe in the separation of church & state, should we vote to preserve the freedom of choice or to restrict it since it concerns marriage?

I have seen us on both sides of the issue...

1. http://www.atoday.org/article/1173/columns/perry-kendra/the-sabbath-and-same-sex-marriage

2. http://churchstate.org/index.php?id=445

DISCUSS.

 

[blessed7777]

divya I think as an Adventist/ Christian we should care what moral standing the person we are voting for has. I wish President Obama did not go there in his acceptance of something that is totally against the faith he says he believes in...it was actually the deal breaker for me. By him doing this it showed me a weakness and a man pleasing spirit he either has or developed along the way.

I think everyone should be treated kind and with respect but allowing marriage to be re-defined from what the bible instructs us should not be overlooked as a christian when voting this year.

 

[divya]

divya I think as an Adventist/ Christian we should care what moral standing the person we are voting for has. I wish President Obama did not go there in his acceptance of something that is totally against the faith he says he believes in...it was actually the deal breaker for me. By him doing this it showed me a weakness and a man pleasing spirit he either has or developed along the way.

I think everyone should be treated kind and with respect but allowing marriage to be re-defined from what the bible instructs us should not be overlooked as a christian when voting this year.

blessed7777 - Thank you for your response! Regarding the questions initially asked though, as a SDA, what about our beliefs in religious freedom and separation of church and state? Where does that fit into this discussion?

Even though we disagree with homosexuality, how do we justify using the state to force others to conform to the Bible when we don't believe in legislating religion? Do many of us now agree with the majority of other Christians that a civil (secular) law prevails over the Bible?

Further, if there was a national Sunday Law such as there is in Tonga (Pacific Islands, how do would those SDAs who support legislating religion in the case of homosexuals argue that legislating a particular day of worship is wrong? Because just like SDAs now, other Christians then would believe that the Bible supports such a law.

 

[blessed7777]

divya I am not sure how to answer your questions because you make a good point about how we are taught. However, forcing people to worship on a day that is not biblical being Sunday and redefining marriage ( which is in the bible) is two totally different things. We should be more concern with what would Jesus do? Yes he loved everyone but he never compromised his beliefs.

Not voting for a person because of their view on marriage is not my only reason, but fear that he would compromise on other issues in the future as well is what I looked at.

 

[divya]

divya I am not sure how to answer your questions because you make a good point about how we are taught. However, forcing people to worship on a day that is not biblical being Sunday and redefining marriage ( which is in the bible) is two totally different things. We should be more concern with what would Jesus do? Yes he loved everyone but he never compromised his beliefs.

Not voting for a person because of their view on marriage is not my only reason, but fear that he would compromise on other issues in the future as well is what I looked at.

blessed7777 That's sort of where my question lies. Jesus never compromised his beliefs, but he never forced anyone to accept His way. He certainly did not attempt to force anyone to conform to his religious beliefs via the government. He lived by example.

Homosexuality is definitely unbiblical, but forcing someone to adhere to Biblical beliefs via the state is also unbiblical. Are you saying that SDAs would be correct in instituting a Sabbath law simply because it's biblical?

Honestly, my questions aren't about Obama. I'm not voting for him or Romney...LOL. My concern is with the stance of those who profess Adventism.

 

[levette]

divya I think as an Adventist/ Christian we should care what moral standing the person we are voting for has. I wish President Obama did not go there in his acceptance of something that is totally against the faith he says he believes in...it was actually the deal breaker for me. By him doing this it showed me a weakness and a man pleasing spirit he either has or developed along the way.

I think everyone should be treated kind and with respect but allowing marriage to be re-defined from what the bible instructs us should not be overlooked as a christian when voting this year.

I have had mixed feelings about voting for Obama when he came out for gay marriage. I may simply avoid voting for either candidate this year.

