Finley’s “Speaking Up” about LGBTQ Adventists Is Not New

I’ll also add that the Bible has much else to say in condemnation of homosexuality whilst there is not a single reference that affirms it. Those who chose to ignore these very clear prohibitions are willfully blind and presumptuous in their sin and will have to face the consequences in the judgement unless they repent!

For those that want to repent and seek healing from this and every other sin God has the cure and he will heal you if you ask him in sincerity.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” - 1 Cor 6:9‭-‬11.

1 Like

@sirie, yes - this is my conviction. Not " This recommendet in the Bible" - “That nowhere recommendet in the Bible” - -and not “our standards” - - but the outline - for example - stewardship, be it on jewelry , be it on costly array - -

The Bible makes no such distinction! It is only made by those who want to reinterpret scripture to legitimize was the Bible calls an abomination.


For a different take on Sodom, as taken from

  1. Sodom and Gomorrah addresses gang rape, not a loving relationship.


God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah at least in part due to the fact that the men of the city wanted to engage in same-sex behavior.


Sodom and Gomorrah addresses gang rape.

Looking At The Story

In Genesis 19, God sends two angels disguised as men to Sodom, where the men of Sodom threaten to rape them. God then destroys the city with fire and brimstone.

  • God had already decided to destroy the city prior to this incident.
  • The men’s aggressive actions are preceded by lavish displays of hospitality from Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 18) and Lot (Genesis 19). These preceding accounts place the focus on the men of Sodom’s violent, disgraceful treatment of strangers.

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” -Ezekiel 16:49

  • Same-sex rape was a common tactic of aggression and humiliation in the ancient world. Gang rape is completely different from loving relationships based on consent, much less mutuality and commitment.

A parallel story in Judges 19 shows that the men of Sodom’s actions were not connected to sexual orientation.

  • In Judges 19, a Levite and his concubine rest from their travels in the city of Gibeah (in the tribe of Benjamin). A foreigner living in Gibeah offers them hospitality, but “some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house” and said, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him” (Judges 19:22).
  • The owner said, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish” (Judges 19:23-24).
  • Horrifically, the men rape the man’s concubine to death. Their threat was to rape, and possibly kill – not to have any kind of romantic encounter.

Q. Don’t Ezekiel 16:50, 2 Peter 2:7, and Jude 7 mention same-sex behavior as part of the reason for Sodom’s destruction?

  • There are more than 20 references to Sodom and Gomorrah in Scripture after Genesis 19. Only two of them mention sexual sins at all.
  • Ezekiel 16:50 says, “They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them when I saw it." The word “abomination” (toevah) is used 117 times in the Old Testament - 111 of those uses have no connection to same-sex behavior.
  • 2 Peter 2:7 says that Lot was “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked.” This phrase is not a specific reference to same-sex behavior.
  • Jude 7 says that Sodom and Gomorrah “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” Some translations render this as “unnatural desire,” but it literally means “different flesh” (sarkos heteras). This phrase likely refers to the attempted rape of angels, given that Jude 6 refers to the Nephilim of Genesis 6 (“the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling”) * Out of more than 20 references to Sodom and Gomorrah in the rest of Scripture, none mention same-sex behavior as even part of the reason for Sodom’s destruction.

Q. But haven’t Christians always understood the sin of Sodom to be same-sex behavior?

  • No. That was not the original interpretation of the Sodom story, which dates back to the 14th century BC.
  • Isaiah 1 equates the sin of Sodom with oppressing marginalized groups, murder, and theft. Jeremiah 23:14 links it with adultery, idolatry, and power abuses. Amos 4:1-11 and Zephaniah 2:8-11 compare it to the oppression of the poor, as well as prideful and mocking behavior.
  • Other Jewish writings say God loathed the people of Sodom “on account of their arrogance” (Sirach 16:8) and punished them “for having received strangers with hostility” (Wisdom 19:15).

Q. When did Christians start to interpret the story as being about same-sex behavior?

  • No Jewish literature until the writings of Philo in the first century connected the sin of Sodom to same-sex behavior specifically. Even then, the same-sex reading of the story did not become the mainstream interpretation among Christians until the time of Augustine in the early fifth century.
  • The term “sodomy” was not coined until the 11th century, and even then, it was widely used to refer to all non-procreative sexual acts (including heterosexual acts), not same-sex relations specifically.
  • The earliest Christians read the Sodom story as a parable about inhospitality, arrogance, and violence, not same-sex behavior.

The Bible never teaches that same-sex behavior was even part of Sodom’s sin.


It is not me or anyone else that you need to convince of this claim but God by whom every work will be brought into judgement along with every secret thing whether good or evil!

1 Like

I’ll say it again Clive, your moral panic and willful ignorance is on display here. Your speeches are based on your cultural bias and lack of Bible fluency which harm the cause of God.

Ok, let’s look at Ezekiel 16 then shall we…without your cultural lens.
49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Their is no confusion here just the fiction you are writing about LGBTQ+.

