Living Theology in
the Metropolitan
Volume 9, Number 1
Spring 2004
The Vocation of the Laity
Usually I start a lecture by telling the audience how happy I
am to be there. This time I cannot say
that. I am unhappy about having to make
this lecture. I would prefer to lecture on
the Christian life as it is depicted in the new edition of my book Ordinary
Saints, but when I got to the chapter on marriage and family life, this
topic would come up. It would even be
safer to lecture about Christian higher education, which I talk about a lot
more than I talk about this subject. And
I enjoy that immensely because I think most Christians of good will want to
keep our colleges Christian in some sort of meaningful way. Unfortunately, that is not our topic.
I am unhappy because I have to argue for teachings that I
thought were stable and settled, since they have been accepted throughout
Christian history by 99% of the world’s churches. I would much prefer to live in a religious
communion that is not contemplating voting down moral teachings of such
duration and universality in a week-long Churchwide
assembly, where 40% of the assembly will be at their first assembly. I believe it is highly improper to subject
core doctrine to democratic vote.
I am even more unhappy because a
vote to revise these teachings will place many of us in different churches
after 2005. We will no longer be in
communion with one another, or, if we still are, it will be a vastly different
kind of relationship. Friends of long
duration will be separated by a big divide.
But the fact of the matter is that the issue has been raised
powerfully by many persons within the ELCA.
What has been presumed must now be argued, no matter how painful that
might be. And since so many are fearful
of arguing for traditional Christian moral teachings (it is a bizarre fact that
those standing for the tradition feel intimidated in various ways!!), someone
has to. And for this time and place, it
is I.
I want to place my argument in two contexts that are very
important for me. The first is that I
believe the move to capitulate on important Christian moral teachings is a sign
of further accommodation to a culture that has few moral restraints, one that
is very close to license. Anything goes
between consenting adults, particularly if the activities are kept
private. The liberal Protestant churches
are following this trend, refusing to stand up for a more challenging and lofty
sexual ethic. Those churches are in
decline because they offer little that people can’t get from the culture. They have lost interest in and zeal for the
Gospel and are far more interested in the social and political convictions of
the secular elite. They are squishy on
doctrine and personal ethics; dogmatic on political and social issues. They send fewer missionaries abroad and start
fewer churches at home. They cannot hold
their youth, and they have fewer of them.
I fear that the ELCA is being drawn into this liberal
Protestant drift. In many ways, the
proposals to morally legitimate homosexual behavior are the last straw for many
people, myself included, who view these proposals as a headlong rush toward the
Episcopalians, Unitarians, Reformed Jews, and the United Church of Christ, all
of whom have accepted the homosexual agenda.
They are the most accommodated, and therefore generally declining,
religious groups. I am deeply saddened
that a Lutheran confessional church would even consider following such a
trajectory.
The issue of liberal Protestant drift leads to the second
context for my remarks, which is the general laxity in teaching and practice
concerning heterosexual morality in our own church. It is a legitimate point that gays and
lesbian make when they point out that we have accepted and accommodated to all sorts
of heterosexual shenanigans but now want to draw the line at homosexual
behavior. I share their indignation but
come to quite different conclusions. I
was shocked when we had our first divorced bishop, which I do not think should
be allowed. I am shocked when pastors
divorce and do not miss a Sunday in the pulpit.
I am irked when we fail to teach that “true love waits” and when we
accept cohabitation as easily as the secular society around us. Our accommodation to culture gives our people
little of a wholesome and challenging alternative. If we are to hold the line with gays and
lesbians, we also are obligated to teach a more demanding sexual morality for
everyone. But I fear that we do not have
the courage to do that, and therefore we will have few grounds for resisting
the homosexual agenda.
We need a renewed commitment to the grand teachings of
Christianity on these matters, beginning with a retrieval of our doctrine of
marriage, around which all Christian sexual ethics revolve.
I cannot go into a comprehensive account of Christian
marriage as I have done in Chapter Seven of Ordinary Saints. But I must make some summary statements.
