February 28, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Learning From the Sin of Sodom

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”

Over the last decade, however, that divide has dissolved, in ways that many Americans haven’t noticed or appreciated. Evangelicals have become the new internationalists, pushing successfully for new American programs against AIDS and malaria, and doing superb work on issues from human trafficking in India to mass rape in Congo.

A pop quiz: What’s the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization?

It’s not Save the Children, and it’s not CARE — both terrific secular organizations. Rather, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian organization (with strong evangelical roots) whose budget has roughly tripled over the last decade.

World Vision now has 40,000 staff members in nearly 100 countries. That’s more staff members than CARE, Save the Children and the worldwide operations of the United States Agency for International Development — combined.

A growing number of conservative Christians are explicitly and self-critically acknowledging that to be “pro-life” must mean more than opposing abortion. The head of World Vision in the United States, Richard Stearns, begins his fascinating book, “The Hole in Our Gospel,” with an account of a visit a decade ago to Uganda, where he met a 13-year-old AIDS orphan who was raising his younger brothers by himself.

“What sickened me most was this question: where was the Church?” he writes. “Where were the followers of Jesus Christ in the midst of perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time? Surely the Church should have been caring for these ‘orphans and widows in their distress.’ (James 1:27). Shouldn’t the pulpits across America have flamed with exhortations to rush to the front lines of compassion?

“How have we missed it so tragically, when even rock stars and Hollywood actors seem to understand?”

Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about “a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics.”

In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)

Hmm. Imagine if sodomy laws could be used to punish the stingy, unconcerned rich!

The American view of evangelicals is still shaped by preening television blowhards and hypocrites who seem obsessed with gays and fetuses. One study cited in the book found that even among churchgoers ages 16 to 29, the descriptions most associated with Christianity were “antihomosexual,” “judgmental,” “too involved in politics,” and “hypocritical.”

Some conservative Christians reinforced the worst view of themselves by inspiring Ugandan homophobes who backed a bill that would punish gays with life imprisonment or execution. Ditto for the Vatican, whose hostility to condoms contributes to the AIDS epidemic. But there’s more to the picture: I’ve also seen many Catholic nuns and priests heroically caring for AIDS patients — even quietly handing out condoms.

One of the most inspiring figures I’ve met while covering Congo’s brutal civil war is a determined Polish nun in the terrifying hinterland, feeding orphans, standing up to drunken soldiers and comforting survivors — all in a war zone. I came back and decided: I want to grow up and become a Polish nun.

Some Americans assume that religious groups offer aid to entice converts. That’s incorrect. Today, groups like World Vision ban the use of aid to lure anyone into a religious conversation.

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.

A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.

If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.

ALEX

WELL that was a good article with a lot of
common sense.....I had also heard that SODOM
sin was arrogance and uncaring for the poor

dgrimm60

Thanks for the post up,Alex. I'm not sure how the title of the thread or the op/ed fits the details but, oh well. Kristof's piece is a mixed bag of both truthful recognition and misleading presentation. Good that Mr. K finally recognizes the overall contribution that conservative Christianity is making to the masses in a hurting world. Though this will probably have little effect on the criticisms coming from those who hate conservatives, at least one of their own has shown some factual integrity and deserves props for doing so. Misleading, however, is Kristof's implication that this conservative Christian social consciousness is a Johnny-come-lately to the ranks of the "caring". Sort of a deflection of the charges that they are only concerned about fetuses and sexuality. He quotes from the writings of "conservative Christians" who attempt to bolster this perception. Lost (conveniently?) in the presentation are the historical facts about Conservative work for the poor of this world. Somehow, Kristoff neglects to mention that World Vision was founded in 1950. He also fails to note that most of the opponents of abortion and "sexuality" have had ministries to the poor in existence decades before their critics pounded them for not caring for anything else but their personal pet agenda's. Overlooked is Mother Teresa (a prolifer),and the Catholic Charities organization.Even SDA's had SAWS/ADRA begun in the 60's,and health clinics spread over the world long before that.Interestingly, Catholic Charities has just recently had to close down their adoption agency in D.C.(?)because of government pressure to insure homosexual couple inclusion, after an 80 year existence! Did someone mention the Salvation Army? Teen Challenge? ect...ect...ect...Nicholas Kristof has done a good service in attempting to evaporate one myth, so let's now tell the "rest of the story."

I agree with the above except that we do promote Christianity through World Vision. We have been involved in World Vision for about ten years. The help we give is overtly Christian. We are not trying to "lure" anyone into any given denomination, but this is a Christian organization and we are promoting Christianity to anyone who will listen. People are not denied help if they are not Christian (few are) but many of those we help become Christian.

Here it is from the World Vision website mission statement:

We are Christian

We acknowledge one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Jesus the love, mercy and grace of God are made known to us and all people.

We seek to follow Jesus — in his identification with the poor, the powerless, the afflicted, the oppressed, and the marginalized; in his special concern for children; in his respect for the dignity bestowed equally on women and men; in his challenge to unjust attitudes and systems; in his call to share resources with each other; in his love for all people without discrimination or conditions; in his offer of new life through faith in him.

We hear his call to servanthood, and to humility.

We maintain our Christian identity while being sensitive to the diverse contexts in which we express that identity.
-----------

This kind of overt Christianity is upsetting to many liberals, but... it IS what it is.

Yes, the real sin of Sodom... Sounds familiar... Oh yes, I remember. I have been singing that song around here for some time and have been met with great resistance by those who would rather excoriate homosexual Sodomizers than recognize God's wrath is kindled most hot at those who arrogantly squander their wealth in self-indulgences and ignore the poor and those in need.

amen...

Homosexuals are an easy target - we can easily sit back and think "that doesn't apply to me" and, like the Pharisee, "I thank you, God, that I am not like those people."