 

[blessed7777]

I agree with you levette

 

[divya]

I'll be voting Libertarian, but not due to the gay marriage distraction. I do like this piece though...

http://www.rjharris2012.com/blog/gay-marriage-jesus-the-constitution/

If you are against gay marriage then DON’T enter into one. And if this advice is not good enough for you then ask yourself ‘what did Jesus do’ when the lawyers asked him what to do with the prostitute. He DID NOT say go ahead and kill her and he certainly did not say ‘let’s petition the Roman government for tougher laws against prostitution.’ Nor did he call her a bunch of names and treat her with*the derision I see from so many “Christians” towards homosexuals. He simply told her to “go and sin no more” and he left it to her free will as whether or not she followed his admonition. God agreed with Abraham to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of 10 righteous people NOT if Lot could get the Law to strike down sexual immoralities. Does this not show you the high degree of respect God places on free will? Then who are you to take away that free will through the law when the government exist for ONLY the purpose of protecting our lives, liberty and property and NOT for the purpose of allowing one group of people to FORCE their morality onto another group of people?

If you would call yourself a Constitutional Conservative I would challenge you to remember that the original intent of the Constitution is to limit the power of the Government NOT to infringe upon the Liberty of the People and the one time an amendment was passed to affect a Liberty infringement it became the ONLY amendment ever repealed. Let God be known to those around you through your goodness and right action towards your fellow human beings, like Jesus did with the Pharisees by sparing the prostitute, and NOT from the fire and brimstone of your rhetoric nor your willingness to tyrannize those who live differently than you.

As Congressman, I will respect both the 1st and the 9th amendments which make marriage a fundamental and religious right and as such I will do everything in my power to keep the federal government OUT of regulating marriage or any other fundamental temporal or religious freedom.

 

[divya]

Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation is an Example of An Overextended Church in Decline

No longer content to govern itself, the church has spread out to rule the culture through legislative force, attempting to*use the tools of government to order the lives of*consenting*adults.*Like an empire, the church finds itself on patrol*beyond its rightful territory, which is shocking when one considers how much space the church has been given, by God first and this country second.

The church already possesses the freedom to*engage the culture through dialogue, art, the marketplace of ideas, hospitality, care, and robust teaching. We have the right to share and live the good news of Christ resurrected. We have the reach to notice, defend, and love the orphans, the widows, the poor, the hungry, the outcast, the falsely condemned, the unjustly treated, and victims of violence and coercion. We have the liberty to love our neighbors and our enemies. We have Micah 6:8:


And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Why is it not enough?

The state of discontent in our faith is not the fault of the GLBT community. Perhaps we have become discontented with the humility and quietness of actual faith and ministry. If so, this is tragic. In a culture embracing unhinged consumerism, it is not surprising that the church would grow bored of the feast of ministry, moving on to snack on private affairs within the broader culture.

In a quest for church strength and national longevity, our cultural conquests are making the church and the nation weaker and more divided. In a crusade for a more wholesome culture, we have injected pride, arrogance, hostility, and vitriol. Even those who respectfully stand against an issue that is at most a symbolic victory have contributed to the creation of unnecessary foes.

Justice for the abused and disadvantaged rather than the consensual

I have heard gay marriage argued against with the example of Nazi Germany, by people asking “where was the church then?” They say genocide is what happens when we fail to act on our morals as a church. I find it troubling that this is even considered a valid comparison to the GLBT community’s wish to marry. One is force, the other is*consensual. Force turns sex into rape and employment into slavery. This is why the church is universally applauded when it combats sex trafficking, and esteems people otherwise harmed, neglected or left behind, because in those moments the church is elevating the individual rather than trying to restrict it.

This is why Christians must find that tension between being completely disengaged from the broader culture, or consumed by it, and consumed can come in different forms. One form tries to water down personal faith to the extent that he or she is indistinguishable from the broader culture. Another tries to fashion the culture to look like his or her faith. The latter is what we see in the anti-gay marriage movement.

The church has been here before (and survived)

The reason no one will be making the argument against gay marriage in twenty years is the same reason the average person would not be in agreement with Christians advocating for laws against all alcohol consumption, tattoos, or cursing, even though some Christians sincerely view those as sins and have what they feel are the verses to back it up.

Go with me a step further, those of you who are against gay marriage in the broader culture, and let me attempt to discuss this on your terms over the next three paragraphs.