In the creation account God makes man and woman in his
image. They are two complementary parts
of God’s image. They fit together
physically, biologically, emotionally, and spiritually. To overcome their loneliness and to provide
the continuation of the species, they are given the primal covenant of
marriage. In marriage a man and woman
are regarded as a single organism, “one flesh.” Sexual relations are reserved
for that covenant. As C.S. Lewis
remarked, the Christian rule is simple: “Either marriage, with complete
faithfulness to your spouse, or else total abstinence.”
There is a prescribed biological form that underlies the
Christian notion of marriage. A woman
and a man are to become one flesh in marriage.
Quite frankly, such an arrangement is the way—and the only
way—provided by the Creator for perpetuating the species, which is why it is so
important. We are forbidden sexual
relations outside the marital bond and its biological form. The Old and New Testaments agree that we are
forbidden sexual relations with those too close to us, incest, those too
different from us, bestiality, those for whom there is too great a gap
in maturity, pedophilia, and for those too much like us,
homosexuality. That sense of limits is
deeply embedded in the Bible and in Christian tradition.
Jesus strongly assumes and affirms this whole tradition when
he speaks of marriage in Matthew 19: “Have you not read that he who made them
from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh?’ What therefore God has joined together, let no man put
asunder.”
Paul likens marriage love to Christ’s love for the church and
God’s love for
There is no trace of any material in the Bible or in the
tradition that affirms homosexual relations as pleasing to God or as an equally
valid alternative to heterosexual relations.
All mention of homosexual behavior is negative, not like the many mixed
references to slavery, women’s leadership in the Bible, and extending the
mission of the gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles. Furthermore, the normative structure of sexual
relations in the Bible is always heterosexual, an overwhelming and pervasive
assumption that is not challenged by anyone, including Jesus.
All this was accepted as the settled teaching of all
Christian churches until recently. From
within the churches themselves have arisen
persons—both homosexual and heterosexual—who believe the traditional teaching
to be wrong, unloving, and unfair. Among
that movement are biblical scholars and theologians who have challenged the
settled teachings that seem to come from the Bible. They have argued on a number of fronts that a
common sense reading of the Bible is not as compelling as people have thought. A major effort has been made to relativize the Bible’s teachings on these matters.
Further, they have argued, since the Bible does not say what
it seems to say, the whole Christian moral tradition has gotten it wrong. That tradition now needs revision to include
loving, committed homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. If that change can be made, the next step is
to bless homosexual unions and ordain homosexuals in partnered relationships.
These arguments sparked quite a counterattack. After most of the dust has settled, it seems
clear that even the revisionists admit that one cannot change the moral
tradition on the basis of the Bible or Christian tradition. One major player in the debate, George Hunsinger, a Reformed theologian at
Lutheran Paul Jersild, who also believes
our moral teachings should be revised, said this in his paper entitled “On
Homosexuality: The Need for Reassessment”: “There is no question that the Bible
and Christian tradition have overwhelmingly if not uniformly understood as
conveying a negative judgment of homosexuality.
There is no point in trying to argue that Scripture does not in fact
deliver a negative judgment on this subject.”
Walter Wink, a revisionist professor from Union Seminary in
These concessions have been offered after revisionist
biblical scholars tried to argue that Paul did not know about consensual
homosexual sex (he did because there was much of it in the ancient world), that
ancients did not know about a homosexual orientation (they did, but did not
call it by that name), that the Sodom texts were not about homosexual behavior
but about inhospitality (they were about both inhospitality and homosexual
rape), that the strictures about homosexual behavior are merely part of
holiness and purity requirements (they aren’t since Christians accepted them
along with the strictures on incest and bestiality. 89 of the 94 verses in Leviticus 18 are moral
injunctions that Christians accepted.)
Nor have the analogies to slavery, women’s status in the
church, or the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles helped in the efforts to
legitimate homosexual behavior. In all
those cases there are already in the biblical materials themselves sources for
revision. The Bible testifies against
itself. When Paul tells Philemon that he
should treat Onesimus as a Christian brother, slavery
is undermined. When many women are named
as leaders in early Christian communities, exclusively male leadership is
susceptible to challenge. When Jesus
heals the child of the Samaritan woman and makes the Samaritan the hero in one
of his most famous parables, the exclusion of Gentiles from the gospel of Jesus
is undercut. But where is there any
evidence of such contrary testimony with regard to homosexuality?
