A SEXUAL ETHICS FOR TELETUBBIES, or - Lutherans Embrace a Formless World.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Summer 2008 Quarterly Newsletter for theWinter
Fellowship
2001 of Confessional
Quaterly Newsletter
Lutherans
for the Fellowship of Confessional
“Encouraging biblical, evangelical and confessional faithfulness to our Christian heritage.”
A SEXUAL ETHICS FOR TELETUBBIES, or
Lutherans Embrace a Formless World.
Robert Benne is director of the Statement—a basis for internal church theological/ethical challenge to assess
Center for Religion and Society at Roa- policy and a platform for advocacy in homosexual conduct has never been
noke College and the author of several society. Millions of dollars and thou- addressed adequately in any preceding
books, including Reasonable Ethics: sands of hours of effort have been put document. This draft Social Statement
A Christian Approach to Social, Eco- into an unending series of studies that is no different in spite of expectations:
nomic, and Political Concerns. have wrestled with the vexing problems It simply says that the church is divided
of assessing the morality of homosexu- on that issue. The kind of theological/
By Robert Benne al relations, and from that assessment ethical argument in this current docu-
In mid-March, the Evangelical making further judgments about the ment, however, is precisely the kind
Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) blessing of gay unions and the roster- that will set the stage for a revision of
Task Force on Sexuality released a draft ing of homosexual clergy who are in Lutheran teaching on sexual ethics in
of what is supposed to become a Social committed partnerships. The basic Continued On
Editor’s Note: In March 2008, the ELCA Task riage and the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian
Force on Sexuality released its first draft of a docu- persons. This issue of FOCL Point is dedicated to print-
ment that will be recommended for approval at the 2009 ing two responses to the first draft document. Both of
Churchwide Assembly. The Task Force is encouraging the writers, Dr. Robert Benne and Dr. Carl Braaten have
individuals and congregations to read the document and provided insightful and revealing critiques. (Copies of
respond with input by no later than November 1, 2008. the draft can be obtained by downloading it from the
At that point, the Task Force will rework the draft and sexuality studies Web site (www.elca.org/faithfuljour-
submit it to the ELCA Church Council, in February 2009, ney) or by calling 800 638-3522 ext 2996.)
along with recommendations regarding same-sex mar-
A Critique of the
“Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality”
Carl E. Braaten is one of the lead- Stands or Falls (1990). For thirteen of the document claim that it is based
ing theologians in American Lutheran- years Braaten has been director of the on Lutheran theological foundations.
ism. He taught Systematic Theology Center for Catholic and Evangelical My critique will examine whether or
for a generation at Lutheran School of Theology and editor of its journal, Pro to what extent this proposed social
Theology at Chicago and was founding Ecclesia. statement is faithful to the Lutheran
editor of the popular theological jour- tradition with regard to theological eth-
nal dialog. He has written or edited by Carl E. Braaten ics in general and the ethics of sex in
many foundational works in Lutheran I am aware that this social state- particular. I will offer my conclusion at
theology, among them is a two-volume ment is a first draft. The Task Force has the outset and then proceed to explain
Christian Dogmatics (1985), edited asked for suggestions and criticisms that how I arrived at it.
with Robert Jenson and Justification: might be helpful in producing an im-
The Article by Which the Church proved and final version. The authors Continued On Continued from form and content to the sexual ethics he Likewise, the statement remains
the future. Such a revision would mean teaches and sometimes sharpens. resolutely formless when it takes up
that the ELCA is no longer a church fol- This effort to derive sexual eth- family life. It grudgingly agrees that
lowing in the footsteps of the Lutheran ics from incarnation and justification the nuclear family fosters the develop-
Reformation. is a very un-Lutheran way of making ment of trust in children and youth, but
One of the noticeably odd features of an ethical argument. Luther argued immediately notes that it has not always
the new draft is its absence of “males and that marriage is located in the order done so effectively. Later it opts for a
females,” “women and men,” “husbands of creation and should be guided by functional definition of the family and
and wives,” “boys and girls,” and “moth- natural law, best summarized in the suggests that many arrangements can
ers and fathers.” Instead, one reads of Ten Commandments. Given that, he get the tasks done, not just the “conven-
“couples,” “partners,” “engendered thought marriage should be under the tional one.” Its pastoral compassion for
persons,” “parents,” and “children.” jurisdiction of the state for the common many in “broken” families overcomes
The subjects of the statement seem to good of society. He criticized precisely the possibility of making a normative
have no distinct features, a bit like the the Roman Catholic tradition that kept statement about the form of the family.