Remember the fight against pornography? The Religious Right lost that battle too. But while pornography rakes in billions of dollars in the U.S. annually, the church has not been silenced. In fact, the church has quite a multifaceted approach to the problems stemming from porn. The dangers of pornography are still preached from the pulpit, churches offer counseling or connection with counseling services for porn and sex addicts, some churches exist solely to befriend those within the adult industry as well as those men and women recovering from their participation in the production or consumption of porn, and non profits are built to walk with women who have been harmed by their experience in the adult industry. It’s by no means a perfect example, but I hope those of you who disagree with gay marriage in the broader culture see this point and will reconsider your approach: while porn is here, so too is the church. Sometimes, I think losing the culture battle is the best thing for the church, so that it can remember its place and then get back to its calling.

When you look at Christ, do you see Him forcing teaching or standards of living on everyone? He taught people to seek- as Rev. Earl F. Palmer said so correctly- seek is a freedom word. That means ministry is intended to grant people the dignity of choice as well as our patience. These ideas can be held along with the charge to go and make disciples.

Jesus also told stories. He was silent at times, refusing to answer. Or he answered questions with other questions. He went where he was welcomed, and often retreated from the crowds or the mobs. Hardly an in your face kinda guy. When Jesus did chide, it was most often reserved for the religious know-it-alls and fruitless trees.*Christ also raged when he witnessed a perversion of the church, and if you see gay marriage in the broader culture as the same thing, you are forgetting to remember that this nation is not your personal house of worship. That’s what your house of worship is for.*It’s time to stop trying to force other people to eat your vegetables. Gay marriage is no more a threat to your marriage than the divorced neighbor or the guy down the street who just had an affair. The greatest threat to your marriage is what you and your spouse do or don’t do with it.

“You’ve confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want. It’s called being part of a society. Not everything goes your way.” -Jon Stewart

The point of it all: fruit, not culture feuds

Belief in Christ is a transformative journey, producing fruit and a sincere effort in obedience, and while the fruit, or goodness does not save us, it is a sign of Christ’s transformation in those who believe. Belief must produce a new motion in our lives, and not towards every endeavor we happen to bless, but towards actions which bring glory to God.

But the fruit*of the Spirit is love,*joy, peace,*forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,*gentleness and self-control. -Galatians 5:22-23

The church mistakes earnestness for righteousness. “Well as long as I’m using scripture to back it up.” Did Jesus accept that justification from the religiously earnest who knew their religious law and used it as a disproportionate weight on the backs of others?*The epidemic problem in the American church is that we have become “position people,” swapping faith for a mental concept, and mistaking ministry for being on the correct side of an issue. This is my guess as to why the church is so often absent on matters where it is actually needed, because we have become satisfied with the notion that we just need to think correctly and tell others to do the same and God will smile down on us all.

We can know The Good Book like a pro, and still fail to live the point of it all. The Bible, if mishandled, can further a person’s quest for power and control.*So what is the fruit of fighting against gay marriage in the broader culture? Because the anti-gay marriage culture warriors are making enemies whether they mean to or not. This isn’t to say those who oppose gay marriage are incapable of producing fruit elsewhere; it is to say that the church movement to stop gay marriage in the broader culture has been a largely fruitless campaign.

I once saw a photo of a protest sign at a pro-equality rally in Seattle that read “focus on your own family.” That is Biblical advice. It is the work of God through his spirit that changes hearts, not the church as the Morality Police, especially not when we focus on the deeds of consenting adults in the broader culture, and most certainly not when we try to enforce it by way of legislation. We’re getting our kingdoms confused, and that is not salt nor light.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/...example-of-an-overextended-church-in-decline/

 

[Belle Du Jour]

I once saw a photo of a protest sign at a pro-equality rally in Seattle that read “focus on your own family.”

This is such a dangerous and anti-biblical point of view. If all I care about is "me and mines" while society is falling to pieces, there will come a time when my family is affected. We are not isolated family units we are all sharing the same space. It frightens me what children are exposed to at a place such as school. What's going on in Suzy's LGTB family can and will most definitely affect what's happening in my family to an extent. While I don't think we should police every single thing, this issue is a huge one and is further evidence of the moral decline we are on in this country.

