Living Theology
in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Volume 8, Number 1
Pentecost 2003
Human
Sexuality in the ELCA
AS I SEE IT: REASONS TO AVOID
SCHISM
Frank C. Senn
As
the ELCA pursues the study of the issues on the gay agenda laid before the 2005
Churchwide Assembly, one of the ominous things one hears is talk of a schism of
significant proportions. Proponents of the
gay agenda have been reported to have said that the ELCA may have to lose a couple of million members in order to pass
and implement this agenda. Bishop George Mocko (now retired) took to the floor
of the Delaware-Maryland Synod Assembly to warn that pursuing this agenda could
cause the ELCA to lose two-fifths of its
members and congregations. Bishop
Thomas Skrenes of the Northern Great Lakes Synod has made similar predictions
of major schism. Given the dynamics of
institutional lethargy, I find it difficult to believe that so many members
would have the gumption to leave the ELCA.
After all, only a few hundred pastors and congregations left the
Missouri Synod to form the AELC over some equally important theological and
church-political issues twenty-five years ago.
But let’s say there is potential for a really sizeable schism. Why is that the case? The ELCA has weathered a lot of controversy
in its fifteen-year history.[1] Why would sexuality be the issue that
finally breaks up the ELCA? If there is
such a crisis, what should we do? I
will suggest in this essay that we should avoid schism and stay in place. By “we” I mean not only pastors and
congregations opposed to the gay agenda but also those in favor of it, should
it not pass. I will also enumerate the benefits of this strategy?
What is the Nature of the
Crisis We Face?
No
one should minimize the seriousness of the crisis facing this Church. The crisis does not have to do with whether
Christian congregations should welcome, accept, and support gay members or
reach out to disaffected unchurched gays.
Catholic Christianity, into which we assume the ELCA fits, has always
found ways of dealing with situations that are abnormal from a theological or
church disciplinary perspective in pastorally-realistic ways. We’ve handled rampant divorce among the
laity and clergy without the need to issue statements, change standards, or
develop rites to solemnize divorces.
The crisis in our Church and other Churches is produced by the challenge
being mounted to the authority of scripture and tradition. No matter which side of the debate we are
on, we should recognize this.
First
of all, the extreme novelty of recent revisionist teaching on sexual behavior
is unique in the history of Christian thought.
More than anything else, it offers up a culturally-driven rejection of
scriptural authority. Proponents of the
gay agenda should recognize this; the proposal to overturn two thousand years
of interpretation of biblical texts would not be occurring now unless it were
culturally driven, and here I must specify that it is driven by the information
class’ cultural bias. On other issues that have challenged
traditional teaching and practices, such as the ordination of women, the
assault on Trinitarian language, and the use of quota systems to govern and
operate the Church, proponents of change could at least appeal to biblical
texts that support the positive role of women in the ministry of Jesus and
their leadership in the early church, that provide alternative names of God
(e.g. “I AM” in Exodus 3 and in the Gospel of John), and that even exemplify
affirmative action (such as the appointment of Hellenistic deacons (Acts 6) to answer the complaints of Hellenistic
widows). But there is nothing within
the Bible which counters or even softens the strictures against same-sex
behavior in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18-22) and the use of this Code by
Jesus and Paul.[2] So the revisionist ethic being proposed to
justify blessing same-sex unions and therefore to ordain to Holy Ministry men
and women living in such relationships requires endorsing hermeneutics
practiced in the so-called “queer reading of the Bible.”[3] Even the advocates of this reading must
recognize that in a church that appeals to the authority of Scripture alone,
any major change of practice based on contentious hermeneutics is bound to
threaten to rupture the fellowship of such a church.
Secondly,
the reasons that seem to lie behind the revisionist reading of the Bible
(reasons based on controlling definitions of “justice,” “love,” and
“inclusion”) are so distant from the particularistic words and actions of Jesus
in the gospels that the revealed Christ seems to have become the servant of
some greater principle that transcends him.
We are being presented with an ideal (even a gnostic) Jesus rather than
the actual Christ who meets us in the Gospels, a Christ who did not just accept
everybody and anything without the need for transformation (see the parable of
the wedding garment in Matthew 22:11-14) and who did lay requirements of
self-denial on his disciples.