So the question is about the authority of the Bible. We cannot interpret this negativity
away. It is not about hermeneutics or
about how Lutherans interpret the Bible.
We can revise our teachings but the new teachings will be against the
biblical witness, not merely a reinterpretation of that witness.
Moreover, hardly anyone argues that Christian moral tradition
is a resource for change. As I said
before, there seems to be unanimity there.
So what is left for those who want to go against the testimony of
scripture and tradition? It seems that
all want to appeal to our oneness in Christ, our compassion, our commitment to inclusivity, our sense of fairness. I am certainly moved by those appeals but am
compelled in another direction by the combined witness of the Bible and
Christian tradition, including the Lutheran heritage.
Let it be clear that the gospel is addressed to all persons,
including homosexuals. We are all
recipients of the grace of God in Christ.
Before God no one can stand on his or her own, and before God all are
exalted in Christ if they believe in his promises. That is the gospel. But the gospel makes no sense without the Law
that articulates the commands of God, which are the source of both our
repentance and our discipleship. God
accepts us not because of who we are and how we behave, but in spite of who we are and how we behave. But we who receive the gospel are to live lives
of obedient love, a love ordered by the commandments of God. And the commandments of God, as I have shown
above, simply do not leave much wiggle-room as far as the normative teaching of
the church goes. Pastoral matters, as I
shall deal with presently, are another matter.
The
arguments I have made above for supporting traditional teachings on sexual
morality are theological and biblical in nature. These are the most important arguments, because
we must build our case for stability or change on the basis of biblical and
theological arguments. However, there
are many more practical arguments that need to be noted. I will elaborate five of them. I will end with a combined argument of biblical/theological
and practical reasons that I believe is conclusive.
First, we will split the church if we decide to bless
homosexual unions and ordain homosexuals in partnered relationships. A large number of congregations will
leave. (In the ELCA each congregation
owns its property and can leave the ELCA.
Only when it disbands does the property go to the Synod or the
ELCA. This is quite different than the
situation with Episcopal parishes, which revert to the diocese if the
congregation chooses to leave the Episcopal Church. And even with that provision, the
Episcopalians are experiencing a firestorm, and that
in a church that is far less respectful of the Bible and theology than the
Lutheran.) Perhaps more ELCA
congregations will simply withdraw support.
They will treat the ELCA and its Synods as one other association to
which they have to pay token dues, but not the church. Conservative synods may bolt in toto. It is hard
to imagine what will happen.
Many intense Lutherans will press their churches to leave,
or, failing that, find other churches that maintain biblical and traditional
teachings. Research indicates that the
most intense Lutherans are conservative on these issues and give the most to
the church. Their loss will be very
damaging.
Pastors will be put in the painful position of wondering
whether they can stay in the ELCA. Some
have already left. Others vow they will. Many others will be pressed to
decide.
Things
will really get dicey when the church begins to teach children in Sunday
Schools throughout the land that homosexual relations are equivalent to
heterosexual. Laypersons may well
tolerate a good deal of slack in adult behavior, but when it comes to teaching
their children it will be entirely another matter. Young people have enough difficulty finding a
solid sexual identity without the church giving confusing messages.
Second, we will distance ourselves from the great ecumenical
consensus on these matters held by Catholics, Orthodox, evangelicals, and even
most mainstream Protestant denominations.
We will join declining religious groups who have had a sorry record of
doctrinal and ethical laxity. The
Episcopalians could not bring themselves to chastise the heretical Bishop John Spong but have brought themselves to ordain a gay
Bishop. So much for
trusting overmuch in bishops. If
we really want to be like them, let’s bless gay unions and ordain partnered
homosexuals. As for me, movement toward
them and away from the orthodox bodies would be appalling.
