Adventist Today attacks Mark Finley going against culture

 

A recent article on Adventist Today website entitled Why Do Our Leaders Insist On Holding the Judgment Now? By Loren Seibold takes direct aim at a video presentation by Mark Finley. The article manages to accuse Mark Finley and Ted Wilson or attempting to judge and exclude LGBT people from the SDA church. Strangely doing so without giving even one quote from either man. The article begins in the 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs by writing:

“Why, when these men in Silver Spring choose topics to address, do they so often choose to talk about who they want to keep out of the church? 

They teach that we’re supposed to gather everyone in for Jesus’ return. But if God is calling everyone, saint and sinner alike, why do our church leaders disapprove of so many of them here and now, for so many reasons?

 

After reading Loren Seibold’s article I watched Mark Finley’s video. Mark Finley's Sermon: What The Bible Really Says About LGBTQ+

 

 

After watching the presentation I failed to see much of any of the things that Loren Seibold saw in the video. Then looking at the article comments on Facebook it appeared that none of the commenters had watched the video either. I am always suspicious of anyone that writes about someone and does not use any quotes at all from the actual person they are criticizing. In general, I find that they will be arguing against a fictionalized version of the person rather than what the person actually had to say. Since it is now possible to easily transcribe audio from video’s on a computer, now more than ever I question those who manage to write an article without quoting some portion of the actual words of the person they are criticizing.

 

I will use speech to text to aid in this article. Mark Finley begins his presentation this way:

 “Does the message of the Bible align with the current rise and acceptance of the lgbtq+ community or does it contradict it. Join me as we open the word of God and study the scriptures.”

 

Finley then introduces the reason for the presentation.

 “Why have I chosen to speak about this subject now, there's some specific reasons for that first I'm concerned about the direction that our society is going concerned about how that direction impacts the church I love I'm concerned about the Next Generation I'm concerned about young adults who are inbibing a message that may not align and does not align with scripture I'm concerned about children whose minds are being saturated with information regarding lgbtq+ Community you see I'm concerned so it's out of that concern out of that care out of that love that I speak today.  Now there's certain things that have led me to this conclusion that it's time to speak now let me give you some examples of that here just a few recent incidents that have motivated me to address this issue of human sexuality first on July 3 2023 the New York Post reported that at the recent New York drag queens March activist chanted, and hear their words, we're here we're queer and we're coming for your children this seemed outrageous to me it's shocking but it's not surprising in recent years such blunt outrageous rhetoric has become commonplace two years ago the San Francisco gave Men's Chorus released a YouTube video in which 81 of its members sing a song with the refrain "we will convert your children happens bit by bit quietly and subtly you'll barely notice it.”

 

Under the YouTube description  for Mark Finley's sermone we find this: 

Here are the chapters: 00:00 Introduction - Why is it Time to Speak Up? 14:48 Christian Response to LGBTQ+ 18:08 Biblical Perspectives on Gender and Sexuality 48:28 Official Position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church”

 

I did not see any hate or judgment aside from the common judgments about sin which is pretty widely known throughout the Christian world. What it appears to me is that Seibold is not happy that Finley is not affirming the LGBT views. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that a church should affirm this conglomeration of group's views as they are often at odds with themselves. There are such groups as Gays Against Gromers and there are groups who encourage indoctrination in schools with gay activists and encourage children to social transition, some even physically transition. Clumping together small minorities and thinking they are unified is a completely fictitious view of reality.

 

Seibold then presents us with this:

 

Is judging sinners the church’s job? Not according to Jesus.

Three verses

Here’s a parable from Matthew 13 that I’ve seldom heard preached by Adventist churchmen. It starts with a farmer seeing that his fields have a bumper crop of weeds among the wheat. His farmhands think that the best way to handle it is to stomp out into the field and tear up the weeds right away. 

But the farmer says that uprooting weeds will damage the wheat. 

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”​​

Lord help me, but I cannot interpret this in any way except that we’re not to perform the judgment in our churches now, but leave it to the Lord to do in the end. To the point of Elder Finley’s recent anti-LGBTQ sermon, I see nothing here about ripping out the weeds unless they change into wheat.

We have already seen that judging sinners is not the purpose of Finley’s presentation but note the description of Finley’s presentation is now called “anti-LGBTQ”. We clearly see here that the main problem with Finley for Seibold is that LGBTQ is not affirmed. This point is so far the only idea I will agree with Seibold on; Finley is not affirming LGBTQ+ ideas, Whatever they are. I think that is wise not to affirm a wide swath of ideas even if the current culture pretends to do so.

