A SEXUAL ETHICS FOR TELETUBBIES, or Lutherans Embrace a Formless World.
By Robert Benne
Permission to print was granted, but for internet viewing, please use the following link:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1045
A Response from Lutheran CORE to the Draft Statement on Human Sexuality
March 2008
Kenneth H. Sauer, Paull E. Spring
The
In February 2009, the task force will prepare a series of implementing resolutions. Among these resolutions will be recommendations regarding the blessing and ordination of sexually active gay and lesbian persons. These implementing resolutions will also come before the 2009 churchwide assembly for action.
As participants within Lutheran CORE, we offer the following initial comments on the draft statement.
Our first word is a word of thanks to the members of the task force and the staff who prepared this draft. They have worked hard, under pressure, and have earned the thanks of the ELCA for their work. As the process moves toward the preparation of a final draft, Lutheran CORE participants will continue to pray for the task force and for the leadership of our church.
There is much to be commended in this draft statement. It is, for the most part, well-written and understandable. It contains numerous biblical references (although we wish that more passages were quoted in the body of the statement, rather than simply cited).
The draft touches on many theological themes that characterize specifically Lutheran perspectives. Notable in the draft are, among others, presentations on the Word of God as Law and Gospel, the uses of the Law, the centrality of justification, and the understanding of believers as simultaneously sinners and redeemed. The task force is to be commended for providing these obviously Lutheran perspectives within the draft.
Moreover, we note with appreciation the way the draft addresses many current issues on sexuality. We lift up especially the role of the family, the abuses of sexuality in our society, and the dominating influence of advertising and the media in our culture. We commend the task force for addressing these issues forthrightly. We also appreciate the way the draft recognizes the role Christians have sometimes played in the dehumanization and discrimination against gay and lesbian persons.
In short, there is much in the draft that we can commend and applaud. Unfortunately, there are also elements in the draft statement that are troubling, even worrisome, to us.
1. The first is the definition of marriage. True, marriage is affirmed as a covenant of fidelity between one man and one woman. But this definition is not consistently maintained throughout the draft. In fact, references to other forms of the family and to other relationships as valid weaken the definition of marriage as initially presented. There are few references to procreation as one of the chief purposes of marriage. The discussion on marriage and homosexuality is itself unbalanced -- one sentence for heterosexual marriage and several sentences on homosexual unions. A more detailed attention to Genesis 1 and 2 and Matthew 19:4ff would strengthen the draft considerably. We suspect, frankly, that a new definition of marriage is being suggested -- not a lifelong covenant of fidelity between one man and one woman, but a relationship of trust and love between two persons. The task force has been charged with preparing recommendations on the blessing and rostering of gay and lesbian persons. There are strong hints in the draft that open the door for recommending such blessings and ordinations -- a prospect that distresses and alarms us.
2. Secondly, there are numerous references in the draft to "pastoral" and "pastoral care." Unfortunately these terms are nowhere defined in the draft. The Lutheran heritage understands pastoral care to be a personal address that is based on God's Word of both Law and Gospel. By contrast, pastoral care in the draft appears to be largely a matter of affirmation and support.
3. Thirdly, there is -- to us -- the confusing use of the category of trust in social relationships and institutions. The observations in this section of the draft are buttressed by references to unnamed social scientists. Trust is an appropriate category to use in the God - human relationship and to relationships among humans. But, in view of the two kingdoms doctrine, the Christian's life in society -- family, state, education, commerce, the arts -- is more characterized by justice, reliability, and order, rather than trust. Or have we misunderstood the draft?
4. Fourthly, the draft needs to be significantly re-framed and re-structured. This is especially the case with the first half of the document. The draft begins a statement on sexuality with a reference to the Great Commandments, followed by an extensive discussion of the incarnation that leads in turn to a fulsome paean in honor of the resurrection and the new creation. In so doing, the draft places the whole matter of sexuality within the saving work of Christ, the Gospel. The Lutheran tradition, by contrast, places sexuality within the doctrines of creation and the Law. Human sexuality is part of God's created order for the world. Sexuality is not salvific, and sexual intercourse is not a sacrament. On this point we feel that the draft needs serious revision. It would be clearer if the draft were to begin with creation -- rather than the incarnation -- and then move to a discussion of the Word of God as both Law and Gospel. It is our hope that subsequent revisions of the draft will reflect these observations.
