Yes Steve, great sermon. And she just started this series. What a great place to be on Saturday morning!
Yes, this LaSierra series is excellent and forgotten “classic Adventism.” Adventists were involved in social justice issues thoroughly. Why is this not common knowledge in a church with a large school system that teaches the history of Adventism as required curriculum?
I challenge more to listen to the livestream and learn truth for today.
2pm EST for me.
she ALWAYS has something great to say!
This response only reminds everyone that the SDA church does not approve of LBGT individuals. What this needs is a description of the alleged “infringement” and a well reasoned suggestion that would improve the proposed legislation. Neither is evident.
The Adventist church values its right to discriminate against LGBTQ people above extending civil rights protections to LGBTQ people. Morally reprehensible.
Whats’’s the point of issuing a statement like this, when it does not explain how - in the opinion of the Church - the Equality Act “unnecessarily infringes upon the rights of others.”
In the statement the Church acknowledges the legitimate aim of the Act, i.e. that LGBT persons should have legal protections against discrimination. It is then meaningless - and comes across as a knee jerk rejection - to criticise the Act without further explanation.
I appreciate fairness. I feel the statement was fair and balanced.
“The way forward means addressing the concerns of both the LGBT and religious communities. We believe there is a better approach, one that builds upon the civil rights protections offered in the Equality Act by also reaffirming the First Amendment religious freedom rights of people of faith.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church reaffirms its biblical interpretation of marriage, gender, and our long-held commitment to the separation of church and state. The Seventh-day Adventist Church calls on Congress to pass legislation that guards the civil rights of all Americans, while unequivocally protecting the right of faith communities to live, worship, and witness according to their convictions.”
I see nothing wrong with this, It acknowledges the civil rights extended to LGBTQ are fine BUT religious 1st amendment rights need to be assured churches in their doctrinal beliefs. There needs to be assurances the state will not “prohibit” the free speech and religious rights of the church.
It seems to some extreme voices you must not only allow BUT ALSO have forced acceptance of the beliefs of the LGBTQ community. That I suggest is a violation of the first amendment.
If one is to “live, worship and witness” according to one’s convictions - and those convictions include depriving any others of the rights included in this legislation - maybe those cherished convictions should be reconsidered.
Adventism has not yet truly embraced the value of human equality, much less gender/sexual equality.
“The Truth” is not a poster of monstrous beasts and a stack of red books, but Jesus’ example of valuing the worth of every individual - and enduring the wrenching messiness that always entails.
If Adventism was committed to following Christ’s example of living and loving, the church administration would be obligated to wrestle with the same issues its members deal with every day - how to let go of learned cultural prejudices and replace them with thoughtful, mindful maturity.
I believe that the NAD has made efforts in that direction, and applaud that action. But
in gripping desperately to what was once
“The Truth”, the church may be becoming
“The Great Disappointment”.
As Rodney King is famous for saying; “why can’t we all just get along?” Why is it that there can not be RL concerns addressed along with LGBTQ concerns addressed? I think it’s because everyone has a favorite Ox in the fight. My response would be why can’t all Ox be safe/respected and free.
And I am not sure it will ever embrace those causes. Some leaders are completely retrograde in thinking and uneducated on these issues, so, no wonder that the younger generation is losing interest in anything that is SDA.
Just imagine, the BRI making statements on gender issues, having no medical or MH professionals among them. That’s soooo crazy!!!
George, I have a science background but not in the specialty of psychology or psychiatry or associated fields.
I love and respect science but I am not convinced that the field experts of the mind have all the answers related to behavior and genetic interactions and how they complement each other and how they dont.
I am not willing, in any event to have “science” and society attempt to dictate religious faith through legislation and that is what this article was about. This seems to be the present danger.
I am going to give you an example that Dennis Prager gives about blaspheming the name of God, he speaks and writes Hebrew. This command has people who attaches their activity or Response to a sin in the name of God, outside the judicial system that the Torah provides. Therefore, if our laws began to establish themselves, away from the guideline of Torah or the Word. We cannot them self correct our laws back to the Torah without lovingly teaching His Word to the citizens as to how curses have now become retroactive instead of blessings due to our failure to lovingly produce a community upholding these guidelines from His Word. We must bear the responsibility of care while insisting on proper thought of his Word. It will take 40 years to correct a generation from blasphemous misconduct. Therefore, we vote, teach and insist on His Word, while loving the homosexual, yet never allowing the curse of his choices to affect the next generation. You cannot have separation of Church and State. The U. S. laws are set up to keep the state from establishing itself as a church like Spain, or England at times. It was not meant to keep the citizens from applying and using their faith to uphold the values of the Word.
In Messiah, the law was not abrogated, the curse of the law fell on our Savior. We don’t kill the homosexual for bringing the curse, we simply live the Word around him and hope he/ or she will be convinced of our unified witness in our walk. If this does not work, than they can live outside the community till death. The community is never required to honor their sinful choices, why? Because it brings curses which ultimately bring death. Either to the individual and most definitely the community if they do not respond in unison to their faith in Gods Word.
The principles set out in your post sound very Old Testament and without the forgiveness and clean slate that Jesus taught in the New Testament.
There is a difference between Separation of Church and State and the right to practice one’s own conscience informed by religion or not. As many have said, there is a lot of prayer (silent before tests) in public schools. Separation of Church and state never interferes with one’s right to silently pray about everything and anything at any time.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The civil authority has the ultimate authority after all judicial process. Mormon’s were to be prohibited bigamy allowed by their faith ( Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act). The state needs to prove an overwhelming reason to deny free exercise in the US.
Yes there is “separation” and it is reciprocal but most limitation is pointed at the civil authority. Neither should the religious organizations be dictating to the state what what their social etc. positions are to be based on their individual beliefs.
This article was about an appeal to this particular house bill that is felt to have to much over reach without limitations of its parameters.
It will most likely be turned down in the senate or vetoed in its present form. It is a good educational moment however related to the 1st Bill of rights in the US.
It might be productive to realize everything the SDA or RCC etc. says is not wrong. If they say the sun is out and it is acknowledge it.
There is no such thing as an Old Testament. The good News is reasoned, explained and shown to be true through the Hebrew Scriptures you are calling Old. There is not an old testament mean and unforgiving God and New testament loving God. The priesthood was replaced with an eternal priest. He took on all curses to the law and stands in our place. But probably talking to the choir here.
Thank you for the separation of church and state input, although I don’t know if we’re disagreeing, seemed odd that you posted it. My point is that we were founded on the principles of the Word of God and we should see it go forward by living it and voting our representatives with those who wish to hold to a moral code from the relationship with our Savior. Sitting on the sidelines only allows faiths with different views from their holy books to rule over us. I prefer to be involved and look for opportunities to advance the discussion of the Word more in our daily dealings with community and other nations.
Except of course there is nothing in this bill that does anything of the sort. The church is worried about losing federal funding. Nothing more.
Except of course there is nothing in this bill that does anything of the sort. The church is worried about losing federal funding. Nothing more.<<
Why would they lose funding?
Oh, … I didn’t know that gender issues, genetics and biology were articles of “religious faith.” I honestly thought they were scientific fields based on research and study of nature. Silly me!.. Well, always learning something here…
George, obviously as they relate to religious faith.
Evolution affects understanding on the creation of man. Presrntly you have this topic which is implying genetics and brain wiring cause LGBTQ behavior. These are present scientific interpretations. …are they not.
Sigh. Once again, the church chooses the position which will be seen as wrong by many members and by many more young members than any other group.
They’re pretty much begging us to leave.