amorphous Teletubbies of children’s marriage completely under ecclesial au- But the biblical and Christian
television. This reluctance to affirm thority (governed exclusively by canon moral traditions are not so reluctant. A
definite forms extends to the state- law) and that located it in the order of child always has a mother and father:
ment’s posture toward marriage and the redemption (marriage as a sacrament Jesus has Joseph and Mary, Cain and
family, commandments and law, guid- imparts saving grace). Rather, Luther Abel have Adam and Eve. Though
ing principles, and especially toward proposed that marriage is first of all a there may be extended and even “trib-
rules. In fact, this aversion to specific social estate open to all, non-Christian al” families, the Bible always depicts
forms seems to be the fatal flaw of the and Christians alike. (See John Witte’s a child having a mother and a father.
document, leading to a vagueness and elaboration of the Lutheran teaching Great care is taken to affirm and nur-
fluidity that undermines its capacity for on marriage in his From Sacrament to ture this triad. A Commandment is
genuine guidance in the church. Contract.) devoted to it. It is biblically and tra-
This formlessness appears imme- While it is true that God’s ditionally normative, and no amount of
diately in the statement’s theological and justifying work in Christ enables us to appropriate pastoral accommodation to
ethical foundations. The law, though take up our calling in marriage, which the fracturing or confusion of the mod-
affirmed, remains a ghostly, abstract, can then be made into a Holy Estate in ern family will change that.
and empty category. No command- the church’s blessing, the form and con- The writers of the statement also
ments are mentioned. No covenantal tent of marriage are given by the struc- make a strange move when they decide
structures—such as God’s gift of mar- ture and guidance of the law. The form to use “trust” as the central ethical prin-
riage to Adam and Eve—are affirmed. is very specific—a life-long covenant ciple for human relations in marriage
Indeed, there is no explication of male of fidelity between a man and a woman and family life, while avoiding the use
and female together being created in oriented toward loving communion and of “love” as a principle. Indeed, there
the image of God. Rather, the state- procreation. It provides the “place of is little reflection on the meaning and
ment tries to derive its sexual ethic responsibility” where our vocation is forms of love, yet another example of
from the incarnation of Jesus and the lived out. No formlessness there. the aversion to specific forms.
justification his work has wrought. The statement clearly de-centers Trust and love are two different
One of most astounding statements in marriage as the touchstone around things. The former is a more passive
the document asserts that ‘a Lutheran which Christian sexual ethics are elab- quality in which one person allows
sexual ethic looks to the death and res- orated. It takes up marriage as a topic his or her being to be dependent on
urrection of Christ as the source for the only near the end of the document. It is the trustworthiness of another. Love
values that guide it’ (emphasis mine). even equivocal about the God-ordained is a more active principle that moves
Certainly Jesus makes relevant status of marriage. It affirms that “Mar- outward toward the other. There are
statements about sexual ethics, but riage is a structure of mutual promises distinct forms of love—libido, eros,
these have little to do with incarna- between a man and woman blessed by philia, agape—that are expressed in
tion or justification. He reaffirms the God,” yet later suggests that “marriage” different kinds of relationships. Some
creation account of woman and man (quotation marks in the original docu- forms of love are inappropriate in some
being created in the image of God; he ment) is accorded legitimacy merely by kinds of relationship. Libidinous love
upholds marriage and offers very strict its “historic origin.” It tepidly allows ought not be expressed toward chil-
conditions for divorce. He condemns that this church “does not wish to alter dren or those outside the marital bond.
all sorts of sexual sins—adultery, forni- this understanding” but then hurries on Chastity is the Christian virtue that
cation, lust, etc. But all these are built to dilute its affirmation by observing leads to self-control in these matters.
on the law of God he inherited from that some states already use “marriage” Agape love, the crown of Christian eth-
Jewish tradition, which gives the basic to refer to same-gender unions. ics, makes unconditional commitments
--and heals and restores broken relation- the creation story and the instituting statement seems to be saying “yes” to
ships. Sexual love—a lively mixture by God of marriage. Little mention both those questions. The trouble is,
of libidinous and erotic love is to be of the Commandments as guidance saying “yes” also abandons the specific
expressed fully only in marriage and for Christian life. Little mention of moral teachings of the Bible and Chris-
is appropriate to form. The Bible and the rather strict rules that undergirded tian tradition.