 

[divya]

This is such a dangerous and anti-biblical point of view. If all I care about is "me and mines" while society is falling to pieces, there will come a time when my family is affected. We are not isolated family units we are all sharing the same space. It frightens me what children are exposed to at a place such as school. What's going on in Suzy's LGTB family can and will most definitely affect what's happening in my family to an extent. While I don't think we should police every single thing, this issue is a huge one and is further evidence of the moral decline we are on in this country.

Perhaps but SDA Christians believe in religious freedom and keeping religion out of the state legislation as Christ advised. My question is if we are abandoning such doctrine simply due to our own personal issues or overextended nature and to join the rest of Christianity in this movement. It seems like this is causing many of us to lose sight of the foundation our faith, we know the world is in decline and that we are moving in a certain direction. But are we so blindec by emotions that we are going against Biblical teachings on matters of morality and the state? The dangers in doing that have been shown time and time again. But it seems some of us are bringing on the same issues we warn against by involving ourselves in this matter. It seems that our stance should be that the state get out of the business of marriage because it is not a matter for "Ceasar" but if not, stay clear of using the state to legislate morality when our right to practice our beliefs is not infringed upon.

 

[divya]

From Spectrum magazine...

Same-sex Marriage and Adventist Religious Liberty

What's happening to Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty?

On February 14, Alan Reinach, head of the Pacific Union Conference's Church State Council and NARLA-West interviewed Erik Stanley,Esq., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund. They discussed gay marriage.

It should be noted that with a budget in the tens of millions, the Alliance Defense Fund was created by the Religious Right, with major funding by the late interracial marriage prohibiting Jerry Falwell and the corrupt Pat Robertson.

Just as a reminder of the overtly partisan nature of the ADF, they recently called on pastors to break the law and publicly endorse John McCain from their pulpits on September 28, 2008.

Furthermore, ADF has been the chief legal support for displays for the Ten Commandments on public property for years. Just as they framed that issue as the Christian tradition vs. "secular society" one hears the same rhetoric in the podcast as Reinach and Stanley take a couple of anecdotes and extrapolate out an argument that the same-gender marriage rights movement is anti-religion. Someone should tell that to the 1302 folks who took a stand with Adventists Against Prop 8.

Given the focus of late, apparently the organizational front line in our defense of freedom in relationship to our religious minority status now sides consistently with the Christian majoritarian ideologues who attack the traditional Adventist position on the separation of church and state. Along with the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the ADF is a part of the larger Dominionist theological movement to make American a Christian nation.

This move from separating church and state to separating Christian and secular is a radical shift in Adventist religious liberty thinking. The last I checked, sheep and goats is God's department and nowhere do I read about the homosexual agenda in The Great Controversy or the book of Revelation. I do read about Christians and governments uniting and Adventists losing their worship rights as a result - which used to be what NARLA focused on.

In the past, groups like the ACLU who fought the Bush administration over the Patriot Act and their torture policies worked with us to protect liberty of conscience, but now, at least the west wing of Adventist freedom sounds out jeremiads against the human rights left.

Where lies the direct threat to Seventh-day Adventism? Why is our chief legal advocate so focused on gay marriage?

All this despite the fact that on January 26, a California appellate court sided with a Lutheran high school which expelled two "lesbian" students. Significantly, in the Fall, the Church State Council included this case in their Prop 8 advocacy as an example of institutions losing rights, although that never happened.

A simple test in what our religious liberty priorities should be:

When's the last time a GLBT individual sued the Adventist church over civil rights vs. how many Adventists lose their jobs over Saturday-Sabbath issues?

Yet, over and over, the Church/State Council and NARLA-West focuses its public voice on homosexuality. A week ago, on Feb. 7, the topic of the Freedom's Ring podcasts was "Proposition 8 [Gay Marriage] Postmortem."