Third, we will continue to contribute to the general
undermining of the Christian vision of marriage, as we
already have done in a massive fashion.
The church’s acceptance of the society’s approach to “no-fault” divorce
has done its nefarious work. It will not
be possible to hold the distinction between “blessing” and “marrying”
homosexuals in the church, just as heterosexuals have blurred the line between
cohabitation and marriage. Blessing gay
unions will also tend to qualify the requirement of sexual fidelity that guides
heterosexual marriage. A goodly share of
gay Christian men holds that requirement in contempt. Andrew Sullivan, the gay Catholic gadfly, for
example, argues that gays will help redefine marriage by making it more
open. Both cohabitation and such blessing
will offer a number of different versions of being together; marriage will be
one option among others in both church and society. An objective institution will be defined by
individual preference. So much for the Holy Estate.
Fourth, we cannot rely on the social or psychological
sciences for conclusive evidence on any of these issues. Even the Kinsey claim that 10% of the male
population is gay turns out to be propaganda.
But even responsible social scientists are badly divided on these
matters. As regards there being a “gay
gene” or “gay brain,” which is cited by many activists to claim that
homosexuals were made the way they are, the scientist, Simon Levay, who originally proposed the idea, and who is himself
gay, says: “It is important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is
genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.
I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake made
in interpreting my work. Nor did I
locate a gay center in the brain.” (Discover 15:3, 4-7).
The origin of homosexuality is murky, but it seems clear that
a certain portion of homosexuals can move toward heterosexuality if they are
strongly motivated. The scientist that
originally proposed that homosexuality be taken off the list of psychological
disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in the early 70s, Robert
Spitzer, now argues that some homosexuals can change. Mert Strommen, our distinguished Lutheran social scientist, says
that research indicates that homosexuals can be “healed” in the same
percentages as those with other problems—one third cannot change, one third can
change with continuing struggle, and one third can make a thorough revision of
their orientation and behavior. But this
viewpoint has been strongly suppressed in the church. Exodus International, a Christian group
dedicated to the “healing” of homosexuals, was kicked off the premises of the
Metropolitan DC Synod Assembly a few years back.
Whether science can ever prove the causes of homosexuality is
somewhat beside the point from a theological perspective. From that perspective, homosexuality is
“disordered and imperfect,” to use Catholic language. It is a symptom of the fallen creation, not
God’s intention, at least as it has been revealed in the Bible and the church’s
moral tradition. Therefore, we ought to
give as many as desire it a chance to move away from a way of life that, even
under the best conditions, has negative effects on health and longevity.
Fifth, I believe that the blessing of homosexual unions and
ordaining partnered homosexuals will repel heterosexual men from the church and
especially from the ordained ministry. We can learn something from the great Catholic
fiasco of recent years—the misbehavior of gay Catholic priests toward adolescent
boys. Some Catholic seminaries evidently
tolerated a “culture of dissent” among their faculty and students. Priests broke their vows of obedience and
celibacy and engaged in sex among themselves but later also with adolescent
boys, with disastrous effects.
Heterosexual priests were often deterred and repelled from the
priesthood in those seminaries. A
similar trajectory could happen in Lutheran seminaries, which already have a
difficult time recruiting quality male candidates.
In summary, I believe it is clear that the Bible and the
church’s tradition speak clearly on the issues before us. They voice strong moral disapproval of
homosexual behavior. There are also many
practical reasons—-I have offered five of them—that should make us think twice
about blessing homosexual unions and ordaining partnered homosexuals.
It seems to me the clinching argument is this: There must be
overwhelming arguments—biblically and confessionally
based—for the overturning of a moral teaching of such universality and
duration. Even though we might wish it
to be the case, the arguments put forth thus far are not overwhelming, to say
the least. We simply cannot change such
moral teachings with the arguments and evidence that are currently
available. Perhaps someday, but I think
not.
While I think it would be unwise and wrong for the ELCA to
change its public teaching and policies on these issues, it is important to be
pastorally as compassionate as possible.