the Christian tradition clearly prohibit life together in early Christian commu- Though I expected the state-
sexual love to be expressed between nities. No mention of the Old Testa- ment to make an attempt at assessing
siblings, parent and children (incest), ment—and New Testament—proscrip- homosexual conduct, it didn’t. But if
between different kinds of species (bes- tion of homosexual conduct. Indeed, the foregoing argument is at all com-
tiality), and between those of the same little use of the law at all, in spite of its pelling, the writers of the statement
sex (homosexuality.) claim to honor it. It seems that, when- might be in the process of embracing a
These sorts of distinctions are ever Christians want to release sexu- formless creation, which is a necessary
deeply embedded in the biblical mate- ality from its created forms and from prelude for the positive assessment of
rial as well as in the Christian moral the commandments that guide it, they homosexual relations.
tradition held by nearly all Christians move away from the faith of Israel and This unsettling suspicion over-
throughout the ages. Sadly, the Social fasten to New Testament emphases on shadows the many good features of
Statement does not draw upon that tra- incarnation and justification. Without the statement. Its analysis of our cur-
dition to make such distinctions. There the law, such emphases quickly lead to rent sexualized society and its many
is, after all, more in Christian memory the “gospel of inclusion,” one without victims is one with which I heartily
than the New Testament, Luther, and repentance or amendment of life. And, agree. (It seems to me, however, that
contemporary experience, which are in the case of this statement, weak and the statement forgets about the millions
the sources employed by the statement. indeterminate guidance for moral life. of human beings eliminated by abor-
Its amnesia contributes to its formless- It is not as if the old teachings are tion, many of whom were the victims
ness. totally absent. They are not. But they of irresponsible sexual behavior.) Its
The statement promotes an ethic are constantly qualified by an ethic of call for pastoral compassion for all is
of responsibility—a good thing for ma- responsibility that shies away from persuasive. Its spirit of civility and mod-
ture people—but distances itself from forms of all kinds. I can’t say it bet- eration is admirable. At times it speaks
any reliance on rules, another example ter than the statement does itself: “A eloquently about marriage, though too
of aversion to form, in this case formal- Lutheran sexual ethic deeply attuned little and too late. It makes an effort to
ism in ethics. For example, it cannot to justification and incarnation extends take up the thorny questions of premar-
bring itself to affirm a rule against pre- well beyond the application of static ital sex and cohabitation, though it does
marital sex or cohabitation, let alone principles, even biblical ones, to vary- so with less guidance than I think nec-
homosexual conduct. Rather, it pleads ing situations. This ethic is more about essary. And, considering the difficulty
for responsibility in maintaining a level directing us to find a responsible place of reaching consensus on these conten-
of sexual intimacy commensurate with for sexuality in the service of God’s on- tious issues, the statement proposes a
the degree of commitment. While not going activity in the world than about serious line of argument, a subversive
favoring or giving approval to cohabi- containing its ambiguous power.” one with which I sharply disagree.
tation, the statement does not proscribe Certainly the ELCA has not
it either. It inveighs against promis- made a conscious decision to adopt the
cuity but cannot proscribe premarital Marcionite heresy. But it, like other
sex. Its ethic of responsibility might mainstream Protestant churches, has
well allow both practices in certain cir- been pushed in that direction by strong
cumstances. And what young person feminist and gay-liberation movements Continued from
cannot find sufficient reason in his or within its membership. Those move- This “Draft” fails to take seri-
her circumstances to justify both pre- ments suspect that heterosexual males ously distinctive Lutheran principles
marital sex and cohabitation? Clear have been in charge of the historic faith of theology and ethics regarding hu-
rules might be important here, just as from Abraham on down to the present man sexuality. Either the Task Force is
the rule against adultery makes things time—and they want to call a halt to woefully ignorant of the Lutheran con-
very clear for married couples. A solid that. Shouldn’t women and gays and fessions tradition regarding theological
ethic of responsibility would employ lesbians refuse to allow those hetero- ethics, or it willfully ignores it to reach
rules, some absolute in character. sexual males define what to them are some pre-conceived conclusions for
The statement’s aversion to form oppressive forms and rules? If we re- ideological reasons.
gives it something of a Marcionite move the sharp edges from the forms 1) The statement identifies two
whiff. That aversion represents a dis- and dispense with the rules, won’t our doctrines as foundational for a Lu-
tinct distancing from our Old Testa- general ethic of responsibility be appli- theran understanding of sexuality: the
ment heritage. Little development of cable to all sorts of relationships? The Continued On
--Continued from ethics exclusively on the New Testa- tell, how does one argue from these par-
incarnation of God and justification ment, on the gospel and the church, ticular foundations to relevant insights
by faith. There is no doubt that these denying the priority and relevance of concerning norms, standards, rules, or
two doctrines are basic to a Lutheran creation and law. This social state- principles of behavior regarding sex?
