This Month's Colloqium

Colloquia Archive

1. Intellectual honesty obliges me to state in the observations what I stated at the beginning of our discussions last summer: that I am here under some protest. Why? I am here under protest because I think that these matters are settled, by the witness of scripture and the teachings of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Himself. That is, they are not now open to discussion.

The Holy Scriptures teach plainly about sex and marriage, homosexual behaviors, and other venues of sex outside marriage. The Holy Scriptures teach that marriage is of a man to a woman, that it is an estate ordained of God, to be held in honor by all. The reason these things are before us for discussion is because of a vote at a church assembly that, in effect, opens for debate and vote dimensions that are at the heart of God's created order, dimensions never taught otherwise by the church in its two millennia.

Though I am here, I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. For nearly twenty years, and especially since I was appointed to the first ELCA sexuality task force in 1990, I have studied the claims of the proponents of the church's legitimizing homosexual relationships. I have read many, if not most, of the books and articles. I am convinced that the insurgency has not made its case. Indeed, there is no case to be made. That said, I have entered into the discussions in good faith, wrestling with the questions and respecting my colleagues.

2. Where do the issues fit? - We have talked about where the issues "fit," in the scheme of things. Richard ventured the notion that the questions are "third article" (of the Creed) questions; that is, how one leads his or her life in the "communion of saints." At stake, in that regard, is how one orders his or her life of faith, how one expresses sexuality, what kind of blessings and endorsements can be bestowed by the church. To be sure, it is thus a Third Article question.

But, at a more primal level, I hold that that the question of legitimating homosexual relationships in the church, as to blessing unions and ordaining practicing homosexuals, is a question that challenges the First Article of the Creed, at a foundational level. That is, at stake is the proper nature of God's created order. We confess that "we believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth." The Nicene Creed adds, "and of all things seen and unseen." The article in its origination both affirms God's creation and denies that there are two creators and two creations (contra the gnostic heresy). In the 19^th century and following, radical notions of evolution challenged the claim of creation in favor of only a materialist read of both matter and life. This view denied a creation, holding that things are only "emergent," across time. Not just the time frame but the notion of creation qua creation was called into question.

So also today, with the present question before us the nature of creation is at stake. Is it normative that God "created them male and female," and said "be fruitful and multiply, …"? Is the male-female paradigm normative, that is, what God intends, or can the church admit to legitimacy other paradigms - male-male, female-female, or multiple partners?

3. The nature of marriage. - An attendant question, of a stature only slightly less, is "what is the nature of marriage?" Is it "an holy estate ordained by God, to be held in honor by all"? If marriage is ordained of God, then it is constituted as male and female. On this we have it from Jesus: "for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt. 19:4-6) Jesus endorsed the view that marriage is an holy estate, ordained by God. In order to give official church blessing to gay or lesbian relationships one would have to go beyond what the scriptures have revealed as God blessed.

Is marriage thus an estate ordained by God, or is it a social construct, emergent from various cultures not only as to its mores and local customs but also as to its foundational origin and legitimacy? If it is ordained by God, then marriage is constitutive as man and woman. If it is a social or cultural construct, then homosexual relationships may be admissible to blessing by the church, as cultures so change and new occasions dictate.

It is sometimes argued that the Lutheran church's concession to divorce, which Jesus forbids (except in the case of adultery) in St. Matthew, in two different locations, opens the door to consideration of offering blessing to homosexual relationships.

[Matthew 5:31-32 - It has been said, "Anyone who divorces his wife must giver her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (NIV)

Matthew 19:3-12 - Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." ]

It is true that parish practice sometimes reflects even a "don't-ask-don't-tell" posture toward unmarried heterosexual couples sharing living quarters [the infamous "posslq" category (i.e., Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) of an earlier survey]. But contemporary laxity in teaching rigor on sexual morality (including premarital sex, unmarried couples, divorce and remarriage) is itself just that--laxity, vis-à-vis the teaching of the scriptures. The church cannot celebrate adultery, or call divorce other than a sin and the result of sin. Adultery fractures marriage and violates the vows. Divorce erodes the integrity of marriage. Remarriage, after repentance and counseling, is a concession to which the Lutheran church has ventured, on the strength of repentance and amendment of life. Granted, it is precarious ground--except if the earlier marriage ended because of spousal adultery. Here the church has ventured to err, if it be error, in the direction of forgiveness and hope.