But denouncing selfishness and pride means that each of us has to take a good look at ourselves too.

aldona

I don't think that's the kind of Christian service that people object to - applies more to the approach I have heard of some groups taking, for example, whereby people will only get food or clothing after they have sat through a "Jesus" video or a sermon. (Yes, it does ghappen, although thankfully not in any Adventist groups I've heard of.)

aldona

great article alex. soooo glad to meet my brother tom and sister(?) aldona.

i tried to start a thread on whether sodom and gomorrha were destroyed because of homosexuality or not based on bible study as opposed to "tradition". funny thing, it was locked on a couple of sites. good sda christian bible thumping sites.

i got a lot of flack from some traditionalists from other sites, and a good dose of hatred.... :(

sodom and gomorrha were destroyed for just the reasons the bible says!!thank God!! and praise the Lord!!

Just tagging on.

I think there seems to be a perception that conservative Christians are only concerned about your soul, and the liberals are only concerned about your body. I am happy to see an article about World Vision.

Christ's ministry and the Bible's consistent message has to do with both. That's why the health message has been a part of our message since the founding of our church.

Christians have always done relief work. Maybe not always on a worldwide basis or through large organizations, but they've always been concerned with the needs of others.

Of course Adventists are ahead of the curve. Adventists have been doing this long before World Vision came on the scene.

The real sins of Sodom included the practice of homosexuality, all kinds of immorality, as well as all the sins described in Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.

To make it sound as if perhaps sexual immorality had nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, does an injustice to the Genesis account, to say nothing of Jude 1; 7; 2 Peter 2: 6-8; Lev. 18: 23; Romans 1: 26, 17; 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; 1 Tim. 1: 10; and the writings of Ellen White.

According to Ellen White, the sins of "sodomitish impurity," "indulgence of unlawful things," "dissipation," and "perversity," were the result of the sins that Ezekiel 16 describes-- "pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness," and neglecting the poor and needy. (See Testimonies On Sexual Behavior, Adultry, and Divorce, pp. 119-121.)

"The prophet has here [Ezekiel 16: 49] specified the particular evils which led to dissolute morals" (4 SDA BC 1161). She is saying that the particular evils of idlessness and self-centeredness, etc., led to "dissolute morals," i.e., sins which included the practice of homosexuality.

"There is a strange abandonment of principle, the standard of morality is lowered, and the earth is fast becoming a Sodom. Sodomitish practices which brought the judgment of God upon the world, and caused it to be deluged with water, and which caused Sodom to be destroyed by fire, are fast increasing. We are nearing the end. God has borne long with the perversity of mankind, but their punishment is no less certain. Let those who profess to be the light of the world, depart from all iniquity." RH Nov. 10, 1884. She goes on to mention the "unrestrained passions," the "widespread impurity," and "the indulgence of animal propensities" that are "gaining strength" in our world today.

One cannot help but see that Ellen White is not primarily referring to neglecting the poor in those lines. Her choice of words in this connection--- "perversity," "passions," "impurity," "animal propensities," "dissolute morals," and "dissipation,"--- all have primary reference to sexual immorality.

Also, significantly, the narrative of Gen. 18 and 19 shows that it was the widespread practice of homosexuality in Sodom which demonstrated that the city deserved to be destroyed. See Gen. 18: 20, 21. Those things were an illustration of the sins which the Lord was speaking of when He went down to see if the people were acting according to the outcry that had reached Him.

It makes no biblical sense to conclude that the narrative just happens to contain this rather long and detailed story, and that it is coincidental to the punishment that God sent upon the city.

This is particularly true in light of the inspired commentary in 2 Peter 2: 6-9:

"The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, these also God condemned and reduced to ashes; He destroyed them completely, making them an object-lesson for godless men in future days. But He rescued Lot, who was a good man, shocked by the dissolute habits of the lawless society in which he lived; day afer day every sight, and sound, of their evil courses tortured that good man's heart. These are all examples of how the Lord can rescue the godly out of trials, and hold the wicked for their punishment until the day of Judgment. Above all he will punish those who follow their abominable lusts. They flout authority; reckless and headstrong, they are not afraid to insult celestial beings."

Without question, God hates both the sins in Ezekiel 16 and those sins in Gen. 19. But it would certainly be a mistake to give homosexuals the impression that the sins of Sodom did not include the practice of homosexuality. When those in the church speak as if homosexual practices were not among the sins which brought down God's wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah, whether they know it or not, they provide some people encouragment to believe homosexuality is not a sin, and thus they are helping spread the very sins that Ellen White and the apostle Peter were inspired of God to warn us against. Homosexuals need the message that it's a sin to practice homosexuality and that God has the power to help them resist and overcome ALL sin in their lives. This is the message God wants Seventh-day Adventists to give to all the world-- and that includes the millions of gay people whom God loves and wants to save.

I'm a gay person and would still be practicing these very sins today if it weren't for my personal study of this subject and the decision to allow God to change my desires. As a member of the gay church in San Diego, I used to see pamphlets containing the same specious argument made today by some SDAs that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with the practice of homosexuality. It may indeed look sophisticated and "open-minded," perhaps "progressive," but it is really without any firm foundation, and is contrary to both the testimony of Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy.

Great OP Alex but I think ADRA is as large as World Vision. And also I believe are in every country or almost every country in the world. But I must say that I agree with John's post.

pk

I didn't read this as a specious argument that SDA's can use to condone their homosexuality if that's their leaning but rather an argument for a more Biblical approach to what it really means to be a Christian in our world - a return to the powerful messages of the OT prophets to tend to the needs of the impoverished rather than rant against gay marriage, stem cell research and all other sundry sorts of things of lesser importance.

I firmly believe that the most important question we will have to answer on Judgment Day will be, "What have you done to help the poor and needy?"

Alex

It's what Matthew 25 says

The argument is being made today even by some thought-leaders in the SDA church that homosexuality is not a sin and that the church ought to recognize same sex relationsships. They make the same argument that is being made here, that homosexual practices had nothing to do with God's destruction of Sodom. My point is that both Ezekiel 16 and the Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality as a sin must be acknowledged.

JOHN317

YES I agree that homosexuality is a sin but
that it was not the main one of SODOM AND GOMORRAH

dgrimm60

The argument about Ezekiel 16: 49 can be made without negecting to mention the fact that the practice of homosexuality is also a sin.

