Hey everyone. Please share your position on this matter. How is support for the 'defense of marriage' movement consistent with our standards and our understanding of what Scripture teaches regarding religious 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. Id like to share some of our thoughts.
**** Although our church may officially understand Gods 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 Gods 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.
( Taken from an website that supports SDAs dealing with gay loved ones)
------------------------------
Now the statement about "gay and lesbian Christians" is problematic to me but overall the article hits on serious points. Thoughts please!
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. Id like to share some of our thoughts.
**** Although our church may officially understand Gods 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 Gods 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.
( Taken from an website that supports SDAs dealing with gay loved ones)
------------------------------
Now the statement about "gay and lesbian Christians" is problematic to me but overall the article hits on serious points. Thoughts please!