Thirdly,
many Christians around the world, certainly Roman Catholics and Eastern
Orthodox, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, but also and especially Christians in
the Southern world (the fast-growing part of global Christianity), perceive the
threat clearly. Yet many Christians in
the Northern Churches (in Europe and North America) seem oblivious to it, or
don’t want to have to deal with it head-on because we can’t bring ourselves to
risk offending anyone. (I’ve sometimes
thought that if the gay agenda passes the Churchwide Assembly, no matter what
the Study Commission proposes, it will be because Midwestern Lutherans, who
control the majority of the votes, cannot not be nice; that is, we can’t
bring ourselves to be judgmental except against people who make judgments.)
So
there is a genuine culturally-produced crisis of faith in the Church. As regards the gay agenda, it almost
certainly will produce a schism (although I will not hazard the
arithmetic). What do we do in the face
of a threat of schism, including one that might be perpetrated by
ourselves? (Yes, we do write e-mails on
discussion lists about where we will go if the ELCA does such-and-such.) The answer, as I see it, is: we remain in
place.
Why Should We Remain in
Place?
This
is going to require a little excursus into an area that is unfamiliar territory
for most Lutherans---ecclesiology.
The
church exists only where the body of Christ is incarnated in actual
flesh-and-blood assemblies for word and sacrament. These local assemblies are connected to one another through area,
regional, provincial, and global structures.
Ideally, every local assembly should be connected in full communion with
every other local assembly around the world.
That would testify to the full unity of the body of Christ. But, in fact, the body of Christ has divided
over theological and cultural differences.
Major seismic fault lines occurred in the fifth century between the
Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches, in the eleventh century between the
Greek Orthodox East and the Latin Catholic West, in the sixteenth century in
the West between Catholics and Protestants, and ever since then within
Protestantism whenever someone didn’t like a doctrine or a practice and started
his or her own church.
Local assemblies are now grouped into denominational families that, for the most part, are not in full communion with one another. No one denomination can really claim to be “the true church.” A “true church” would have to embody the “notes” of the church listed in the Nicene Creed. The true church must be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” But even the Roman Catholic Church is but one denomination among others; it is not in unity with all Christian assemblies, it does not have a corner on saintliness, it is not so “Catholic” as to embrace in one fellowship all Christians, and it is too “Roman” for many. No church can be the true church, or even “a” true church, if it lacks some quantity or quality of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. So we are not in a true church now in the ELCA, and no church we would form if we left the ELCA could be a true church. Like the ELCA, it would possess some things and lack other things, it would be right about some things and wrong about other things. It would be living in sin because it has contributed to the further rupturing of the unity of the body of Christ.
This
may seem like a radical perspective. My
own reluctant recognition that this is, lamentably, our present ecclesiological
situation was reinforced by Ephraim Radner, The
End of the Church.[4] This book is VERY dense reading. It marshalls a massive amount of data and
employs a breathtaking interpretation of that data which concludes that the
Spirit has abandoned the Church (or at least the Church of the West). I’m not following Radner’s argument here in
all its details. But basically, Radner
says that a church divided is untenable. The church must be healed of its
divisions and that requires repentance.
The Holy Spirit has brought us to faith within a divided church, and we
must learn to live out our faith using the disciplines of repentance that alone
can heal the fractured body of Christ.
One of those penitential disciplines is to remain in place and suffer
for the sins and errors of others, as well as for our own. He recommends this strategy for his fellow
Episcopalians; I recommend it for my fellow Lutherans.
So
the first answer to the question of “why stay?” is that we have nowhere better
to go, especially not if it is to a church of
our own devising. We were brought into
a particular church by baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ. While we await our resurrection, we bear the
cross of Christ by living in his divided body.
This is the biblical model.
There are disagreements that are dealt with in various ways in Acts,
within Paul’s letters, and in the Johannine literature. In no case is schism recommended, not even
for the sake of the truth. On the
contrary, the schismatics in 1 John are castigated for their lack of love in
departing from the fellowship.