I have noticed that virtually every time since 1972 that I have seen this argument made-- beginning in the gay churches I attended-- there's either no mention that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible, or, more commonly, there's an outright deniel of it.

How do you stand on this issue? Is the practice of homosexuality sinful?

I fully agree with you there, degrimm.

Both kinds of sins-- in fact, all kinds of sins-- will keep people out of God's kingdom. That's the message of 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; Rev. 22: 15; and Matt. 25.

JOHN317

yes homosexuality is a sin

in both 1 COR 5: 11 and 1 COR 6: 9, 10 there
is a list of sins

so to me this is perfectly clear

dgrimm60

[quote=abelisle]I didn't read this as a specious argument that SDA's can use to condone their homosexuality if that's their leaning but rather an argument for a more Biblical approach to what it really means to be a Christian in our world - a return to the powerful messages of the OT prophets to tend to the needs of the impoverished rather than rant against gay marriage, stem cell research and all other sundry sorts of things of lesser importance.

I firmly believe that the most important question we will have to answer on Judgment Day will be, "What have you done to help the poor and needy?"

Why the emphasis on the either/or Alex? As has been pointed out,conservative Christians HAVE been doing these things for decades before there was a gay rights movement or the legalized killing of the unborn or a host of other "lesser" moral evils. The Bible lays on it's followers no moral mandate to eliminate all human suffering. We are instructed to do what we can, not devote 100% of our resources to feeding the world's hungry. In fact, our most immediate obligation is to care for the poor and unfortunate in our own "household of faith".And lest we forget,the apostle Paul reminds us that " knowing the righteous judgment of God,that those who practice such things(of "lesser importance")are deserving of death..." We've got people to save as well as feed.

no one is denying that those cities were also destroyed because of sexual immorality. the fact that they, the whole city, tried to rape the angels shows that. that was how perverse they had become.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

if it was homosexuality we have a problem because there were women in this crowd also. you are reading homosexuality into these statements. it is not there. ellen white never mentions homosexuality, nor singles it out.

she appears to have seen all sexuality immorality as the same. so should we.

John,

I think your question is deserving of a separate thread in and of itself. I myself am very careful in separating "being a homosexual" from "practicing homosexual acts". I also have issues with how we quickly condemn homosexual couples who live in a committed monogamous relationship but have less to say about heterosexual relationships that have a multitude of issues.

Let me ask you a question(s). Is homosexuality "nature" or "nurture?" And if it is "nature" how stridently do we expect them to change, for them, their normal sexual tendencies? Will only non-practicing homosexuals be saved?

Alex

there are people who will be convicted of what sin is and those who will not. and if they choose not to be convicted we cannot shove it down them harder and harder.

it is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin. it is not our job to help Him no matter how well-meaning we might be.

my apologies for helping to derail this topic.

yes, i agree completely.

i wonder how many "sinners" will be in heaven who meet these requirements:

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit uses Christians, particularly Seventh-day Adventists, in these last days, to help convict the world of sin through the preaching and teaching of the Word?

But if homosexuals hear the arguments from Christians that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin, and that they can be saved while practicing it, it certainly makes it easy for them to feel that they don't need to stop those sins.

In this thread, I'm not addressing the question of how to communicate the message to gay people. But of course it is not something that should be "shoved down them" at all. That would NEVER do. But that's an entirely different topic altogether. The first thing, though, is to settle the question whether the practice of homosexuality is sinful or not.

It certainly would if it was going to be a debate or a discussion of whether homosexuality is condemned by the Bible or not. But I am interested in knowing if the argument is being made on this thread that the practice of homosexuality was not even included among the sins that brought down the wrath of God on Sodom.



I understand that. I have been gay all my life and practiced it most of my life since I was in my late teens until about 4 years ago. I still consider myself gay, although I no longer practice.



Both relationships are sinful from the biblical viewpoint. Neither one is more OK than another. But whether a gay lives in a monogamous relationship or not is irrelevent as far as its sinfulness is concerned. It's "better" than have multiple sexual relationships, of course, because it's less dangerous in terms of STDs, etc., but being monogamous doesn't make it less sinful. In fact, being monogamous can be more spiritually harmful because the individual can become convinced that he/she is doing what's right and that God is blessing them and their relationship.



It depends a lot on the person, but it is probably a combination of both, athough with some gays, it is no doubt mostly nature. I believe I was "born gay." I don't remember any time when I wasn't attracted to other males. Some male's brains are feminized in the womb during early development by being exposed to female hormone and some female brains are exposed to too much male hormone. It has been proved that this does happen, but this does not account for all or even for most gays.



Yes, I myself am a non-practicing homosexual and I expect to be saved-- but not IN my sins, but rather FROM my sins. I believe with all my heart and mind what Ellen White has written-- that the power of Christ is able to save us even from hereditary weakness and tendancies.

Thank you for your thoughtfelt response. I want to say that I have a lot of respect for you in admitting that you are a homosexual, especially on a religious forum.

I agree with just about everything you've said except for how God views those committed monogamous couples. Thank God, that he's the one who's judging them.

It seems that sex is at the root of this issue not a misdirected love? If there was never any sex involved in homosexual relationships, would the love for another of the same sex be what is sinful? There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.So, I ask again is it the "sex" that's a sin and/or the "love"?

Or is it that a same-sex, no-sexual activities relationship is sinful because it hinders the procreation mandate given to us by God? The Bible clearly condemns homosexual relationships and uses language that concentrates on the sexual aspect but does the Bible ever tell us what the underlying reason(s) are?

Alex

I'm familiar with this idea. It is found in many homosexual publications.

But there's no evidence for this except that the Bible says David and Jonathan loved each other. There's no evidence that it's talking about sexual love.

What's your best case for saying it's a biblical example of same-sex love?

Let's assume, though, for the sake of discussion, that David and Jonathan had sex together. Would that show that it is not sinful? Of course it wouldn't. Even if John the Baptist & Saint Paul had sex together, it wouldn't make it right. All it would prove it that they were sinful humans in need of a Savior, which, of course, we're well aware of already.

I agree that there's no evidence of this implying sexual love.