They also buy into one of the weirdest frames going, that there is a major organized war against Christmas, marriage, and faith. Just to be clear, the people making these claims are the offspring of the Southern conservative Christians who also framed federal mandated racial desegregation as a war on Christianity.

In light of that history, it's interesting to hear Reinach and Stanley label the non-violent but aggressive protest actions of the "same-gender marriage" crowd as an example of their intolerance and hypocrisy. The racist segregationists of the 60s and 70s often used the same rhetorical tactics, noting African-American aggressive action as proof that the "two groups couldn't get along" and that the "blacks" who want tolerance are intolerant.

The point here is not that ADF or Alan Reinach is racist, but the fact that they employ the same framing and similar reactionary rhetoric embedded in dominionist zero-sum game logic: if definitions of America or marriage change to include more people, it is a bad thing.

It should also be noted that the next generation of evangelicals are by-and-large rejecting this fearful aspect of their past. In a recent survey 46% of young evangelicals expressed support for gay marriage with it rising to 60% with a religious liberty assurance. And each year the number increases.

As a young Seventh-day Adventist and former proud supporter of NARLA, I'm sad to see our public voice for liberty choosing to side with the fear-based exclusionary politics of the ugly past.

Given the impressive numbers of young Adventists, many on the margins, who wrote Adventists Against Prop 8 excited to see so many in their church standing up on this social justice issue, it's sad to see a tithe-supported leader siding with the Alliance Defense Fund against them.

Given the priority interests of the next generation of young Adventists as reported in Roger Dudley's survey, this Religious Right rhetoric and gay-focus is out of step with the future of the church. There are more important religious liberty issues for our tithe-supported advocates to be talking about.

 

[divya]

^^^I am really attempting to reconcile the argument for SDA support of this 'defense of marriage' movement with our religious freedom stance...

If the state is to retain its position on marriage, deny gay marriage and continue involve itself in marriage, it must be done on non-religious grounds to be in keeping with the separation of church and state. Up to now, the major reason given behind the movement is religious...

 

[Shimmie]

From Spectrum magazine...

Same-sex Marriage and Adventist Religious Liberty

What's happening to Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty?

On February 14, Alan Reinach, head of the Pacific Union Conference's Church State Council and NARLA-West interviewed Erik Stanley,Esq., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund. They discussed gay marriage.

It should be noted that with a budget in the tens of millions, the Alliance Defense Fund was created by the Religious Right, with major funding by the late interracial marriage prohibiting Jerry Falwell and the corrupt Pat Robertson.

Just as a reminder of the overtly partisan nature of the ADF, they recently called on pastors to break the law and publicly endorse John McCain from their pulpits on September 28, 2008.

Furthermore, ADF has been the chief legal support for displays for the Ten Commandments on public property for years. Just as they framed that issue as the Christian tradition vs. "secular society" one hears the same rhetoric in the podcast as Reinach and Stanley take a couple of anecdotes and extrapolate out an argument that the same-gender marriage rights movement is anti-religion. Someone should tell that to the 1302 folks who took a stand with Adventists Against Prop 8.

Given the focus of late, apparently the organizational front line in our defense of freedom in relationship to our religious minority status now sides consistently with the Christian majoritarian ideologues who attack the traditional Adventist position on the separation of church and state. Along with the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the ADF is a part of the larger Dominionist theological movement to make American a Christian nation.

This move from separating church and state to separating Christian and secular is a radical shift in Adventist religious liberty thinking. The last I checked, sheep and goats is God's department and nowhere do I read about the homosexual agenda in The Great Controversy or the book of Revelation. I do read about Christians and governments uniting and Adventists losing their worship rights as a result - which used to be what NARLA focused on.

In the past, groups like the ACLU who fought the Bush administration over the Patriot Act and their torture policies worked with us to protect liberty of conscience, but now, at least the west wing of Adventist freedom sounds out jeremiads against the human rights left.

Where lies the direct threat to Seventh-day Adventism? Why is our chief legal advocate so focused on gay marriage?

All this despite the fact that on January 26, a California appellate court sided with a Lutheran high school which expelled two "lesbian" students. Significantly, in the Fall, the Church State Council included this case in their Prop 8 advocacy as an example of institutions losing rights, although that never happened.