So what about this parable. Is the parable about the church or about the world? Well, we don't have to guess about that because the parable is explained in Matthew 13:

³⁶ Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”³⁷ He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. ³⁸ The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, ³⁹ and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.⁴⁰ “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. ⁴² They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

So contrary to Seibold the subject here has nothing to do with judgment in our churches, now or even in the future. In fact, in an agricultural-aware world no one waits for the harvest to weed a field and they certainly don’t go out at harvest time and collect the weeds first and then go back and collect the grain. Let’s pretend for argument that it is a grain like wheat. No farmer would go out when the grain heads are full and stomp around their field to collect weeds and then go out and collect the grain. Thus they ask for an explanation. It only works if there is a supernatural force like angels involved.

Seibold misuses his first Biblical text and tries to make it say something it does not say. The very idea that Christians do not make any judgments is something no one ever heard of before the last few decades. It certainly has no biblical basis. For those wanting further information about judging see. Is It Ever Right to Judge Others?

His next verse is the parable of the rich man and the banquet. After quoting it he writes:

“Please, Mark and Ted, tell me how you can read this parable in any way except to say that the most vulnerable, most needy people are invited to come into the kingdom?”

He does this without showing where either Mark Finley or Ted Wilson have ever said that all people are not invited into the kingdom. Certainly, in the video nothing like that is said and really even if one is not affirming of the LGBTQ+ constellation of views that would not mean that they are not invited into God’s kingdom.

Seibold I think knows how weak a position he has and that is why he does not actually deal with anything Finley said. Instead, he says things like this:

“Mark, you want new members in our churches—but do you know the kind of gauntlet you create in congregations for all members, old and new, by the kinds of judgment you made in your video?”

If Seibold believes Finley has made such judgments why not list them, give us some examples. Instead, Seibold goes to absurd conclusions, they must be what Seibold thinks but other than his half-baked impressions give us something real, something firm, and not just things like this:

“Do you realize that people are listening to you, then the next Sabbath examining their fellow church members for the sins you’ve suggested to them? You’re making some congregations into little courtrooms, with people spending most of their energy debating women pastors and LGBTQ people and theological heresy.”

What congregations are becoming little courtrooms? Why should the view of affirmation be accepted and no other perspectives viewed or it becomes a waste of energy? Are there such things as theological heresy and are they worth the time to clear up? It would be nice if Seibold took some time to deal with any of those in-depth, rather then making emotional declarations that have no basis in fact.

 

It would have been far better for Seibold to have dealt with Mark Finley’s conclusion. Here is his concluding thoughts:

 

“Each one of us because of the Brokenness of sin have certain passions, desires, orientations but by the grace of God we can choose not to act upon them so having the orientation does not justify the action I may have a predisposition because of the Brokenness of sin to more easily get angry than somebody else but by the grace of God I can be changed so because somebody has a predisposition for that, somebody may have a passion because of genetics because of social environment because of things that happen and you think they may have a passion for sexuality outside of marriage a male for a female but because they have those passions and drives does not mean that they act upon them they make a positive choice for the grace of God to change their life the same thing is true with lgbtq relationships and lgbtq orientation or tendencies or desires the orientation may be part of our beings but God's grace is great,

How then do we relate, how then do we really, what are some things that we can take away from the biblical principles regarding human sexuality I think they're at least five things and here they are

1st God has created all human beings through the fall and Brokenness of sin we all have Tendencies and propensities sorting that's one take away

 

2^nd  god calls us to love not hate the Christian ethic calls us to be compassionate and respectful and accepting of one another

 

3 to love doesn't mean we approve a lifestyle out of harmony with God's will the most loving thing we can do is to share the Amazing Grace of Christ that Forgives our past transforms our present and gives us hope for the future

 

4  the lgbtq+ lifestyle is not in harmony with the Bible and according to scripture deviates from God's will and his sin

 

5 through the grace of God all of us can experience New Life in Christ jesus invites it to reach out to everyone around broken Fallen in Seattle to reach out as Brothers and Sisters in Christ in loving tones to share the truth of God's word and kindness and compassion recognizing that if any man or woman are in Christ they are new creatures recognize that the grace of God the power of God is greater than any sin [52 mins mark]

 Mark Finley in the sermon quotes from a commentary put out by Andrews University on homosexuality. Why did not Seibold even mention that? A commentary put out by the SDA's premier theological school and that does not even get mentioned. Why?