Living Theology
in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Volume 8, Number 2
Summer 2003
Human Sexuality in the ELCA:
Perspectives on the Struggle
“A Dramatic
Mixture of Brokenness and Grace”
Faithful
Conversation: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, ed.
James M. Childs Jr. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003. viii + 132
pp. $9.00.
A Commentary by way of a Review
I had intended to write a
review, not a commentary flowing from a review. Furthermore, the review taking shape in my head was
negative. I now begin this review fully
aware that I will have more to say after a brief assessment of Faithful Conversation, and I will
commend this collaborative effort to all who want to seriously struggle with
the two issues before the ELCA concerning homosexuality. The reason this took a radically different
shape has everything to do with the first sentence in the book and the last
two. The Forward, attributed
corporately to the Conference of ELCA Seminary Presidents (who commissioned the
work), begins, “A wise pastor once noted that ‘Life is a dramatic mixture of
brokenness and grace.’” (p. vii) The
Authors Forum at the end of the volume concludes with editor James Childs’
summing up: “ . . .a lot of the anxiety
that one encounters in the church about what we are going to do, or how we are
going to go through this thing, does not give the Holy Spirit enough
credit. I think we should expect a lot
from the Spirit—I do.” (p. 132) The
more I thought about these book-end statements, the more I began to learn from
essays 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 union
blessings or ordain candidates who are in committed same-sex
relationships. Nestingen does not say
anything that would support the previous sentence as a paraphrase, but his
concluding passage does allow one to make a shrewd guess: “Having examined the Lutheran heritage, in
its early writings and its authoritative interpretation, it is impossible to
avoid the conclusion drawn by Wolfhart Pannenberg. . .that a Church that
rejects the traditional teaching on homosexual practice can be neither
evangelical nor Lutheran, no matter what it calls itself.” (pp. 56-57) This would seem to close the door on
further conversation, but a careful reading of Nestingen’s argument up to that
point will reveal his invitation to delve into our confessions both
historically and systematically and bring them into our present discourse on a
topic the Reformers could not have envisioned.
Nestingen proves an excellent guide, and his intellectually honest development
leaves room for others to take the same trip and come out at a different
place. For this reader, his argument
was not compelling enough to keep me from searching for a way I can say yes to
these measures and still remain in the Apostolic tradition, but it was
compelling enough to remind me that, in spite of my great desire to do so, I am
not able to say yes, given my understanding of Apostolic faith.1
The other essays, while not
specifically endorsemeents of the two measures under consideration, certainly
point to possibilities Nestingen does not admit. These include Mark Allen Powell’s useful overview of the biblical
passages concerning homosexuality and a brief exercise in using the Gospel to
norm those passages. While he does hold
open the possibility for union blessings, he insists that the Gospel compels
the homosexual seeking the blessing of the Church to not ask, “What am I
allowed to do?” The question, according
to Powell, must be “How can I please God, whom I love and want to serve?” “Thus,” argues Powell, homosexual couples
who seek the Church’s blessing “should only do so with a sincere conviction
that they will be able to serve and love God best within such a relationship.”
(p. 39) In a similar argument, Martha
Ellen Stortz reminds us that any discussion of Christian Sexuality should start
with our baptismal status and reminds us that Paul admonished the Christians in
Corinth not to accommodate to the culture around them, for “What you do with
your bodies affects the body of Christ!
Conform them to Christ’s Body!” (p. 71)
Even the essays with which I
was initially unimpressed have taken on new instructive meaning once I accepted
them as contributions to an ongoing conversation. For example, I take issue with Richard J. Perry, Jr., and Jose
David Rodriguez. In their discussion of
multicultural implications for these two issues, they do not adequately
consider the possibility that the Gospel generates a culture of its own. Indeed they seem to accept multiple
cultural perspectives as part of the order of creation rather than a
consequence of our fallen and fragmented state. Nevertheless they do make the useful point that cultural nuances
are part of the terrain we negotiate in the world, and that is a factor in our
ongoing discussions of sexuality.
Dennis Olson’s use of scientific studies of anger in comparison with the
scientific evidence on homosexuality is less than convincing, both
methodologically and substantively. No
case is made for anger and homosexuality sharing similar characteristics that
would warrant such a comparison.
Nevertheless, he provides a useful discussion of why scientific evidence
is important but not definitive for Christians.