A simple test in what our religious liberty priorities should be:

When's the last time a GLBT individual sued the Adventist church over civil rights vs. how many Adventists lose their jobs over Saturday-Sabbath issues?

Yet, over and over, the Church/State Council and NARLA-West focuses its public voice on homosexuality. A week ago, on Feb. 7, the topic of the Freedom's Ring podcasts was "Proposition 8 [Gay Marriage] Postmortem."

They also buy into one of the weirdest frames going, that there is a major organized war against Christmas, marriage, and faith. Just to be clear, the people making these claims are the offspring of the Southern conservative Christians who also framed federal mandated racial desegregation as a war on Christianity.

In light of that history, it's interesting to hear Reinach and Stanley label the non-violent but aggressive protest actions of the "same-gender marriage" crowd as an example of their intolerance and hypocrisy. The racist segregationists of the 60s and 70s often used the same rhetorical tactics, noting African-American aggressive action as proof that the "two groups couldn't get along" and that the "blacks" who want tolerance are intolerant.

The point here is not that ADF or Alan Reinach is racist, but the fact that they employ the same framing and similar reactionary rhetoric embedded in dominionist zero-sum game logic: if definitions of America or marriage change to include more people, it is a bad thing.

It should also be noted that the next generation of evangelicals are by-and-large rejecting this fearful aspect of their past. In a recent survey 46% of young evangelicals expressed support for gay marriage with it rising to 60% with a religious liberty assurance. And each year the number increases.

As a young Seventh-day Adventist and former proud supporter of NARLA, I'm sad to see our public voice for liberty choosing to side with the fear-based exclusionary politics of the ugly past.

Given the impressive numbers of young Adventists, many on the margins, who wrote Adventists Against Prop 8 excited to see so many in their church standing up on this social justice issue, it's sad to see a tithe-supported leader siding with the Alliance Defense Fund against them.



Given the priority interests of the next generation of young Adventists as reported in Roger Dudley's survey, this Religious Right rhetoric and gay-focus is out of step with the future of the church.

There are more important religious liberty issues for our tithe-supported advocates to be talking about.

Ooooooooooooooo, the devil is sooooooooooooo sneaky and crafty with this statement right here (red bolded).

The focus is to get the 'Church' off focus from this issue by minimizing it's detrimental consequences upon humanity.

There are indeed numerous reasons that are 'non-religious' to renounce homosexuality, and indeed gay marriage. Folks don't want to hear it...

Scripture is on point:

'A little leaven, leavens the whole lump'...

This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough! Galatians 5:9

Know you not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? I Corinthians 5:6


and this gay issue is beyond a little leaven. It's exploding big time.

 

[divya]

Ooooooooooooooo, the devil is sooooooooooooo sneaky and crafty with this statement right here (red bolded).

The focus is to get the 'Church' off focus from this issue by minimizing it's detrimental consequences upon humanity.

There are indeed numerous reasons that are 'non-religious' to renounce homosexuality, and indeed gay marriage. Folks don't want to hear it...

Scripture is on point:

'A little leaven, leavens the whole lump'...

This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough! Galatians 5:9

Know you not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? I Corinthians 5:6


and this gay issue is beyond a little leaven. It's exploding big time.

No, that statement deals with the intricacies of SDA doctrine and what we believe is in store for the next and future generations. I understand where some of you are coming from, but we do not share the same beliefs on this at all. Please don't be so quick to label issues as the Devil when SDAs face different and larger religious liberty issues around the world than this gay marriage debate. No one is minimizing the detrimental effects on humanity. We are well aware of them. But we have other beliefs that come into play which is why the initial questions were specific to our beliefs.

 

[divya]

More food for thought. SDA ladies, this is the direction that the initial post is heading. I am attempting to determine whether this issue reconciles with our standards and our understanding of what Scripture teaches regarding religios liberty.