I'm curious why same-sex "love" without sexual activities is sinful?

What separates homosexuals who don't have sex from heterosexuals who have a strong love for someone of the same sex? This is my working definition of same-sex love.

I'm not trying to prove a Biblical point as much as I am trying to figure the "whys"?

Alex

and i am very concerned with the scriptures and ellen white being twisted to "prove" that.

as far as im concerned there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not considered "natural" by God,

but lest we be mistaken the list continues,we all fit under something in that list, if not several.

if that isnt enough, is the "fear factor" needed in making sodom all about homosexuality?

given that they are both males?

there are some women i highly esteem and adore. i think since we are both females that would fall under "same-sex" love. tho our homophobic society makes it uncomfortable to put it that way.

I think we are playing with semantics and it is a game that no one wins. John isn't saying it is sinful for one man to love another. The Apostle John was the beloved disciple but Jesus never had sex with him. One man can love another. If there is no sex going on between them it is not a gay or homosexual relationship.

But this is at the heart of the issue. You're implying that homosexuals must have sex to be defined as a homosexual. John has just said that he defines himself as being a homosexual but he doesn't have sex.

This isn't about playing a game. This is an effort to find out why some people feel that committed monogamous homosexuals who aren't having sex are still considered to be sinful. Why?

Alex

Oh ok. It's very common for gays to say that David and Jonathan had gay sex because that's what they read so often in gay literature. I honestly don't think that they had sex together. I believe their love was deep but was of a platonic nature rather than physical or sexual.



Depends on what you mean by "love." It also depends on the gay person. Not all have the same feelings about those things. There are different types of gays.

But to answer you directly, I don't believe that it's wrong for two men or two women to "love" each other. It sounds like you're talking about the "friendship" kind of love or platonic love. That happens often among gays, but usually between the same types of gays.

I have "straight" male friends that I care very much about, but because I'm so close to the time when I loved men in a sexual way, I have to still separate my feelings for these other men from the way I used to feel. So I haven't yet come to the point where I can tell myself "I love him." It's more, "I like him very much as a friend," or more often now, "as a brother in Christ." That's where I have to keep it. I guess I'm afraid of those thoughts and words still, "I love him." But I do care very deeply about some of the men I know without having any sexual or romantic desires whatsoever.

But that is a different kind of love. When a gay male (not a female) "loves" someone of their own sex,-- particularly if you're referring to romantic love-- it more frequently involves something sexual. Of course there can also be non-sexual/non-romantic love between members of either sex for each other. But my experience is that gay males have a difficult time "loving" another male without some kind of romantic feelings getting involved even if they don't want them to, unless they are like "sisters," etc.



I'm not exactly sure because I was never heterosexual.

Two homosexual male friends who don't have sex may be like two girl friends. Or they could be like a man and wife who no longer have sexual relations. They also might be just two opposites who don't find each other sexually attractive. Gays often don't find other men sexually attractive, so it's not unusual for gays to "love" each other as good friends without having any sexual relations at all.



Yeah, lots to figure out there, for sure. Hope I helped a little bit anyway.

That's a non sequitor. If a homosexual is monogamous, he/she is having sex.

Yes, this is right. In fact, it's important for gays who are trying to overcome homosexual practices to have non-sexual/non-romantic relationships with men. It's very much encouraged and a part of their therapy.

I don't think there's any such thing. I agree with rudywoofs on this.

Virtually all committed monogamous homosexuals have sexual relations-- perhaps with the exception of those who have been together so long that they no longer have sexual desire for each other, which does happen. But all the ones I knew like that had agreements with each other that they could "play around."

It may come as a shock to you, but many gays who are in "committed, monogamous" relationships "play around" yet they can do it and still convince themselves they're "monogamous" because those other things are so fleeting and unemotional that no one takes them seriously.

What's your point in posting this, teresaq (sda)? So far, all you've done above is copy and post the same things that were posted before.

Don't assume that people are going to guess your meaning. If you can't write and tell people straightforwardly what you mean in clear language, don't expect people to spend time analyzing your posts to find out what you might mean. If that's the kind of reading I want to do, where I need to spend some time figuring out what they mean, then I take to writers I love like Henry James, James Joyce, or Virginia Woolf. On the forum I like straight writing.

Here on this thread, then, I'm NOT talking to you about people who choose not to be convicted. I'm talking about people who may be convicted by the truth if only they hear it or read it CLEARLY; but we can be sure they won't hear the truth and be convicted of it if Christians tell them that homosexual practices are perfectly OK.

No one is-- & least of all am I-- talking about shoving anything down any gay person "harder and harder." But then this isn't a discussion about how to communicate the gospel to gay people. That'd be an excellent subject but one that must be left for another thread.

Of course two males can love each other in a non-sexual way. But when people talk about the "same-sex love between David and Jonathan," they almost always have something else in mind besides heterosexual love.



I don't think women have a problem with saying they adore other women without any sexual desires involved. Women are much freer in our society to openly express love and affection for each other without anything negative being attached to it; men are much less able to do that. For instance, if I say to a bunch of guys, "You know, I just adore that man ...," the reactions would be quite different than if they were to hear a woman say the same thing about another woman.

Our society is homophobic, yes, but I don't pay it any mind.

Our problem is simple: gay sex is just more *interesting* than poor people

[quote=John317]

The real sins of Sodom included the practice of homosexuality, all kinds of immorality, as well as all the sins described in Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.

AMEN! John.

Obviously you haven't read all the previous posts. This question has been answered already.

Alex (sex as in gender, not coitus)

Well, then, their love falls under the same category of love that Jesus commanded for His disciples to have - "love one another..."

You're implying that homosexuals must have sex to be defined as a homosexual. [/quote]

No, I am not implying that. I addressed the issue of the relationship - not the person. In order for a relationship to be classified as a homosexual relationship, sex must take place between the two people. On two different occasions, while in college, I had two gay roommates. We had a very deep relationship. I met both of them in a 12 Step program and we became quite close. I never had sex with either of them so our relationship could not be described as gay but we were close friends.