Where does it say LGBTQ+ in here? It doesn’t does it, so why are you writing a narrative that doesn’t exist? Why is it that you are haughty on this subject? You misquote the Bible in a way not dissimilar to the Serpent when speaking to Eve. Are you not doing the work of the devil by creating confusion where none is and what’s more actually misrepresenting scripture and taking the name of God in vain?


Thanks for writing this reminder of the church’s horrible track record regarding homosexuality and its members. SDA Kinship is ready to build a bridge and has been reaching out an olive branch to the General Conference for 4 decades, but no response.
The church now needs to:

  1. Pubicly apologize for its role in promoting and supporting Colin Cook’s QUEST Ministry. Additionally it needs to stop promoting similar ministries like Cominig Out Ministries, Know His Love, and others that focus on abusive pasts, but give no measurable steps to achieve what they are preaching and haven’t been able to achieve it in their own lives.
  2. Agree to sit down with SDA Kinship and listen to our horror stories and dialog with us. Comdemning part of the family (and since we are Adventists from birth, we are family) is much less offensive if you understand what you are really condemning.
  3. Decide if they really are interested in building a bridge with the queer Adventist community or not. If not, then stop saying that “All are Welcome”. This is not only false advertising, it is a lie.

The Guiding Families booklet (NAD version) referenced in the article is out of print at AdventSource and will not be reprinted. A newer version (but who knows what it will actually contain or how affirming it will be) is in the works. I suggest you download the PDF of the previous version and distribute it widely to everyone. I feel it is an excellent resource except for the last page, and worthy to be shared.


Notice Gagnon’s statement.
Gagnon chooses to interpret the “abominable acts” spoken of by the prophet in Ez. 16:50 as same-sex intercourse; however, 1) female-female sex was never called an abomination, making any reference to homosexuality (in a broad sense) as an abomination inaccurate, and 2) his interpretation is based off of the misinterpretation of the destruction narrative in Gen. 19. Since bestiality (sex with angels) was also called an abomination (Lev. 18:23-26), all evidence indicates that this was the abomination Ezekiel referred to."“The Rebuttal: A Biblical Response Exposing The Deceptive Logic Of Anti-Gay Theology” by Romell D. Weekly

As one who takes a back seat to no one one this issue, I suggest that the denomination is not a crossroads about it or anything else.

Progress on any important issue is slow, uneven and not top>down but bottom>up. It requires us to make progress where we can without disrespecting those who see things differently by repeatedly demanding that they do something that we know they cannot in good conscience do.

Do we really think that the denomination as a whole is going to reverse itself on this when more than 95% of all SDAs do not live in Western Europe, North America, New Zealand and Australia?

Do we actually think that upon reading this article those it faults will say, “Oh… Now I see how wrong I have been. I take back everything I’ve believed and said on this issue. I am going to join the other side.”

Again: Repeatedly and openly demanding that people do things that we know that they cannot in good conscience do is both ineffective and disrespectful. It only makes things worse. Much worse.

We need to learn from what is happening in the liberal United Methodist Church. Many of its leaders demanded that the entire denomination take a more “progressive” position on this and they split the denomination with hundreds of congregations leaving it and joining the new conservative one.

We need to learn from the Desmond Ford debacle as well. Often declaring that the entire denomination was at a crossroads and must accept their views or else forfeit God’s blessing, he and his antagonists both caused much pain and loss. Both sides in that needless and nonsensical battle thought that the denomination was at a crossroads. Both sides were wrong.

Extremists on all sides say that it would be better to split the denomination than to allow it to continue on its present path. They are wrong.

What to do? (1) Accept the fact that our denomination will be pluralistic on this issue as it is in so many others; (2) Continue working and making progress where possible which at this time is mostly at the level of congregations and campuses: (3) Don’t demand that people do what we know that they cannot do and be true to themselves.


This is not a cultural issue my friend. It is a Biblical issue! It is a matter of God’s word vs the opinions of men.

You can twist and reframe scripture as much as you like to try and excuse sin but the plain word of scripture will still condemn it. The standards of the world may change but God’s word stands forever. (Isa 40:8).

Nothing takes God by surprise (Isa 46:9,10). When he inspired the verses that condemn same sex intercourse (see Rom 1:26,27 for lesbianism) he did so knowing how the devil would twist them to try and confuse and excuse and debase people. That is why these scriptures are so clear so that we are “without excuse”.

But there will always be those who, deceived by the devil, will choose to change the truth of God into a lie (cf Rom 1:25) and God will allow them to carry out their “vile affections” if that is what they are determined to do. (v26). But friends we will not be saved by living a lie. Only the truth of God’s word and our obedience of it saves!

2 Thes 2:10‭-‬12 - And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There is much error and confusion in what many have posted in these comments. I could challenge every one of them but I recognise that a man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still!

Therefore, I urge you to return to God’s word as your guide and not the corrupted and confused interpretations of those that want to sanctify what God has condemned. Pray and ask God to open your eyes to His truth for He has promised that if we ask anything according to His will He heareth us.