Consistency and Religious Liberty

**** Religious liberty, as I understand it, means that no religion should imposes its beliefs on another person, and everyone should have the right to worship as their conscience dictates.
**** Seventh-day Adventists have long been advocates of religious liberty, in large part because our eschatalogical theology leads us to believe that our own religious freedoms will be threatened someday. We also believe that freedom of choice is a gift from God. It is inherent in His character that He does not coerce anyone into following Him; He draws us by love. Satan is the one who uses any means he can to force us to follow his way.
**** Adventist support of religious liberty has led us to champion some seemingly strange positions, such as opposition to prayer in public schools and even the right of native Americans to use peyote in their religious rituals. We have been having an interesting discussion on SDA-FFLAG about the inconsistency of our church in advising its members to vote against "gay rights," which has occurred in several instances. I’d like to share some of our thoughts.
**** Although our church may officially understand God’s will to be opposed to "civil unions" for homosexuals, do we have the right to try to legislate our beliefs as binding for others? In many cases, these are Christian gays and lesbians who believe that God can bless their committed monogamous relationship. Whether or not we share their belief, if we vote to deny them this right are we not imposing our belief on them? Do we have the right to tell all gay and lesbian people, Adventist or not, that they must remain celibate all their lives? Do we want to take the responsibility of pushing them toward promiscuity if they are not able to be a lifetime celibate, because we refuse to allow them to live together as committed couples?
**** Rights of conscience are God’s precious gift to all. We who truly believe in religious liberty are privileged to support the free exercise of those rights by everyone, even when we do not agree with their beliefs for whatever reason. Whenever we make exceptions to this rule, we lose our own credibility and moral power.
**** It would seem that some church leaders have chosen to promote opposition to "gay rights" legislation because many church institutions have made themselves vulnerable by accepting government subsidies, something our church was once careful not to do. Can we accept money from taxes paid by Buddhists, Muslims, and yes, gays and lesbians, while refusing to allow them religious freedom to believe and live as their conscience dictates? Many colleges and hospitals have employees who are not Seventh-day Adventists, or are not even Christian. Is it consistent to hire them, even though they do not share our beliefs, yet refuse to hire gay and lesbian Christians who live together in committed relationships? It seems that the church should be consistent in its practice.

------------------------

Now the gay and lesbian christian term is problematic, imo. However, the article touches on the inonsistency of many in the church on this issue.

 

[Shimmie]

No, that statement deals with the intricacies of SDA doctrine and what we believe is in store for the next and future generations. I understand where some of you are coming from, but we do not share the same beliefs on this at all. Please don't be so quick to label issues as the Devil when SDAs face different and larger religious liberty issues around the world than this gay marriage debate. No one is minimizing the detrimental effects on humanity. We are well aware of them. But we have other beliefs that come into play which is why the initial questions were specific to our beliefs.

Divya... I grew up with SDA; began worship / devotions every Friday at Sundown, in Church all day Saturday, ended with devotions on Saturday at Sundown. I have close family members who still are SDA that I still fellowship with and share our faiths. The SDA issues with gay marriage are no different than other Church other than there may be some who are split / divided on it's acceptance of it.

The statement that I bolded up thread is serious for it is a statement that has become 'commonplace' not only with SDA's but in other Churches and outside of the Church as well. It is a spiritual attempt to get folks off track by minimizing the issues of the gay agenda.

I respect your faith...as I am a part of it more than you realize.

 

[divya]

Divya... I grew up with SDA; began worship / devotions every Friday at Sundown, in Church all day Saturday, ended with devotions on Saturday at Sundown. I have close family members who still are SDA that I still fellowship with and share our faiths. The SDA issues with gay marriage are no different than other Church other than there may be some who are split / divided on it's acceptance of it.

The statement that I bolded up thread is serious for it is a statement that has become 'commonplace' not only with SDA's but in other Churches and outside of the Church as well. It is a spiritual attempt to get folks off track by minimizing the issues of the gay agenda.

I respect your faith...as I am a part of it more than you realize.

