From
Let's Talk
Living Theologyin the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Volume 8, Number 2
Summer 2003
Human Sexuality in the ELCA:
Perspectives on the Struggle
“A DramaticMixture of Brokenness and Grace”
FaithfulConversation: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, ed.James M. Childs Jr. Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 2003. viii + 132pp. $9.00.
A Commentary by way of a Review
Gregory Holmes Singleton
I had intended to write areview, not a commentary flowing from a review. Furthermore, the review taking shape in my head wasnegative. I now begin this review fullyaware that I will have more to say after a brief assessment of Faithful Conversation, and I willcommend this collaborative effort to all who want to seriously struggle withthe two issues before the ELCA concerning homosexuality. The reason this took a radically differentshape has everything to do with the first sentence in the book and the lasttwo. The Forward, attributedcorporately to the Conference of ELCA Seminary Presidents (who commissioned thework), begins, “A wise pastor once noted that ‘Life is a dramatic mixture ofbrokenness and grace.’” (p. vii) TheAuthors Forum at the end of the volume concludes with editor James Childs’summing up: “ . . .a lot of the anxietythat one encounters in the church about what we are going to do, or how we aregoing to go through this thing, does not give the Holy Spirit enoughcredit. I think we should expect a lotfrom the Spirit—I do.” (p. 132) Themore I thought about these book-end statements, the more I began to learn fromessays that are flawed, but not without glimpses of grace.
Of the five essays in the volume, only one (by James Nestingen)expresses serious doubt that the Church can in good faith perform unionblessings or ordain candidates who are in committed same-sexrelationships. Nestingen does not sayanything that would support the previous sentence as a paraphrase, but hisconcluding passage does allow one to make a shrewd guess: “Having examined the Lutheran heritage, inits early writings and its authoritative interpretation, it is impossible toavoid the conclusion drawn by Wolfhart Pannenberg. . .that a Church thatrejects the traditional teaching on homosexual practice can be neitherevangelical nor Lutheran, no matter what it calls itself.” (pp. 56-57) This would seem to close the door onfurther conversation, but a careful reading of Nestingen’s argument up to thatpoint will reveal his invitation to delve into our confessions bothhistorically and systematically and bring them into our present discourse on atopic the Reformers could not have envisioned. Nestingen proves an excellent guide, and his intellectually honest developmentleaves room for others to take the same trip and come out at a differentplace. For this reader, his argumentwas not compelling enough to keep me from searching for a way I can say yes tothese measures and still remain in the Apostolic tradition, but it wascompelling enough to remind me that, in spite of my great desire to do so, I amnot able to say yes, given my understanding of Apostolic faith.1
The other essays, while notspecifically endorsemeents of the two measures under consideration, certainlypoint to possibilities Nestingen does not admit. These include Mark Allen Powell’s useful overview of the biblicalpassages concerning homosexuality and a brief exercise in using the Gospel tonorm those passages. While he does holdopen the possibility for union blessings, he insists that the Gospel compelsthe homosexual seeking the blessing of the Church to not ask, “What am Iallowed to do?” The question, accordingto Powell, must be “How can I please God, whom I love and want to serve?” “Thus,” argues Powell, homosexual coupleswho seek the Church’s blessing “should only do so with a sincere convictionthat they will be able to serve and love God best within such a relationship.”(p. 39) In a similar argument, MarthaEllen Stortz reminds us that any discussion of Christian Sexuality should startwith our baptismal status and reminds us that Paul admonished the Christians inCorinth not to accommodate to the culture around them, for “What you do withyour bodies affects the body of Christ! Conform them to Christ’s Body!” (p. 71)
Even the essays with which Iwas initially unimpressed have taken on new instructive meaning once I acceptedthem as contributions to an ongoing conversation. For example, I take issue with Richard J. Perry, Jr., and JoseDavid Rodriguez. In their discussion ofmulticultural implications for these two issues, they do not adequatelyconsider the possibility that the Gospel generates a culture of its own. Indeed they seem to accept multiplecultural perspectives as part of the order of creation rather than aconsequence of our fallen and fragmented state. Nevertheless they do make the useful point that cultural nuancesare part of the terrain we negotiate in the world, and that is a factor in ourongoing discussions of sexuality. Dennis Olson’s use of scientific studies of anger in comparison with thescientific evidence on homosexuality is less than convincing, bothmethodologically and substantively. Nocase is made for anger and homosexuality sharing similar characteristics thatwould warrant such a comparison. Nevertheless, he provides a useful discussion of why scientific evidenceis important but not definitive for Christians.