In the case of blessing homosexual relationships, however, the church would be breaking utterly new ground. There is no warrant for such blessing in the scriptures, or in God's ordering of creation. Here there is no "forgiveness sought," but rather a seeking to call "blessed" what the scripture plainly calls sin!

4. A pastoral question - Bishop Chilstrom observed at the tag end of the first sexuality study in the ELCA that what was formerly a pastoral question has become a juridical question. The question is now juridical to the extent that a recommendation whether or not to bless and ordain is directed to be brought before the national assembly for vote. That's juridical; that's making it a question of policy, practice and mandate.

On the question of pastoral vis-à-vis juridical, Bishop Emeritus George Mocko said in his remarks last spring (2002) at the Delaware-Maryland Synod Assembly:

"Every parish I've served has had homosexuals. They've come and gone as anybody else, participated or not as anybody else, shared things about themselves or not as anybody else. Their sexuality was never paraded, and why should it be? So what's the problem?

"The problem is that, as homosexuality has been made the focus, we are being asked that in order to be truly welcoming we must make radical changes in our 2,000-year-old theological foundations and teachings. Those radical changes are evident in the proposals being worked on for our next two ELCA Churchwide Assemblies, that we write liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions and that we ordain pastors openly living in same-sex relationships….

"This matter gets us into profound matters of our faith. If those proposals are adopted, we will be removing what has been the cornerstone of our theology of our sexuality for our entire history. That cornerstone has been, in the words of Jesus, 'Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." What therefore God has joined together, let no one put asunder.' That has always meant that God's intent in creating us sexual beings is for monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong relationships of commitment and love, and anything other than that is less than that, and part of fallen creation.

"That cornerstone would be removed and in its place a cornerstone which reads, 'God has made a variety of sexualities all to be equally affirmed and celebrated.'"

5. The Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit - The first study guide, "A Message on Sexuality: Some Common Convictions," lifts up (p. 3) the conviction that "Scripture is the source and norm of our proclamation, faith, and life as a Church." This properly invokes the Lutheran Confessions, which hold that "Holy Scripture is the norming norm of faith and life." (Epitome 1. "We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged, as it is written in Ps. 119:105, 'Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.' And St. Paul says in Gal. 1:8, 'Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to him, let him be accursed.'")

We observe that we are in agreement as to Holy Scripture at this point: on the basis of the teachings of Holy Scripture one cannot make a case to endorse blessing gay or lesbian relationships or ordaining practicing gay or lesbian persons. Again, Bishop Mocko, in the same setting (as above):

"There is no biblical basis for such a theology. None. There is no way that anyone can read the books of our Scripture and conclude, 'That is what is here taught.' Efforts to make Scripture say that have been going on for over a decade. I would like to think those efforts have collapsed. Dr. Paul Jersild, after taping the debate with Dr. Meilander, off tape conceded that. So did Mark Powell, invited here as a representative of the liberal view. So did the EKD (Evangelische Kirche Deutschland) in its three-or-four-year study on the subject. There is no biblical basis for such a view."

We discussed comparing the question to the phenomenon of the role of women in the church, particularly the move to ordain women, as evidence of the Holy Spirit "leading (us) into all truth." I observed that, as to the role of women, the scripture does not speak with one voice. There are key passages (e.g., Galatians 3:28 and I Corinthians 7:3-5) that speak radically to the equality of men and women in Christ. And there are plainly diaconate and other leadership roles for women in the New Testament church. But the Bible does speak with one voice concerning homosexual behaviors: without exception they are forbidden, scorned, or condemned. And so, to this point, has the church so spoken.

We discussed as to whether one is obliged to be "led by the Spirit" in these things. Richard has the view that one must trust the Holy Spirit to lead in this matter. I cautioned that to invoke the Holy Spirit in this manner, against the teachings of the scripture, is to be on perilous exegetical and hermeneutical ground.

As to being led by the Spirit, what is needed here is the "ability to distinguish between spirits," as St. Paul names the gift. (I Cor. 12:10) Or, as St. John declares, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God." (I John 4:1) Paul warns Timothy that "the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will give heed to deceitful spirits…." (I Timothy 4:1) Is this present movement of the Heilige Geist or a piece of the Zeitgeist? What has come as impetus from the culture in the recent past has included some salutary change, including especially the civil-rights movement. The civil-rights movement called the church to shed its prejudice regarding race. The women's movement has called both the church and culture to alter its understanding toward women.