I respect that. Although I love many people here at C/A, including you, John. I define love with two basic words: commitment and acceptance. Commitment is characterized as looking out for another's well-being. Acceptance means the commitment is unconditional.

That's one of the best and nicest things I've seen on the Forum in a long, long time. Thanks for that, Shane.

Sadly, the poor get pushed aside and forgotten once again...


The devil's strategy wins once again...

More people die from being poor than from being gay.


We can fix the problems of poverty easier than we can fix homosexuality...


Most of us struggle with arrogance, greed, and avoiding helping the poor.

Very few of us struggle with homosexuality.

The sin of Sodom has shown itself to reign supreme here because we have successfully changed the subject so we don't have to think about caring for the poor...

Jesus said ,"You have the poor with you always".Doesn't sound like a easier fix to me. And like I said before, the conservative Christian community has been attempting to relieve the suffering on the poor for decades (centuries?) so why was this op/ed entitled The Real Sin of Sodom? Where's the connect?

I agree John. :)

pk

Doug: 6 pages of discussion total, of which I'd say less than 1 pertain to the issue of poor people. Our priorities are clear from where we spend our attention, and our priorities are not Jesus' priorities.

i came across this yesterday and thought the point was quite interesting, and inline with the topic.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/28/stark.chile.quake.haiti/index.html?hpt=C2

The poor are certainly not forgotten by the Adventist church. God calls different people to do different things. The body has many members. The eye should not criticize the hand because it cannot see. The hand should not criticize the ear because it cannot touch. Each member of the body as a purpose - a calling. Many members are called to work with the poor and do an outstanding job of doing so. Other members are called to work in our prisons and do a fine job. Yet others are called to work with our youth. Some are called to work mending broken families. Indeed some are called to work with alcoholics, drug addicts, those with eating disorders and yes, some are called to work with gays. Those called to minister to the poor ought not look down on and criticize other called to other ministries.

I thought one of Jesus main priorities was teaching/preaching?(Or is that two?) And who's the "our" that you're referring to? I think Tom's just trying to stir up some guilt for the sake of discussion and nobody got it.

i think if you check the context you will see they were talking about this thread, not the sda church.

in fact i dont think the sda church is the subject of this thread except in a minor way as a part of the overall church of God...

Mat 11:2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
Mat 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
Mat 11:4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Luk 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luk 7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luk 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
Luk 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

Yeah, I think your point is a good one and well made, Shane, but not quite responsive to the discussion here. The point was more about where the emotional energy of the laity is directed - and we here are some sort of sample of the laity. The ratio in this thread of (off topic) discussion of homosexuality to (on topic) discussion of helping the poor is telling...

I think that is simply due to where the controversy is. Most everyone is in agreement that Christians should help the poor. Not much to discuss there. Contrast that to how the church should deal with homosexuality and we find a lot to talk about. So it is not that Christians care more about homosexuality than helping the poor. It is simply that Christians agree more when talking about the poor than when talking about homosexuality.

Good post, Shane. I whole-heartedly agree with you.

I think it's important for every person in the church to feel a burden to help the poor in an individual way and not to rely on the official church structure to do it for them.

I've often gone to areas in Los Angeles where there are lots of poor people for the purpose of giving clothes, literature, and even money.

One thing a church can do if it is in large urban areas is spend Sabbath afternoons visiting the poor and inviting them to a vesper service at the church where they can get something to eat after a short song service and Bible study. I saw this work very well in the San Francisco/Berkeley area.

What was said about homosexuality was not entirely off topic. It is actually brought up in the lead post:



Mr. Stearns is wrong about that. Simply because Ezekiel doesn't mention homosexuality by name doesn't mean it wasn't one of the sins of Sodom. That is where the question of homosexuality on this thread began. It begins with the attitude that homosexuality is either not wrong or had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction. They are wrong on both counts. The Bible contains condemnations of both kinds of sins.

There's no reason to call into question the validity of the biblical condemnation of homosexuality in order to point up the importance of helping the poor and needy. It isn't an "either/or" situation.

I think this is a good example of what some Adventists are doing to help people in need. It'd be a good way to start something to help the poor in any community.

================================================

Church group looks to lend a helping hand
Posted By Vince Burke/Staff Writer
Posted 17 hours ago

A Wetaskiwin men's church group is taking the idea of the Good Samaritan to a whole new level.

Formed more than two years ago, the group is organized out of the Seventh Day Adventists Church, located north of Wetaskiwin.

The 15 men have been busy fixing, helping and doing odd jobs for others in and around the Wetaskiwin area.


More jobs wanted

And the group is looking for more people – who are handicapped or cannot do the work themselves – who may need its help.

"We do mostly construction work, helping little old ladies and handicapped people," explained group leader Bob Buckler.

"West of Wetaskiwin, there was a lady who was ill, so we shingled her house, and painted her house. We shingled her garage and cleaned up her whole yard."

Buckler added the money for the projects the group does is financed by those people they are helping, but with the ministry group doing the labour, it becomes much more affordable for people to get the job done.

"She got a grant for the money to shingle her house, and a contract called for $4,500 just to shingle the house," said Buckler.

"She gave us that money and we shingled the house, painted the house, shingled the garage and cleaned up the yard (for that money), so she was pretty happy, too.

"They usually come up with the money for the material and we supply the labour free of charge."

Buckler said with all the guys in the men's ministry group, the work doesn't take a long time.

He said they shingled the roof of the 1,000-foot home in four hours.

Buckler said it was a group decision to start the community outreach.

"It has been rewarding and the guys enjoy it. When they said they wanted me to be the leader, I said, if I am the leader, they are going to have to get their hands dirty. That was OK, and they were fine with it," he said.

Buckler said the group is looking for more people in need that they could help out and is putting out the word that his guys are willing and waiting.

"We do have a project in the spring, we have a fencing project," he said.

"But, we always keep our eyes open and word of mouth travels well."

How to reach them

Those looking to inquire about using Buckler and his men's group's services for a construction project can contact him at 780-352-7679.

He can also be reached via email at bjhold@incentre.net

He said it is open to anyone who is disabled or like the elderly woman, who was unable to do the job herself.