James Childs’ introductionprovides a framework for discussions that may be stimulated by theseessays. Our discourse on these matters,he argues, must be faithful to the mission of the Church, to Scripture, and toChristian Tradition. He adds that we must also be faithful inengaging one another. Whatever theshortcomings of any given essay, the authors keep within these guidelines anddemonstrate effective Christian engagement with each other in the Author’sForum at the end of the book. TheForum, indeed, provides some of the book’s most valuable insights. The seven authors with significantlydifferent perspectives find common ground in a rejection of a cluster ofsecular trends, including egoistic individualism and hedonism. Those disposed toward positive action on thetwo issues before the ELCA make it clear that if those actions are to be takenit must be within and subservient to the context of a renewed commitment to ourcorporate identity as those who have been called, baptized, and sent. Not one of the authors suggests that theongoing discourse is about rights. Throughout the essays and the Forum it is clear that the integrity ofthe Gospel and the Church are the major concern.
This book will satisfyneither the gay activist nor those who wish the gay issue would go away, forthere are no firm and final answers to be found. This is why it is worth reading. Beyond that it is worth reading to experience the transcript of authorswith quite different perspectives involved in the give-and-take ofdiscussion. In a brief, but important,comment during the Author’s Forum, Richard Perry notes, “I think that thisproject is important because I think in today’s world there is a need to continueto provide resources that can assist congregations to experience what it meansto have a conversation and a dialogue about issues and concerns that arecontroversial.” (p. 122)
This book, once I re-thoughtit in the light of its first and last two sentences, reminded me that I don’toften encounter this sort of give-and-take in sexuality discussions. More often than not I have heard advocacy ofan intended outcome. The emphasis hasbeen on the intended outcome and not the process we use for dealing with theissues themselves. I have come tobelieve, more firmly even than I did three years ago, that how the Church deals with these two issues is far more importantthan the outcome of our deliberations. I do not mean to trivialize these issues with this statement, but I domean to make them both subordinate and subject to our unity in Christ and witheach other through our baptismal covenant. The outcome of these deliberations will not be the source and purpose ofthat unity. While Lutherans honor thetradition of the Church, we also have it on good authority that councils canerr. Our councils, assemblies, andworkshops are often exercises in “muddling along” because we do not always haveclear and unmistakable direction from our Lord about what the outcome of agiven discussion should be. But we dohave clear and unmistakable direction (albeit lacking in specifics) on thefoundation of our unity, and the nature of the process we use to discuss theseissues: “I give you a new commandment,that you love one another. Just as Ihave loved you, you should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if youhave love for one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35) If we love a specific outcome more than we love Jesus and those Jesushas given us to love, then we have failed to realize the essence of theChurch. From this perspective, how we deal with these issues isdefinitive of who we are as the Church. The outcomes themselves are less definitive. Thus, if we advocate, electioneer or strategize—in short, if wemodel our behavior on campaign practices in the world—rather than engage eachother in loving struggle, we neither follow our Lord’s clear command nor do wetrust the Spirit. If we will not followJesus and do not trust in the Spirit, our future is bleak.
How, then do we faithfullygo forward? Previously in Let’s Talk I have recommended anadaptation of the caetchumenate process and LectioDivina for these discussions (Vol. 5 No. 2). I would still suggest that for ongoing study within acongregation. In addition, I wouldrecommend that Synodical workshops on these issues (and other such gatherings)be immediately preceded by a celebration of Eucharist, including a homily by afaith-filled exegete on Romans 8. Sharing Word and Sacrament reminds us of our common identity in Christand sets the right tone for following the dominical mandate in ourdeliberations. The first act of theworkshop itself would be an invocation of the Holy Spirit, asking only that ourpersonal agendas be muted so that we may be led to seek only the will ofGod. This is a frightening and evendangerous route to go, but it does have some precedents. Other routes are more predictable and moreresponsive to our control. They aresafer. They don’t lead to the agony andcross of struggle, but they also don’t lead to a resurrected Church that hasfollowed its Lord in that unconditional love that forgives, reconciles andrenews.
Gregory Holmes Singleton
Member, Immanuel, Evanston
1At this point the readermight expect either a “yet” or a “never.” The sentence, as it stands, seems paradoxical at best. It is intended to convey the truth that thetension we experience as an ecclesial body can (and does) reside in a specificChristian soul. If one is to be open tothe Spirit working through the fellowship of the faithful involved in struggle,“yet and “never” are not appropriate phrases, for both deny the tension.