5. There is, moreover, the overall flow of the
draft -- or rather the lack of it. Themes appear and disappear, to the point where the draft itself seems
confused and disjointed. It is not
always easy to discern how one theme leads to another. A much better way of dealing with the issues
of marriage, family, and sexuality would be to move clearly from Biblical
interpretation to practical application. We also wish that the draft had incorporated the more direct
affirmations on sexuality from the
There are other concerns we have about the draft statement -- too many to mention here. We hope and pray that the churchwide discussion that is now underway will lead to a much improved statement. We also hope and pray that the implementing resolutions will clearly re-affirm the rostering provisions that are in place in Vision and Expectations and in the relevant sections in Definitions and Guidelines.
In the meantime we urge everyone in the church to take advantage of the review process for this statement. May God through his Spirit strengthen the church in faithfulness to his Word.
A Critique of the "Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality"
by Carl E. Braaten
I am aware that this social statement is a first draft. The Task Force has asked for suggestions and criticisms that might be helpful in producing an improved and final version. The authors of the document claim that it is based on Lutheran theological foundations. My critique will examine whether or to what extent this proposed social statement is faithful to the Lutheran confessional tradition with regard to theological ethics in general and the ethics of sex in particular. I will offer my conclusion at the outset and then proceed to explain how I arrived at it.
This "Draft" falls to take seriously distinctive Lutheran principles of theology and ethics regarding human sexuality. Either the Task Force Is woefully ignorant of the Lutheran confessions tradition regarding theological ethics, or it willfully ignores it to reach some pre-conceived conclusions for ideological reasons.
1) The statement identifies two doctrines as foundational for a Lutheran understanding of sexuality: the incarnation of God and justification by faith. There is no doubt that these two doctrines are basic to a Lutheran understanding of salvation. However, in Lutheran theology soteriology is not the primal basis for the ethics of sex, marriage, and family. That would be to confuse law and gospel. Creation and law come before gospel and church, both in the Scriptures and in the Creeds (Apostles' and Nicene). To put the matter quite simply, the Old Testament comes before the New Testament and the First Article of the Creed comes before the Second and the Third Articles. Traditional Lutheran systematic theology has observed this biblical and creedal ordering of things, both in the order of knowledge (ordo cognoscendl) and in the order of reality (ordo essendl). The doctrine of creation comes before the doctrine of redemption; law comes before gospel. The ethics of sex is not primarily a gospel issue; it is a matter of law in the first instance.
2) The common human structures
of life such as marriage and the family, labor and the economic order, the
nation and the state are universal dimensions of human existence. They are created by God and experienced by
all human beings and societies apart from the Scriptures and outside the
covenant communities of
3) The early church found itself
in a life-and-death struggle against gnosticism (e.g., Marcion). Gnosticism negated the doctrine of creation and God's covenant with
4) The authors of this Draft seem
to be ignorant of the conflict regarding method in theology between Karl Barth (and the Barthians) and a
host of his Lutheran contemporaries: Paul Althaus,
Werner Elert, Edmund Schlink,
Peter Brunner, Gustaf Wingren, Regin Prenter, Helmut Thielicke, Hans Iwand, and many
others. For good measure add to this
list Lutheran ethicists in the
5) This Draft ignores that there is a distinctively Lutheran way of ordering the concepts of "Creation," "Law," "Gospel," and "Church" in the process of constructing theological ethics -- political, social, economic, ecological, and sexual. The living God is the Creator of all things; God is doing this now in an ongoing way (creatio continua). It is a deistic misunderstanding of the biblical-Christian doctrine of creation to imagine that God created all things once upon a time and then let them run their own course.
6) This document claims that the doctrines of the incarnation and justification form the theological foundations of human sexuality, but, pray tell, how does one argue from these particular foundations to relevant insights concerning norms, standards, rules, or principles of behavior regarding sex? When Barth tried to do it, the performance was brilliant but wrong from a Lutheran perspective. This document claims to be a "teaching document." What it offers is a mixed bag of some trivial politically correct platitudes that many of our contemporaries would accept without any knowledge of the Bible or Christian doctrine. The moral affirmations in this document are not counter-cultural; they are cultural re-conforming.