We all commit sins and rely upon the gracious tolerance of the church to
include us. Such a policy of gracious
tolerance should also be extended to the Christian homosexuals among
us. They indeed are our brothers and
sisters, children, and friends.
As with all sin, though, forgiveness follows repentance and leads
to efforts to follow God’s Commandments.
The church should continue to call those who are homosexual by
orientation—whatever its provenance or duration—to a “heroic” response. That is, they should be called to practice
sexual abstinence, sublimating their sexual energies into other pursuits. Heterosexual singles ought to be held to the
same standard. The church has long
honored such responses and should continue to do so. Indeed, such a “heroic” response ought to be
the only one for persons who want to be ordained in the ELCA.
It would be naďve to argue that this can be the church’s only
response for lay Christians. In our
present culture, some lay Christians who are homosexual by orientation will
engage in sexual relations with members of their own sex. Some will act promiscuously but others will
seek more stable unions. Many
homosexuals will remain “in the closet” and participate incognito in church
life, but others will insist that the church formally recognize their sexual
identity and bless their unions. Gays
and lesbians of all sorts of persuasion are present in our churches, and there
seems to be widespread confusion about the church’s proper pastoral response to
this fact. Given the normative teaching
outlined above, what pastoral strategy toward homosexuals should be adopted by
churches and Christian individuals?
As mentioned above, I would propose a strategy of gracious
tolerance. By “gracious”
I mean that the church—both clergy and lay—should greet all persons coming into
the fellowship of the church with a warm welcome. After all, we are a company of forgiven
sinners. Many homosexuals who prefer to
keep their sexual identity private will accept this welcome and participate
fully in the life of the church. Many
who are in partnered relationships may also wish to keep the sexual nature of
their friendships hidden or unclear.
As long as such persons do not openly violate or flaunt the
normative teachings of the church, they should also be greeted and accepted
graciously. The church can even affirm
the rich elements of friendship in their ongoing relationship, though not its
sexual elements. The latter need not be
revealed or probed. The church does not
probe others who do not live up to the moral ideals of the church. Kindliness, inclusion, and support would be
the order of the day in these cases, as it is for all the church’s
members. Repentance, forgiveness, and
amendment of life should be left for homosexuals to work out privately, as is
the case for other persons who struggle with the moral demands of the Christian
life.
For those who are struggling with sexual identity in their
lives, “graciousness” would mean first of all an effort to help them sort out
who they are and who they wish to become.
Though some homosexuals seem irretrievably caught in their same-sex
desires, many young people are simply confused about their sexual
identities. Some have been seduced by
older men. It is gracious in these cases
to help them move toward heterosexual desires so that they can grow in that
direction in their prospective sexual relationships. For those persons who have inclinations
toward same-sex desires but who want to move toward a heterosexual identity,
various therapies may be helpful. For
both these kinds of persons, it is particularly important that the public
teaching of the church affirm heterosexual norms.
For those who seem “fixed” in their orientation, it is
consistent with our argument above to counsel abstinence. Like other singles, homosexuals are called to
refrain from sexual relations. In cases
in which abstinence is not being observed, it is gracious privately and
tentatively to encourage sexual fidelity within committed friendships. Such an arrangement is far better than the
dangerous promiscuity practiced by a significant portion of the homosexual
subculture. From a Christian point of
view, it is the lesser of evils. But
their sexual relations are still disordered and imperfect, even though other
elements in their friendship are admirable.
It is important continually to hold up the Christian ideal before such
homosexual pairs. Perhaps in time they
can work toward celibate friendships.
Perhaps some may wish to engage in reparative therapy. This gradual process assumes a strong
pastoral commitment to such pairs.
Without that the pastoral counsel will sound simply as judgmental
hectoring.
It would be disastrously wrong publicly to bless such
arrangements. It would send too many
wrong messages to the church. To those
who regard homosexual relations as sinful, it would signal that the church
blesses sin. To those who are struggling
with their own sexual identity, it would put an imprimatur on desires and
activities they need to resist.
Opposition to public blessing reminds us that there are limits to the
church’s graciousness. Those limits have
to do with tolerance, the second word in our phrase, “gracious tolerance.”