The current movement invokes a similar claim: that the church should alter its teaching regarding homosexual behavior, on grounds of justice, fairness, and acceptance. What is different in the present claim is that all relationships and behaviors are chosen. We have no choice as to our race, and, aside from radical surgical procedures, no choice as to our sex. As to the origin of sexual orientation, there is no absolute conclusion at present. It is probable that both hereditary and environmental factors are involved in shaping sexual orientation. But all intimate, intended relationships are chosen, as to constituency. All behavior is chosen. Neither biology nor environment is destiny; we have free will sufficient to choose our behavior, most especially our intentional behavior. What is being asked, in this case, is for the church to bless a certain kind of relationship (i.e., gay and lesbian) that entails sexual behavior with persons of the same sex - a venue that is condemned by the scriptures.

We need discernment, as to testing the spirits here. Is this "movement of the culture" also a movement of the Holy Spirit? How does one discern the truth amongst the claims and counter-claims, amongst feelings and teachings? Here I cite the thoughts of Marianne Howard Yoder, philosopher:

"At some point one needs to address how one can know the truth in regards to sexual behavior. Opposing voices can cite Galatians 3:28 - "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free…" What difference does it make (to God) what one's sex is or how sex is used?

"Reference has to be made not only to Christ the Redeemer, but also to God the Creator--to the divine creation with its intended purpose(s). Intended purpose as the Creator's design for sexual organs has to be connected to the context in which procreation is possible, and only that context. It is important to know and remember that one does not practice abstinence outside marriage in order to win acceptance or love from God. One does so because one is in relationship with God.

"The appropriate response to the homosexual cause is to love all persons--to uphold the commands of the Law, and to follow the teachings of Jesus. The 'unconditional love' part is where the 'neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek' part comes in. So then, one has been accepted…one is in a relationship to God. One then acts/behaves according to that relationship. God's love is unconditional, but if one abides in His love then one strives to live according to the purposes of the Creator, as declared in the Law and in the law written upon the heart (Romans 2:15). Self-control of sexual behavior is not a means to the end (the end being a relationship to God). Self-control is to keep the sixth commandment because we are in relationship to the Creator.

"One cannot separate the Logos incarnate in Christ from God the Creator from God the Holy Spirit. They are one! One cannot interpret the truth of compassion (i.e., the truth of inclusion, here) as going against the Law of the Creator Designer. One cannot have a novum of the Holy Spirit that contradicts both the Law and the teachings of Jesus. ['You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' (Matt. 5:27-28)]

"The truth of 'a novum of the Holy Spirit' has to cohere with the truth of the Creator/Designer and the truth of the teachings of Jesus. The three are One. The novum of the revisionists cannot pass the test of coherence!⁽¹⁾ Therefore this novum cannot be THE TRUTH. Or, to say it in another way (Plato's way), it does not participate in the Truth.

"If one is to be faithful to the triune God, then one cannot separate the revelation of God the Father from God the Son from God the Holy Spirit … or the revelation of God as Creator from God as Redeemer from God as Sanctifier/Advocate. If one does indeed encounter a novum of the Holy Spirit, such a discernment will not be in opposition to the revelation to Moses, et alia, and the revelation through Jesus Christ. The Oneness of the Three does not yield what is now being claimed as a novum of the Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit teach loving inclusion and acceptance followed by life in relationship with the Trinitarian God. To deny any one of God's revelations is to deny God. To deny any of God's Persons is to deny God. To discard the commands of God and/or the teachings of Jesus is to deny God. In the wholeness of God, one finds the TRUTH--about sexuality and all other matters."

6. Compassion - Richard has said more than once that he is coming from a position of compassion, especially vis-à-vis the gay and lesbian couples who are members of his congregation. What does one say, compassionately, to those whose self-understanding is sexual orientation to those of the same sex, and who has committed himself or herself to a long-term relationship? Is the church obliged to withhold a blessing, especially when so often the alternatives are to indiscriminate and/or promiscuous sex? Is it compassionate to refuse to bless this love?