7) According to Luther and the Lutheran tradition God governs and rules the world through the law in the struggle against sin all over the world. This does not lead sinners to salvation. Only the gospel of Christ accomplishes that through the power of the Holy Spirit. However, the encounter of God and human beings is first mediated through creation (the ways things are made) and the law. This kind of encounter does not detract from the uniqueness of Christ and the gospel. The law has a different function than the gospel; the law is first and then the gospel. It is not the function of the gospel to instruct human beings about sex, marriage, and family. That is the function of the law. For this reason many human beings who are not Christians are often better examples of God-pleasing behavior in matters of sex, marriage, and family. Even many pagans with no knowledge of Christ put Christians to shame -- they live chaste lives, their marriages are exemplary, and their families are strong -- because God is working through the law of creation (lex creationis) to address them, and they are able to respond to the divine commands through their reason and conscience.
8) This Draft claims that it takes into account the contributions from the ecumenical partners of the ELCA and other Lutheran churches throughout the world. Wonderful! But there is no evidence that it does that. It refers now and then to a biblical passage here or there and offers a few quotations from Luther, but it is woefully silent on what the mainstream of the classical Christian tradition has to say on the subject before us. This is what Paul Tillich called ‘the leaping theory of Protestantism." It jumps from here and now back to Luther and then back to the Bible. This Draft is extremely sectarian. It is all about "this church." No other voice is taken into consideration. There is no hint in this document that Lutheranism by birth is part of the great tradition of churchly theology reaching back to Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Augustine. Luther is the only "church father" cited, but even for those who bear his name Luther is no church father. So what is going on in this document? What kind of authority does it claim for itself? It can claim no authority other than the consensus of the members of the Task Force. That is no authority at all.
9) This Draft mentions the "Trinity" once, but it fails to name the Triune God, because that would require the use of such offensive words as "Father" and "Son." By its failure to name the Triune God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- according to Scripture and our ecumenical creeds -- one can only conclude that this social statement is ashamed of the biblical-Christian God in whom Lutherans believe and place their trust. We can only assume that the authors have made a deliberate effort to avoid the naming of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, such as we profess in our baptism, in our salutations and benedictions. Is there a word for this failure? Is it heresy? Is it apostasy? Or is it just plain foolishness and thoughtlessness? In any case, it is not Lutheran; it is not Christian. The Task Force apparently has been taken hostage by the ideology of radical theological feminism, for which male referring nouns and pronouns are regarded as dirty words.
10) This document is worried about legalism. Some Lutherans are so afraid of legalism they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The root of the problem is confusion about the relation between law and gospel. Lutherans have said that we are justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. Fine! Does that mean that the works of the law are bad and that the only good works are those motivated by the gospel? That has led to antinomianism in Lutheranism. Luther was the first to blow the whistle on antinomianism. Antinomianism means that the law is silenced with regard to ordering the Christian life. Antinomianism is a famous word in the Lutheran lexicon. The authors choose not to mention it or define it. Why? Legalism is not much of a problem in the ELCA today; antinomianism is. The other side of the coin of antinomianism is "gospel reductionism."
11) It is hard to believe that a 50 page essay on sexuality would scarcely make any reference to the Ten Commandments in general (once on page 14) or the sixth commandment in particular. Here is an example of a statement that begs for an explanation: "A Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that guide it." (p. 11) This assertion sits there without commentary. I have no idea what the Task Force is trying to say. Taken at face value, it is not a true statement. A Lutheran sexual ethic is not derived from soteriology or the Christology on which it is based. The social statement asserts: "We ground our ethics . . . in the living voice of the gospel" (p.5) Again, no mention of the law! At one point this Draft states: "Both the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther emphasized the important role of the law to reveal to us God's intentions and promises for our lives, and to constrain, support, and guide us in daily living." (p. 6) That is a true statement, but this Draft does not follow the lead of Paul and Luther. It replaces the law with the gospel, with talk about the incarnation and justification as the foundation of ethics, including the ethics of sex.
12) This Draft affirms that
"the primary source for distinctively Christian insight is Scripture."
(p. 14) It goes
on to state: "Scripture cannot be used in isolation as the norm for
Christian life and the source of knowledge for the exercise of moral
judgment. Scripture sheds light on human
experience and culture." (p. 15) These assertions do not arouse a
lot of confidence that this Draft will have much to teach from Scripture. Over against Scripture the Draft refers to
"society's changing circumstances and growing knowledge" as well as
to "insights of culture and human knowledge." In the balance the
latter clearly outweighs the former. The
contemporary Zeitgeist trumps the
Scriptural word and witness of the Holy Spirit at every crucial turn. There is no teaching on sexual ethics in this
document that requires the witness of Scripture for its verification. There is more superficial sociology in this
document than serious biblical exegesis. If Scripture is really the "primary source" of Christian teaching,
one would expect that what the Scriptures do say about human sexuality would be
attended to much more carefully.