Tolerance does not mean that anything goes, as our permissive
culture tends to view it. Tolerance,
while it suggests a liberal and open-minded attitude toward persons whose
beliefs and actions are different from one’s own, also denotes forbearance and
endurance. Tolerance, therefore, has its
limits. (A bridge, for example,
tolerates a certain tonnage but no more.)
We tolerate—that is, we forbear and endure—beliefs and actions that
diverge from our own. However, if
certain beliefs and actions violate our core convictions, we do not tolerate
them. We oppose them and act against
them. And properly so; personal
integrity and courage are at stake. On
the other hand, our level of tolerance is more elastic with regards to beliefs
and actions that go counter to our less central or peripheral values, such as
preferences, tastes, or opinions.
The church, like individuals, can tolerate all sorts of opinions
and practices that involve peripheral matters. It can allow a great deal of latitude on how
Christians should apply Christian moral teachings to issues of public
policy. It can tolerate a number of
forms of worship and preaching. It can
tolerate sharp disagreements about practical matters that, while important, are
not essential to the core teaching and practices of the church. It can even tolerate many persons whose
behavior is out of line with its teaching.
Indeed, it can—and must—-tolerate all of us sinners who fall short of
what the commandments of God demand. In
a sense we are all tolerated by the church.
However, the church is the Body of Christ and responsible for
maintaining its apostolic witness. It is
entrusted by its Lord with the gospel—the full-blown Trinitarian faith, as well
as with the central practices that follow from it. Certainly the commandments are included in
its moral core. Therefore, direct,
public challenges in word and deed to its core convictions and practices simply
cannot be tolerated. Challenges
to the tradition’s teaching on homosexuality are directed at that core.
This does not mean that those core convictions and practices
cannot be discussed and debated. There
must be a zone of freedom where persons can carry on spirited conversation on
central issues that are puzzling or even offensive to them. The youth of the church must be allowed to
ask questions about those key issues.
Such a zone should be provided in the educational program of the
church. At regional and national levels
of the church there is room for such discussion. But the proliferation of opinions at that
level should not confuse or qualify the normative teaching of the church in its
preaching or catechesis. At the level of
normative, official teaching and preaching, the church has a tradition to
convey clearly and confidently. Official
representatives of the church are obligated to preserve and convey that
tradition until it is officially changed, and on core issues, that change can
only come after decades of reflection, discussion, and prayer.
With regard to these sexuality issues, the church
cannot tolerate significant “cultures of dissent” that publicly impugn the
teaching of the church by contrary teaching and behavior. Permissiveness toward such dissenters makes
the church appear hypocritical, ineffectual, or unwilling to hold dissenters
accountable to its moral teachings. In
recent years it has led to crises of sexual misconduct in both Protestantism
and Catholicism. Likewise, if it is to
be one church, it cannot tolerate public repudiation of its teachings by
individual congregations or synods. Nor
can it tolerate a compromise in which both the traditional and the revisionist
perspectives officially co-exist, for that means that the teaching of the
church has indeed changed; there is no normative perspective on these
matters. The one church must maintain
its unified, normative tradition in a disciplined fashion until it is changed.
Finally, the church cannot tolerate relentless and
unceasing challenges to its normative teaching on sexuality. Such is the route to depletion and
decrease. There has to be an agreement
that its settled convictions cannot be challenged indefinitely. Once a church has re-affirmed its teaching,
there has to be a decent interval of surcease from continued challenges.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the normative issues—what
we ought to teach—are clear. We should
hold to our tradition’s teaching on sexual ethics. A break with teachings of such duration and universality
would be a very, very serious matter...a traumatic one. Arguments for revision are simply not so
compelling as to overthrow the moral presumption held by millennia and billions
of Christians. The case has not been
made.
But there is great room for pastoral compassion and even
flexibility—-gracious tolerance. As one
pastor put it, “I dearly wish the ELCA would support its traditional teaching
but allow us to deal with these issues in our own parish contexts.”
Robert
Benne, Director