James Childs’ introduction
provides a framework for discussions that may be stimulated by these
essays. Our discourse on these matters,
he argues, must be faithful to the mission of the Church, to Scripture, and to
Christian Tradition. He adds that we must also be faithful in
engaging one another. Whatever the
shortcomings of any given essay, the authors keep within these guidelines and
demonstrate effective Christian engagement with each other in the Author’s
Forum at the end of the book. The
Forum, indeed, provides some of the book’s most valuable insights. The seven authors with significantly
different perspectives find common ground in a rejection of a cluster of
secular trends, including egoistic individualism and hedonism. Those disposed toward positive action on the
two issues before the ELCA make it clear that if those actions are to be taken
it must be within and subservient to the context of a renewed commitment to our
corporate identity as those who have been called, baptized, and sent. Not one of the authors suggests that the
ongoing discourse is about rights.
Throughout the essays and the Forum it is clear that the integrity of
the Gospel and the Church are the major concern.
This book will satisfy
neither the gay activist nor those who wish the gay issue would go away, for
there 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 authors
with quite different perspectives involved in the give-and-take of
discussion. In a brief, but important,
comment during the Author’s Forum, Richard Perry notes, “I think that this
project is important because I think in today’s world there is a need to continue
to provide resources that can assist congregations to experience what it means
to have a conversation and a dialogue about issues and concerns that are
controversial.” (p. 122)
This book, once I re-thought
it in the light of its first and last two sentences, reminded me that I don’t
often encounter this sort of give-and-take in sexuality discussions. More often than not I have heard advocacy of
an intended outcome. The emphasis has
been on the intended outcome and not the process we use for dealing with the
issues themselves. I have come to
believe, more firmly even than I did three years ago, that how the Church deals with these two issues is far more important
than the outcome of our deliberations.
I do not mean to trivialize these issues with this statement, but I do
mean to make them both subordinate and subject to our unity in Christ and with
each other through our baptismal covenant.
The outcome of these deliberations will not be the source and purpose of
that unity. While Lutherans honor the
tradition of the Church, we also have it on good authority that councils can
err. Our councils, assemblies, and
workshops are often exercises in “muddling along” because we do not always have
clear and unmistakable direction from our Lord about what the outcome of a
given discussion should be. But we do
have clear and unmistakable direction (albeit lacking in specifics) on the
foundation of our unity, and the nature of the process we use to discuss these
issues: “I give you a new commandment,
that you love one another. Just as I
have loved you, you should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you
have love for one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35)
If we love a specific outcome more than we love Jesus and those Jesus
has given us to love, then we have failed to realize the essence of the
Church. From this perspective, how we deal with these issues is
definitive of who we are as the Church.
The outcomes themselves are less definitive. Thus, if we advocate, electioneer or strategize—in short, if we
model our behavior on campaign practices in the world—rather than engage each
other in loving struggle, we neither follow our Lord’s clear command nor do we
trust the Spirit. If we will not follow
Jesus and do not trust in the Spirit, our future is bleak.
How, then do we faithfully
go forward? Previously in Let’s Talk I have recommended an
adaptation of the caetchumenate process and Lectio
Divina for these discussions (Vol. 5 No. 2). I would still suggest that for ongoing study within a
congregation. In addition, I would
recommend that Synodical workshops on these issues (and other such gatherings)
be immediately preceded by a celebration of Eucharist, including a homily by a
faith-filled exegete on Romans 8.
Sharing Word and Sacrament reminds us of our common identity in Christ
and sets the right tone for following the dominical mandate in our
deliberations. The first act of the
workshop itself would be an invocation of the Holy Spirit, asking only that our
personal agendas be muted so that we may be led to seek only the will of
God. This is a frightening and even
dangerous route to go, but it does have some precedents. Other routes are more predictable and more
responsive to our control. They are
safer. They don’t lead to the agony and
cross of struggle, but they also don’t lead to a resurrected Church that has
followed its Lord in that unconditional love that forgives, reconciles and
renews.
Gregory Holmes Singleton
Member, Immanuel, Evanston
1At this point the reader
might expect either a “yet” or a “never.”
The sentence, as it stands, seems paradoxical at best. It is intended to convey the truth that the
tension we experience as an ecclesial body can (and does) reside in a specific
Christian soul. If one is to be open to
the Spirit working through the fellowship of the faithful involved in struggle,
“yet and “never” are not appropriate phrases, for both deny the tension.