13) Equally deficient is the complete neglect of what historic church
tradition has understood the Scriptures to teach concerning human
sexuality. Traditional church teaching,
except for a few references to Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, is given
the silent treatment. By contrast, the
Confessions claim that they are not departing from church tradition and in fact
go to great lengths to quote the fathers and doctors of the church catholic to
demonstrate that they are not teaching anything new. Nothing similar can be claimed for this
social statement; it is a total departure from the consensus magnum of church tradition. Not even the Lutheran slice of the Christian
tradition is taken seriously. Not a
single Lutheran theologian of any standing is quoted. The reason for this should be obvious; there
simply aren't any Lutheran theological ethicists -- prior to the last thirty
years or so – who could be quoted to support the orientation and position of this social statement.
14) This document is sectarian to a fault. After five decades of ecumenical dialogue it
would seem that Lutherans would strive to formulate theology that can be
acknowledged by our ecumenical partners as "simply Christian" (ct. N. T. Wright's book by this title). Instead, this document abounds in statements
that profess to speak just for Lutherans. For example, "Lutherans understand that intimacy, trust, and
safety, particularly for those most vulnerable among us, are best sheltered
within families .... Lutherans take
great care to support whatever creates and sustains strong families as a ground
and source of trust." (p. 21) Which Lutherans? Some Lutherans? All Lutherans? On what basis? By opinion polls? Any documentary sources for these assertions? Or is this
just so much sectarian rhetoric that one would have thought Lutherans had left
behind fifty years ago? If there were only one or two such instances of special
pleading, one could overlook such irritating self-congratulatory kind of language. In fact, however, this trait runs throughout
the document.
15) The Draft drops the ball on the issue of homosexuality. According to Lutheran theological ethics God
has two ways of working in the world, one through creation and law, and the
other through the gospel and the church. This document confuses the two ways. One does not need to read the Bible to know by reason and conscience
that homosexual behavior is against the norm of God's created order. When God created the world and human beings,
he designed all things to obey certain laws. There is the law of gravity; God invented it. There is the second law of thermodynamics;
God invented it. There is the law called suum cuique ("to each his own"), on
which the principle of justice is based. The Golden Rule is universal. One
does not need to learn from the Bible that cheating is wrong. That is based on the law of creation. The basics of what is morally right and wrong
are built into human nature. There is
the law that male and female are created for each other; their sexual organs
match. That is no accident; God created
the sexes to complement each other. If
they do what comes naturally, they will together procreate the human race.
16) The treatment of homosexuality in this document is very thin and
squishy. On page 24 it states:
"Lutheran historical teachings concerning homosexuality sometimes have
been used to tear apart families with gay or lesbian members." What
Lutheran historical teachings does the Task Force have in mind? What evidence
can the Task Force offer to support this pandering kind of mea culpa? One historical teaching, not only Lutheran, is that
homosexual acts are sinful. That is the
clear teaching of the Bible. Does that
tear apart families? Drunkenness is also a sin. Does it tear apart families that have members who are drunkards? Has the
church been wrong to teach that homosexual acts are sinful? The church has
taught that homosexual persons are called to live chaste lives, just as
heterosexual persons are so called. The
church has traditionally taught that sexual intercourse outside of marriage
between a man and a woman is sin~ ful. Is such a teaching responsible for tearing
apart families? The church has traditionally taught that fornication and
adultery are sinful? Does that tear apart families that have members who are
fornicators and adulterers? This is the question: Is it sin that tears apart
families or is it the church's teaching about sin that tears apart families?
The Bible is full of examples of the destructive consequences of sin against
the sixth commandment. This document has
got it backwards.
17) This social statement does not deal with the issue whether
homosexual acts are sinful. If they are
not sinful, why not leave the issue alone? If they are sinful, why not say so
in a teaching document of the church? If, however, members of the Task Force do
not know whether homosexual acts are sinful, that is, against the will and
command of God for the behavior of human beings, then not much of anything wise
or useful can be expected from its social statement. This Draft states: "This church does not
favor or give approval to cohabitation arrangements outside of marriage."
(p. 35) Would
not this very statement also necessarily rule out cohabitation of gays and
lesbians? The statement affirms that "marriage" (why the quotation
marks?) is "a life-long and committed relationship between a woman and
man, and does not wish to alter this understanding." (p. 37-38) This document lacks internal
consistency. It states that marriage is
between a man and a woman and that sexual relations outside of marriage are not
acceptable. However, is it not the case
that when gays and lesbians perform sexual acts, they are doing so outside of
marriage? Yet, the document gets involved in weasel-wording at just this
important juncture. The church is
waiting for some definitive Christian teaching. This document fails to meet the challenge. It's a waste of the church's money.