Today if you hear His voice harden not your heart. God loves the sinner but not the sin. He is merciful and will abundantly pardon but sin must first be forsaken. That includes the sin of homosexuality (both in thought and action). God can give you the power to forsake both.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.


1 Like

Explicitly, the Bible says nothing bad about slavery. Explicitly, the Bible says nothing good about homosexuality.

This means that citing specific Biblical passages doesn’t do any good either way. We need to stand back and view the movie as a whole rather than debating the meaning of frames that we select in isolation from each other.

Among other things, this feature film is about moving from injustice to justice, from inequality to equality, from exclusiveness to inclusiveness. This story is not over. Our job and our joy is to continue it by pushing forward in the directions it has been moving for centuries.


The word abomination and detestable are not consistently used in the OT to depict moral sins. It can apply to things no Christian would consider wrong, such as having sex with your wife during menstruation, or charging interest on a loan, eating unclean foods (most Christians), etc. These were forbidden to the Israelites, but not necessarily to other people living among them. The term simply meant that for the Israelites it is “taboo” to them to do such and such.
The meaning is easily understood in Gen 43:32 where it says “Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians.”
There are lots of moral evils that were not termed abominations.
So, as Christians, we disregard a lot of what was termed by that in the OT. For instance, we rejoice in God bringing back together a couple who have been previously divorced. In Dt 24:1-4, that was called a sin and an abomination. And yet, we praise God for having brought about such reconciliation. In the Mosaic law, the Israelites were not allowed to charge interest on a loan to fellow Israelites, but they were allowed to charge interest to foreigners (Dt 23:19-20).In Ezk 18:13, charging interest is an abomination, which is also disregarded by Christians today. So one has to prove that this specific abomination, still applies in the Christian era.


Hello Clive:

I think that Ms. Caza has the best understanding of the attempted rape of the angels in Sodom. When you compare it to the Judges 19 story is speaks of a kind of brutal thuggery that meant to afflict the greatest amount of humility and depravity possible on an unfortunate victim, and not something that describes same-sex behavior, per se. The way we can know this is the fact that Lot offered his daughters to the thugs, not unlike what the Levite did with his concubine.

Secondly, the word translated abomination, etc. is a word that covers a lot of vile acts in God’s view, from murder to idolatry, from sexual immorality to offering child sacrifices. The word itself doesn’t specify that it belongs only to a certain sin, but many kinds. This also may include same sex relations as per Leviticus, but that isn’t the main sin or primary sin the word is describing.

Point is, homosexuality was not THE sin of Sodom, not even in the fact of the thugs seeking to rape the angels. That being so in the reading of the very story in Genesis itself and in reading of the pronouncements in Ezekiel

1 Like

I think this very well said.


Hello kjames

As I already said it’s not me you need to convince it’s God. His word is clear to those who chose not to be willfully blind.

Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6‭-‬8 - And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

1 Like

Jesus himself didn’t leave us a book.

He left us the Holy Spirit.

A Christian who prefers a book is trying to subvert the work of that which is to guide us in all truth.

That’s biblical.

1 Like

The Holy spirit is the Spirit of truth and He leads us into truth not lies! (John 16:13).

Also it is the Spirit that moved Holy men of God to write the Bible! (2 Pet 1:21). Therefore God’s Spirit is not going to be saying something different to His Word which is also truth. (John 17:17).

The arc of Scripture points toward inclusion, not exclusion. Consider eunuchs as an example: forbidden to be part of assembly of God Dt 23:1; compare this to their prophesied acceptance in Isaiah 56:3; accepted as part of people of God- Acts 8:27, 38-40; Mt 19:12.


I’m glad you admit that the Bible explicitly says nothing good about homosexuality but it does explicitly say much that is bad!

To believe that homosexuality is acceptable to God is a position of faith - the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen! However, this is not the faith that God’s Spirit leads us too. That comes by hearing God’s Word not ignoring it or trying to explain it away!

Rom 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Thank you David, for this response. I agree with you and despite my personal tendencies to jump into the deep end of such debates, I suspect you are correct to urge us not to split over it. Having worked within Catholic culture in healthcare, I have been amazed countless times how big their umbrella is. On any number of issues, there is an official doctrinal response that millions upon millions of faithful Catholics simply choose not to allow to become that stumbling block; remaining within the fold despite their personal life and convictions. Will Adventism reflect and perhaps even learn from Catholicism again on this issue of human nature? One recent study on birth control noted that 97% of US Catholic women use it at some point in their life. Bishops, some of whom are gay, will remind them that the Church teaches otherwise. Pope Francis himself reflects a very open and gracious approach to his faithful members who to his face tell him they are not living according to the Church’s teachings. One can learn a lot about being pastoral toward one’s Church by viewing and reading how he is leading their Church. Let me assert that Elders Wilson and Finley could learn a lot from Pope Francis about how to hang on to those marginalized by one’s own Church.