Yes, you did grow up with SDA, but you do not profess the faith. To state that SDA issues with gay marriage are no different than any other church is completely inaccurate. Sometimes respecting the faith of others means refraining from telling other what their beliefs involve. The issue with how we respond to gay marriage is intertwined with our beliefs about church and state, the sabbath and prophecy, and that is what our split involves. You have yet to delve into those areas because you do not believe in them. So please refrain from make such "no different" statements. As a SDA, I can very well state that this gay movement and sentments similar to the one you express are a spiritual attempt to get us off track and minimize and infringe upon the separation of church-state and religious freedom.

I am really looking for dialogue on the specifics of the matter, but I am aware that few SDAs frequent the Christian forum.

 

[divya]

Gay Marriage and the Imposition of Morality


Earlier this month, the citizens of the state of North Carolina voted to amend their state constitution to further codify a prohibition against gay marriage.[1] One of the main groups that supported this amendment, Vote FOR Marriage NC, supported this amendment based on a religious definition of marriage. Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the group, said that, “you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults." This vote on the part of the citizens of North Carolina touched off a media firestorm on the question of gay marriage that engulfed even the President. Partially in response to the events in North Carolina (and some accidental prodding from Vice-President Biden), President Barack Obama, publicly stated his support for civil gay marriage. His announcement, despite the fact that it had no policy ramifications, sparked the predictable response from conservative religious groups, who lambasted the President for his opinion. However, there are two things that we as Adventist Christians should consider before we are quick to criticize the President’s beliefs and judge them to be against the principles of the Bible.[2]

The first thing to remember is that the Bible generally speaks against the imposition of morality and in favor of freedom of conscience. The Christian faith, in virtually all its iterations, is based on freedom of conscience. Human beings, who have been separated from God by sin, must choose to return to God and live by his precepts. God gives each person the ability to choose their morality and He does not force right decisions on us. In 1 Sam 8, God allows the Children of Israel to have a king, despite the fact that their request is a refusal of god as their King. In 1 Kings 18:21, Elijah, the prophet of God, is exasperated with Israel’s lack of a decision, not that they have made the wrong decision. Neither does God attempt to cajole them into choosing Him.[3] At other times in the Bible, God miraculously saves those who exercise their freedom of conscience in order to choose to worship Him.[4] God respects the right of conscience, the right of sinners to choose sin over Him, and He does not use His power to impose His way on anyone. Those who seek to prohibit gay marriage for religious reason (and make no mistake – the vast majority of objections to gay marriage are ultimately based in some form of Christian morality) are imposing their beliefs on those who disagree and are restricting the consciences of those whose morality finds gay marriage acceptable.[5]

The second thing to remember is that Ellen G. White made some strong statements on the issue of the imposition of morality and the use of civil power to inculcate Christian morality. In Acts of the Apostles, she makes a clear statement regarding those who would attempt to force others to follow God.

It is no part of Christ's mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, who seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederated with evil angels sometimes bring suffering upon their fellow men in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love.[6]

At other times she was equally disparaging about those who would use civil power to impose Christian morality. In the Review and Herald, January 10, 1893 she said,

The spirit that instigates accusation and condemnation in the church… has manifested itself in seeking to correct wrongs through the civil power. This is Satan's own method for bringing the world under his dominion; but the Lord Jesus Christ has given us no such example for thus dealing with the erring … In following Satan's cruel proposals, in becoming his agents, men become the enemies of God and his church…”[7]

I think anyone who supports the prohibition of gay marriage for religious reasons would be hard-pressed to argue that they are not “seeking to correct wrongs through civil power.”

In Desire of Ages, White makes what is probably her strongest statement against the use of civil power. In so doing, she also gives guidance on the role of human beings in changing the hearts and minds of others. She writes,

But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and marketplaces. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority… Not by the decisions of courts or councils or legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldly great men . . . but by the implanting of Christ’s nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit . . . Here is the only power that can work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practicing of the word of God.[8]

How true.* If we spent more time teaching and practicing the Word of God, then there would be no need for civil laws to impose God and His precepts on others. Instead we would show Christ to others and rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to change hearts, minds, and behavior. http://spectrummagazine.org/node/3987

________________________

Is this not a reflection of our traditional beliefs?