Given
the example of 1 John, there might be a possible exception to this counsel to
stay in the ELCA. For confessional
reasons Lutherans could go to the Roman Catholic Church. Such a transfer would be a personal gesture
toward healing the breach of the sixteenth century, such as Pastor Richard John
Neuhaus took. Such a transfer would be
a way of personally acting on the conviction expressed in the Preface to the
Augsburg Confession that “we on our part shall not omit doing anything, in so
far as God and conscience allow, that may serve the cause of Christian unity.”[5] This principle is generally true, but the
particular unity that was threatened in 1530 was the unity of the Holy Roman
Church. The reformers would not of
their own volition create schism.
But
there are two other equally honorable reasons for staying in place. One reason
for pastors staying is to be faithful to their call. In most cases this is a call to a local congregation or assembly
for word and sacrament. Congregations need pastors who will faithfully proclaim
the word of God in season and out.
Congregations need pastors who can sometimes shield them from
denominational aberrations that put the faithful in bad faith while also
finding every possible way to keep the members connected to their
denominational family.
The
other reason for staying is to be faithful to one’s ordination vows even if
what we promised to do should no longer be supported in the denomination in
which we serve. Since the ELCA is only
fifteen years old, most of us pastors were ordained in other church bodies that
no longer exist. But since those
previous church bodies and their traditions were absorbed into the ELCA, our
vows and our ordination to the Holy Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments
remains in force.
What Are the Benefits of
Staying in Place?
First,
we would cultivate virtues that produce Christian character. Those virtues include courage, patience,
perseverance, long-suffering, mourning, peaceableness, meekness, etc., which
merit the blessings of the kingdom of heaven.
One of the beatitudes is being persecuted for the cause of
righteousness.
Second,
we would have opportunities to witness to the truth of the word of God and to
the reliability of the traditional Christian teaching. A witness is one who tells what he
knows. The biblical word for “witness,”
of course, is martyria.
Witnessing in both senses might be required of those who cannot accept
the church’s gay agenda. We will
continue to preach the word of God and teach the catholic tradition, and will
probably be able to do so unhindered by church authorities as long as we are
“in place” and have the support of our congregations. On the other hand, opportunities for new calls or ways to serve
in synods and the ELCA will probably be restricted if the gay agenda becomes
the law of this Church. If what is
happening elsewhere happens in the ELCA, adherence to gay practices will be
enforced much more vigorously than preaching and teaching in conformity with
the doctrines of the church. If the gay agenda passes into church policy, there
could be martyrs. Just wait until some pastor, as a matter of conscience,
refuses to officiate at the blessing of a same-sex union of his or her church
members.
Third,
by remaining in dialogue with one’s fellow pastors and church members one
remains open to the possibility of finding a way through the current impasse to
some new insight. While it is hard for me
to conceive that there could be new insights into human sexuality that would
overturn the church’s traditional teaching, it is possible that we could learn
something we did not know before on the matter if we continue to challenge one
another with solid data and sound arguments.
Of course, this depends on the church remaining a community where real
discussion of the issues is still a possibility.
Fourth,
by staying in place we may have opportunities to be ministers of reconciliation
as we proclaim God’s word and enact God’s mercy. We can go to bat for seminarians who refuse to serve internships
under pastors living in committed same-sex relationships. We can provide
encouragement to congregations who are in crisis over the calling of a
pastor. We can show real compassion to
gay church members by counseling them to embrace the life of celibacy in
obedience to the call of Jesus to discipleship. This cannot happen unless we
remain in place and bind ourselves to pastor even to those who may have hard things to say to us.
In the face of the threat of schism, I recommend staying in place. For reasons I have given, I think entering into schism would be as erroneous as adopting the gay agenda. In the days to come as we continue to deal with these issues before this Church let us “oppose them to their face” as Paul did with Peter (Galatians 2:11), and even confront those at headquarters, as Paul also did; but let us not break fellowship.
[1]. The ELCA came into being with noted sociologist
Peter Berger warning of a slide into apostasy.
See “American Lutheranism at the Crossroads,” dialog 27 (1988),
90-97 and the responses in this symposium.
[2]. See William J. Webb, Slaves,
Women, and Homosexuals. Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001).
[3]. For queer theory in biblical interpretation see Ken
Stone, ed., Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible
(Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000); Robert Goss, “A Queer Biblical Hermeneutics,”
in Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 87-111;
Robert E. Goss and Mona West, eds. Take Back the
Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000).
[4]. Ephraim Radner, The End
of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West
(Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998).
[5]. The Book of Concord,
ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 26.