You also don't need to be a member of the congregation.

A handful of wonderful anecdotes of good people does not restore the balance that is missing.

Two simple statistics put in perspective the magnitude - More children in the world do not have adequate shelter (640 million) than the total number of homosexuals in the entire world. More people in the world are chronically undernourished (790 million) than the total number of homosexuals in the entire world.

Here are the facts - http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

So Tom, Are you saying that the real issue here is not what Christians are doing for the poor but rather what you think they are failing to do? Are you saying that Kristof's op/ed,which commends conservative Christianity for being the leaders in helping the world's poor, is actually irrelevent to the discussion?

are the poor and hungry increasing?

how many millions of orphans are there worldwide?

what can we do to help?

Selfishness - the failure to love one's neighbor as oneself, instead placing ourselves above others - is the root of all other sins.

From selfishness proceeds pride and arrogance.
From selfishness comes disregard of the poor and failure to show hospitality to the stranger.
Selfishness is at the root of sexual sins - placing our own lust above self-control, above God's commands and above the well-being of others.

All of the above are illustrated in the account of Sodom - the people of Sodom had become so hardened in their selfishness that when two strangers appeared in the town, the first impulse of the crowd (composed of both men and women) was to rape them instead of showing hospitality and kindness.

The sexual sin is only part of the big picture, and is one of the fruits (rather than the root) of the problem.


aldona

No, that is NOT what I am saying...

What if ALL Christians got their priorities straight? What if ALL really took Jesus' words in Matthew 25 seriously? What if ALL Christians treated sexual sinners as Jesus did?

double that here.

I might have missed it, but I didn't see the number of homosexuals listed.

Very roughly, the stats seem to suggest that somewhere between 4% and 10% of the population is gay. A far, far higher percentage than that of people live in poverty worldwide... or even in developed countries.

Thanks Bravus, for the info.

Yes, I know far more about poverty than I wish I knew.

I think only about 4% of the population is sexually deviant (perverted).

I agree that there are a greater percentage of poor people, perhaps reminiscent of Jesus' assertation that the poor would be here always (paraphrase).


rejoice always,


gcw

I read a book written by a psychologist in the 1960s who noted that homosexuals and alcoholics are cousins of sorts because they both tend to suffer with extreme selfishness. So it only reasons that if Sodom was full of a bunch of gays, they would also be selfish.

We can only get to the 4% to 10% statistic by including everyone that has ever had a same-sex sexual experience. That really is a false statistic because a lot of people that have same-sex sexual experiences are doing so out of curiosity, while intoxicated and sometimes because of rape or molestation. They are not really attracted to the same sex and do not adopt a gay lifestyle. In cases of rape and molestation, the acts are not even voluntary on the part of the victims.

When asked if a person has had a same-sex sexual experience within the past five years, the numbers range from 2% - 4%. There are more male homosexuals than females. However, if we include those experimenting with the same sex, more females experiment than males.

and is ever increasing!

haiti was already poverty-stricken, what would we call it now?

and chile...

just to name a couple.

There was no intention of "restoring the balance." That is an impossibility for one post to do, let alone a whole thread. There was only the intention of showing an example of how some Seventh-day Adventists are working to help the poor.

But helping the poor has nothing to do with counting the number of homosexuals or bisexuals or transsexuals, does it?

Why is it necessary to talk about homosexuality in order to talk about the importance of helping the poor? I thought you wanted to get away from discussing homosexuality.

As I said, the issue of its being wrong to neglect the poor is not a matter of having to choose whether to encourage the fight against poverty or whether to condemn the practice of homosexuality. They are both wrong, and the Bible condemns both sins. It's perfectly biblical to condemn the practice of homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality and at the same time to feel passionate about helping the poor and needy. The Bible does both; we should too.

Point well made.




oG

No comment.

Adventures in missing the point...

It was not I but you and others that keep bringing up the topic of homosexuals, generally or counting them. Why do you suppose Rudywoofs had to point out that I make no mention of how many there are? I have repeatedly tried to get this topic back to the original point, but you and others keep changing the topic by bringing up the pet sexual perversion of homosexuality...

Maybe if all Christians kept their focus on the priority problems, we would make some progress toward restoring the balance.

Why don't we want to talk about poverty?

We've talked about poverty until Jesus' words regarding the poor rang hollow, and we have helped them in America until many of them choose benevolence over ambition.

In my 50-year observation, one of premiere reasons that progressives extol humanitarian outreach is that they find themselves embarrassed by theological outreach. Aberrant cases exist, I am the son of a humanitarian legend. And Dad was not supportive of the social gospel at all, giant though he was.



best,

oG

instead of patting ourselves on the back for what we are doing, and instead of worrying about whether homosexuals are "getting" that they are living "wrong",

why dont we see what more needs to be done...

I agree that we all ought to treat sexual sinners the same as Jesus did. How did He treat them? He didn't condemn them or tell them they were forever lost, but He also didn't ignore their sins. He gave them courage that God would help them overcome their sins so they wouldn't have to keep practicing them. He said that those who practice sin are slaves of sin and that He came in order to give us freedom from sin.

There's a real sense in which Jesus' words are also found in the writings of Paul and John. They are just as legitmate instructions to the church on the treatment of sexual sinners as the words of Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels. The Holy Spirit inspired those letters to the church in order to help the church understand how to deal with all kinds of situations, including sexual sins in the church.

I have two brothers who had severe sexual problems for many years. One of them served time in jail for them, and the other should have served time. I also have struggled with sexual sins for over 30 years, and have only been free of them for the last 4 or so years now. I just began to be free only a few months before coming to the Adventist Forum. I can honestly say that during all the years that I was struggling with sexual sins, no one in the church ever made me feel condemned or that God didn't love me. In fact, except for my parents, no one ever said anything to me about it.

How, then, should we treat sexual sinners? We should talk to them as we would to anyone else, treat them with respect and love, and pray for them. When we have their trust and confidence, we could talk to them about their problems if they want to talk about them. Invite them to your home and let them see that you genuinely care for them and are interested in them as individuals and as brothers in Christ.