18) This is supposed to be a teaching document of the church. What is the teaching? The document states
that "this church lacks consensus." It goes on to say, "Some
pastors and congregations will advocate repentance and celibacy. Other pastors and congregations will call our
same-gender-oriented brothers and sisters in Christ to establish relationships
that are chaste, mutual, monogamous, and life-long. These relationships are to be held to the
same rigorous standards and sexual ethics as all others." This document
has not informed us about "any rigorous standards." In other places
it has eschewed language about rules, standards, norms of right and wrong,
since they reflect the law and encourage legalism. They are supposedly not intrinsic to Lutheran
ethics based on the gospel (incarnation and justification). If sexual acts outside of marriage cannot be
approved, then what sense does it make to encourage persons who perform such
acts "to establish relationships that are chaste . . . ?" A person who engages in
sexual relations outside of marriage is not living a chaste life. Not to worry, because this church will under
all circumstances offer "a pastoral response." (p. 37) The category of sin has become
obsolete. Nevertheless, be assured, God
will forgive; that's his job, as Voltaire said. But where there is no sin, there is no need for forgiveness. Why is this social statement on ethics afraid
to speak of sin? Here is how H. Richard Niebuhr characterized the theology and preaching of liberal protestantism: "A God
without wrath brought people without sin into a kingdom without judgment
through the ministry of a Christ without the cross." This could well be
the epitaph of this social statement.
19) The fact that some pastors and congregations in the ELCA believe
that it is morally acceptable tor gays and lesbians
to live together as man and wife -- whether it is called marriage
or not -- that is supposed to prove that on this matter there is a lack of
consensus in this church. What
difference does that make with respect to the obligation of the church to teach
the truth about faith and life? If, for example, some pastors in the ELCA do
not believe in the incarnation of God or in justification by faith alone (and
some do not), does that mean that this church shoUld cease and desist from teaching these doctrines? Should the church teach only
those doctrines on which there is consensus? Since when did a church with a
confessional tradition submit its teachings for popular approval? Should this
church take a poll on how many pastors still affirm the name at the Triune God,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The fact that this social statement refuses to
name the name of the God of the Bible and the Christian Creed, this is wrong-headed even if it could be shown to be a consensus
in this church. Our Lutheran Confessions
start each of its affirmations of faith with these words: "We believe,
teach, and confess . . ." These are the Confessions of the ELCA
according to its Constitution. No polls
need to be taken. Consensus is
irrelevant. Some pastors and congregations
may not conform their teaching to the Lutheran Confessions, and many do not,
what does this prove? It proves that discipline is lacking in the church and
that the bishops of the ELCA are not performing their duties according to
Article XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession. It proves that heresy is rampant in the church and is met with a high
degree of tolerance. This is exactly
what the Christianity of the Enlightenment sought to achieve. Should we now celebrate that we have arrived
at this blessed state?
20) Wolfhart Pannenberg is perhaps the greatest living Lutheran systematic theologian. Was he right or wrong to make the following
assertions? “Whoever pressures the
church to alter the normativeness of its teaching
with regard to homosexuality must be aware that that person promotes schism in
the church. For a church that would
permit itself to be pressured to no longer understand homosexual activity as a
deviation from the biblical norm, and to recognize homosexual partnerships
alongside of marriage, such a church would no longer be based on the foundation
of Scripture, but rather, in opposition to its unanimous witness. A church that moves in such a direction would
therefore have ceased being an evangelical church following in the footsteps of
the Lutheran Reformation.” (W. Pannenberg, Umassstabe zure kirchlcihen Urteilsbildung uber Homosexualitat,” Zeitwende 65/1 (January 1994). Does the ELCA move in that direction?
This “Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality” is not only deeply flawed
from a Lutheran theological perspective, it is also so poorly written that I
believe there is very little in it to salvage. This document states that
“this social statement on human sexuality taps the deep roots of Scripture and
the Lutheran witness . . .” It does nothing of the
sort. Its treatment of both Scripture
and the Lutheran tradition of confessional theology is extremely superficial and ideologically distorted. I cannot ever remember reading a document
that purports to speak for the Lutheran confessional tradition that is more off
the mark than this one.