As response, I am obliged to ask: was it less than compassionate for Jesus to say what He did to the rich young ruler who asked Him what he must do to have eternal life? When Jesus directs him to the commandments, the young man responds: "'Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.' And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.' At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions." (Mark 10:17-22)

The "one great possession" in this instance is the claim of legitimacy for homosexual relationships. This is what is being brought to the table for inclusion. Is it less than compassionate for the church to reject the "one great possession," the novum that the scripture does not endorse and in fact forbids? The church is accepting of persons. What is being asked is not just the acceptance of persons; what is being asked is the acceptance of a set of behaviors as defining of relationships that the scriptures expressly forbid. How does the church accept homosexuals? By receiving them in baptism, repentance, and amendment of life. What we cannot do is to bless their relationships, either in the manner of marriage (i.e., on a par with marriage), or in a "secondary" way--which, I think, they are not asking, nor would they accept.

The church is not "afraid" of homosexuals or homosexuality. The church simply cannot affirm homosexual behavior and relationships because we so fear and love God as to obey His commandments and to live as He has instructed us to live, as forgiven sinners. The church respects God's Word more than we "fear" anything in the present advocacy. The church cannot embrace or endorse the homosexual agenda because we must obey God rather than man, or the urgings of contemporary culture.

7. The study guide - As to the first study guide, it was observed early in our discussions that it is geared to "those things agreed upon," and is therefore relatively innocuous. Again, there is a counter view: in two dimensions, two key moves that the document makes, it is radically significant, not innocuous. The first is in the title, "A Message on Sexuality: Some Common Convictions." In this title the study echoes the overall assignment: ELCA Studies on Sexuality. This study follows the 1990 ELCA study to make the move, at the beginning and in principle, to separate "sexuality" from "marriage and family," as topic for discussion.

That is, "sexuality" is the principal category of discussion, considered in advance of (and, by implication, potentially apart from) marriage and the family. The Bible knows only one appropriate setting for "sexual expression": within the marriage of a husband to a wife. All other dimensions of "sexuality" are counseled as chastity or abstinence. (Not celibacy. Celibacy is a gift. Ideally, chastity; chastity is a virtue. Abstinence, on the other hand, is a discipline.) When sexuality becomes the prime category, in advance of discussing marriage and family, then the door is open already to consider other possible venues of expression. The teachings of the apostles and the prophets, in the Holy Scriptures, know only one medium for sexual expression that is God-blessed: "and God made them male and female and said, 'be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'" Sexuality is, in the scriptures, immediately linked to marriage.

In the study and in the document, "sexuality" stands alone as the prime category for consideration, with marriage (by implication) one possible dimension of sexual expression.

The second significant move by the study document is to invoke the Holy Scripture as "source and norm of our proclamation, faith, and life as a church" - and then to omit significant passages of scripture that forbid or condemn homosexual behaviors. One might assume that the title of the document explains the omissions: "some common convictions." That is, passages that forbid or condemn homosexual behaviors were omitted because "we" (as a church) do not agree on them. On them we do not share "common convictions."

But one is obliged to ask: do we disregard the scripture as "source and norm of our proclamation, faith, and life as a church" at the points where we disagree with what is said there? How thus is scripture the norm? In this instance, does not our disagreement both inform the norm and become the norm? The issue thus becomes political, subject to vote.

One cannot invoke the Holy Scripture as norm and rule for faith and life - and then proceed to omit those things that are presently disagreed upon. As if disagreement had as much weight in the matter as does the word of scripture! That is not an innocuous move! That is a radically significant move!

There may be more. There surely is more. But I stop at this point and invite your consideration.

1. See "coherence theory of truth" - "According to the coherence theory, to say that a statement (usually called a judgment) is true or false is to say that it coheres or fails to cohere with a system of other statements; that it is a member of a system whose elements are related to each other by ties of logical implication as the elements in a system of pure mathematics are related." Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 130. [In philosophy, the coherence theory is one of the two traditional theories of truth. The other main theory is the correspondence theory, which is used by the scientific community in discovering empirical factual knowledge. (i.e., A statement is true if an assertion corresponds to a fact, or facts, that are verifiable by experience. In other words, if I can see, touch, hear, etc., something, then I know it's true.)]