Indeed.

Jesus didn't tell the adulterous woman that she could continue her moral failures as long as she volunteered at the soup kitchen.

It sounds like you want to tell us why we don't want to talk about poverty. I'd really like to hear your thoughts about that, Tom.

First off, who is it that you beleive doesn't want to talk about it?

Yup. Looks like you're not making yourself very clear on this. Tom. Are you sure you understand exactly the point you're trying to get across? You say, yes. I say, no. You say, why. I say, I don't know.

im not real sure why people think insults win the argument.

all it tells me is that the person does not have a leg to stand on, so they have to resort to insults.

back to the topic:

Men despise the unfortunate and the poor. They do not appreciate the fact that it is moral worth that makes men of value with God. God estimates character with a different measure from the world. Some men are lifted up with pride when they attain positions of honor. They act as though they were the lords of creation, but a man in the sight of heaven is one who is connected with Christ, who walks in humility of mind, and serves God from the principle of love. He knows who are committing robbery toward him in withholding their means from his cause, or in withholding their tact and ability from his service. He knows who have buried their talents in the earth.{RH, October 1, 1889 par. 8}


By beholding, we become changed. Through close study and earnest contemplation of the character of Christ, his image is reflected in our own lives, and a higher tone is imparted to the spirituality of the church. If the truth of God has not transformed our character into the likeness of Christ,

all our professed knowledge of him and the truth is but as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. {RH, August 4, 1891 par. 3}


"Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash ye, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." {RH, August 4, 1891 par. 4}

Not wanting to be confrontational, but really haven't read anyone saying any insulting words.

pk

olger informs Teresa that he observes no insults, and returns to painting the trailer walls.



blesings,

oG

I have just spent my Sunday helping a poor family add on to their home so they can adopt their nieces who are in foster care. Actually, our entire Sabbath School class is doing this project. This is the third Sunday I have spent. Next Sunday and we should have it finished.

I have also worked with gay people in the past. I see no reason why a person cannot help gay people learn about Christ and help poor people at the same time.

Why didn't you spend time on the Sabbath AND Sunday helping add on to the home? It could have been done in half the time.

Shane, I think that if you spent less time helping the poor you'd have more time to consider what you're not doing for the poor. At least I think that's what this thread is trying to convey??? And if the poor you are helping are also gay then forget it altogether.Get your priorities straight!or something.

reminds me of that saying, "methinks he doth protest too much". there must have been a lot of evidence for it.

The interesting the thing, however, is that many conservatives abhor humanitarian outreach and will "preach" their hearts out but remain ineffective. Clearly, Jesus combined the two.

In almost every community there are large numbers who do not listen to the preaching of God's word or attend any religious service. If they are reached by the gospel, it must be carried to their homes. Often the relief of their physical needs is the only avenue by which they can be approached.

I don't know who these "conservatives" are that abhor humanitarian outreach. Seventh-day Adventists are very active in humanitarian outreach and have been for many years.

Statistically conservatives give more and earn less.I believe they even donate more blood

Name two.

I'll give you two when we get the names of the progressives embarrassed by theological outreach.

>>...progressives embarrassed by theological outreach.<<

Heavens!—indeed, should that “theological outreach” constitute ‘liberation theology’, yes?

Oh my! :-o

[Crickets chirping...]

Come on, Lazarus.Now's your chance to reveal the real conservative abhorence of humanitarian outreach.Don't let olger's comment hold you back. Can't think of any?? Me either. Probably because there aren't any. But if you can document just two,ok, just one,I'll do my best to try to change their minds. I'm serious.

{and the crickets chirp on}

Why so particular? You'll swallow the line about progressives but conservatives...... "give me names and addresses..."

Nice try, Lazurus.I didn't say I bought olger's claim because I don't know if it's true or not.He might be wrong. He's done nothing to prove it and no one else has done anything to dispprove it. Additionally, he qualified it by stating that it was his personal observation. Subjective interpretations are sometimes right simetimes wrong. So if you're gonna be critical of olger for not giving examples then why are you any different? If what you said is true then you must have some way of demonstrating it. If it's not true then why did you post it??

There have been plenty of examples from the conservatives here of just such: I recall in the 'educational direction' thread just a couple of days ago the idea that foreign aid should be cut - 'take care of our own first'. Maybe church outreach was meant, and Laz might have more examples on that front, but the attitude that helping others in other countries should come a distant second to helping those (well, those who are deserving) in one's own country is pretty common.

(Can't believe I bought into this - I'll shut up now)

People without power or influence don't mean much. Meaningful examples would be those with influence and/or power.

Bravus is right. I did mean church outreach...

"many conservatives abhor humanitarian outreach and will "preach" their hearts out but remain ineffective. Clearly, Jesus combined the two"

My statement was followed by a quote from EGW about outreach.

There has been much theological debate in Christianity about the role of meeting social concerns in the evangelical work of the church.

Walter Rauschenbusch, Social Gospel pioneer was is criticized by his contemporaries and modern writers, Karl Barth (darling of theological conservatives, I think) and Frederick Neymeyer (fan of Austrian economics) for example.

The conservative christian movement today is fervently anti the Social Gospel, that is self evident but more specifically...

Jerry Falwell regarded foreign aid as welfare
Jessie Helms opposed foreign aid
Ron Paul advocates an end to all foreign aid

Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6185

"It is not right that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables."



olger approves this message

Make sure you get the message right. I'm surprised at you Ollie.

Acts 6:2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

Us = Apostles

Seven men = Deacons

Deacons are not meant to just collect offering and open and close the church. They are to serve the needs of the community "within and without"

Well done Sir.



og out

Who was that teacher guy who fed 5000 people? Can't quite recall at the moment...

I think we need to distinguish between the church and the state. A person can be opposed to the state giving foreign aid and yet favor the church doing so. Politically, I have no problem with the US providing foreign aid but for me that political position has absolutely nothing to do with my faith. Religiously I believe the church should extend aid to other countries - like ADRA does. I personally do work in Mexico and many of my dollars go directly into the Mexican work. I have no trouble distinguishing the difference between my politics (what I believe the government should be doing) and my religion (what I believe the church should be doing). It looks like some in this thread are mixing the two together.

I think it was the same guy who had the ability to feed every poor person in the entire country (and world)and didn't.The same one who could have healed every sick person too,and didn't. Maybe His priorities were off? "you seek me, not because you saw the signs,but because you ate of the loaves and were filled."

[quote=lazarus deacons are not meant to just collect offering and open and close the church. They are to serve the needs of the community "within and without"


[/quote] Without?? (Acts6:1-4)Don't forget work bees and seating people.

It just means that those of us who have a passion and a calling to humanitarian or social concerns will feel that we do not belong in such churches...

...and eventually, worn down by constant admonitions that we should stop wasting our time on the "social Gospel" and do "the Lord's work" instead, we either lose our passion or drift away from the church and join with other like-minded people (whether religious e.g. liberal churches or Quakers, or those godless atheists at whatever secular charity we end up supporting)...

Why don't we simply recognize that some of us are called to preach the gospel, and others (like Martha, or Dorcas) are called to meet practical and social needs?

Surely the two can co-exist - like the Biblical example of deacons being specifically ordained by laying on of hands to look after the widows and serve tables so that the apostles could get on with doing the work they were called to do.)

When was the last time the church ordained somebody by laying on hands in order for them to do humanitarian work on behalf of the church? That would be revolutionary...it would actually demonstrate that we regard "social gospel" work as important.

aldona

Memory is the second thing to go..



og

"Go ye into all the world, teaching them to observe the things I have commanded you."





oG out

Just tagging on.

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you take away the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, if you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. And the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your desire in scorched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail. And your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to dwell in." Isa 58:6-12 ESV


"If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Ja 2:15-16 ESV

Is it possible that our ministry for the soul might be much more effective if we also ministered to the body?

And it is precisely that message you quoted from Isaiah 58 that EGW proclaimed as the message for the end of time that should be proclaimed over and over again.

And that is connected directly to what Adventists recognize as the seal of God, the Sabbath.

I completely agree with you, but as long as we're going to try to follow what God revealed to us through Ellen White, we need to recognize that we should all individually and as a church follow everything that she said, and not simply pick out one teaching as important. Merely doing what Ellen White said in regard to this subject is not obeying what God has revealed if we reject God's messages on other subjects.

On this particular subject, she wrote a great deal in the book, Welfare Ministry, and among those statements is one where she says that the church should not devote its time, energy, and resources to helping the poor in a way that reduces its ability to proclaim the Three Angels' Messages. The SDA church was not raised up to assist the poor in getting jobs and money. The helping of the poor, just like the medical work, must go hand in hand with proclaiming the gospel. The preaching of the gospel cannot become a secondary work but must remain our primary purpose. When we look at how other churches have done in the past, we find that it's common to lay aside the gospel and concentrate on the "social gospel," but this isn't what the Lord wants the Seventh-day Adventist church to do. He raised up our church for the purpose of preparing a people and the world for the Second Coming.

I think the emphasis should be on us as individuals helping the poor by inviting them into our homes where we can help them physically at the same time that we help them learn the Three Angels' Messages. I've seen this done successfully so that it led people to turn to Christ and eventually choose to become members of God's church. My own parents often allowed people in need to live in their home.

But people must also be careful about who they invite into their homes because many have mental, emotional, drug and alcohol problems so that they can become violent or steal from the family they stay with. I've invited homeless people to restaurants for meals before, only to have them arrested there after they became irate at the restaurant and were arrested by the police for threatening the waitress. So when working with the poor-- as indeed at all times-- it's essential to remember Christ's instructions to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.

I never quite understood why people are wary of the "social gospel". What are we supposed to have, an "anti-social gospel"? :\

"How then do we think of our message & mission? Very substantial conflicting currents now run through our church. At Biblical Research, we sit at the place where we see the transcendence and the confluence of these currents. The former zeal for sharing Bible truths, of working together in close community, of a world encompassing vision of a great task to be done in preparation for Christ’s return, today is diminishing.
True, a large body of believers continues to think of itself in these terms: To give sacrificially of time & funds; to rejoice over every new field entered with the gospel, to share the message with their neighbors. But increasingly, another group values more the social aspect of our worth. They find themselves embarrassed by direct evangelism, prefers humanitarian outreach to direct soul-winning, is uncomfortable with church organization, distrusts leadership, and prefers to give from its abundance rather than sacrificially to projects which they can control the use of their gift" (George Reid, past president of Biblical Research Institute, 1998).

It's because usually the "social gospel" comes to the point where there's no gospel. It's all social. In other words, they typically stop preaching the gospel, and concentrate solely on helping the poor. That is not the work that God raissed up the Seventh-day Adventist church to do.

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

This is not to say that we're not to help the poor but we're not to think only or even primarily of satisfying their physical needs. A person's spiritual needs should always be uppermost in our minds. Great books to read on this subject are Ellen White's Christian Service, Ministry of Healing, and Welfare Ministry.

I don't think anyone here has argued for just satisfying physical needs. Clearly, Jesus did both. Ellen white clearly argues that we do both. The reason why we should meet the physical needs of people is not just to win them but because we have compassion.

May churches have only engaged the community when its time to hand out fliers for a Revelation seminar and wonders why no one comes. Many churches run a soup kitchen but never invite someone to give their heart to Jesus Christ. We need both.

In General, SDA churches focus simply on declaring the truth but do no give the "proof" by showing compassion to those in the community. Many SDA congregations are dying not because they don't try hard enough but because they are not using Jesus' method.

In reaching the people. The Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, "Follow Me."
Min of healing p 86.


Both are necessary for effective evangelism, Jesus proved it, so did the apostles for that matter.

It's not either or, it's both and!

Good News and Good Works.

Tis much easier to have a persons attention when they are 'feed and warm'. At least it works for me!

I can agree with that,




oG

Something just froze over!!

I am so glad I can't relate to that. My church has a soup kitchen every Wednesday at 5:30pm. Stick around and we have prayer meeting at 7:30pm.