understanding of salvation. However, ment does the same thing. It virtually When Barth tried to do it, the perfor-
in Lutheran theology soteriology is not ignores the Old Testament, the Genesis mance was brilliant but wrong from a
the primal basis for the ethics of sex, story of creation, God’s covenant with Lutheran perspective. This document
marriage, and family. That would be to Israel, and the giving of the law. It starts claims to be a “teaching document.”
confuse law and gospel. Creation and straightaway with the incarnation and What it offers is a mixed bag of some
law come before gospel and church, justification, that is, with the gospel trivial politically correct platitudes that
both in the Scriptures and in the Creeds rather than the law. This is completely many of our contemporaries would
(Apostles’ and Nicene). To put the false to the Lutheran tradition of theol- accept without any knowledge of the
matter quite simply, the Old Testament ogy and ethics. Bible or Christian doctrine. The moral
comes before the New Testament and 4) The authors of this Draft seem affirmations in this document are not
the First Article of the Creed comes to be ignorant of the conflict regarding counter-cultural; they are cultural re-
before the Second and the Third Ar- method in theology between Karl Barth conforming.
ticles. Traditional Lutheran systematic (and the Barthians) and a host of his Lu- 7) According to Luther and the
theology has observed this biblical and theran contemporaries: Paul Althaus, Lutheran tradition God governs and
creedal ordering of things, both in the Werner Elert, Edmund Schlink, Peter rules the world through the law in the
order of knowledge (ordo cognoscendl) Brunner, Gustaf Wingren, Regin Prent- struggle against sin all over the world.
and in the order of reality (ordo es- er, Helmut Thielicke, Hans Iwand, and This does not lead sinners to salvation.
sendl). The doctrine of creation comes many others. For good measure add to Only the gospel of Christ accomplishes
before the doctrine of redemption; law this list Lutheran ethicists in the United that through the power of the Holy Spir-
comes before gospel. The ethics of sex States: George Forell, Bill Lazareth, it. However, the encounter of God and
is not primarily a gospel issue; it is a Frank Sherman, Robert Benne, Robert human beings is first mediated through
matter of law in the first instance. Bertram. What was their beef? It was creation (the ways things are made)
2) The common human structures the fact that the Barthians based all and the law. This kind of encounter
of life such as marriage and the fam- dogmatics and ethics on the church’s does not detract from the uniqueness of
ily, labor and the economic order, the doctrines of the incarnation and justi- Christ and the gospel. The law has a
nation and the state are universal di- fication, as though everything that pre- different function than the gospel; the
mensions of human existence. They are ceded the New Testament or lay outside law is first and then the gospel. It is not
created by God and experienced by all its pages and the walls of the church is the function of the gospel to instruct
human beings and societies apart from a complete blackout. Lutherans are human beings about sex, marriage, and
the Scriptures and outside the covenant not Barthians. However, if one would family. That is the function of the law.
communities of Israel and the Church. choose to ignore the Lutheran tradition For this reason many human beings
The knowledge of what is right and and follow Barth, this document would who are not Christians are often bet-
wrong, good and bad, is revealed by quickly demonstrate the folly of doing ter examples of God-pleasing behavior
God through these structures, by means so. in matters of sex, marriage, and fam-
of the way God has ordered them. No 5) This Draft ignores that there is ily. Even many pagans with no knowl-
Lutheran theology has ever proceeded a distinctively Lutheran way of order- edge of Christ put Christians to shame
to deal with the matters addressed by ing the concepts of “Creation,” “Law,” –they live chaste lives, their marriages
the Ten Commandments (especially “Gospel,” and “Church” in the process are exemplary, and their families are
the Second Table of the Law) as though of constructing theological ethics polit- strong because God is working through
only believers are endowed with moral ical, social, economic, ecological, and the law of creation (lex creationis) to
discernment. In spite of the universal sexual. The living God is the Creator address them, and they are able to re-
condition of sin, reason and conscience of all things; God is doing this now in spond to the divine commands through
are not so depraved as to be incapable an ongoing way (creatio continua). It their reason and conscience.
of grasping the universal morality ex- is a deistic misunderstanding of the 8) This Draft claims that it takes
pressed in the Decalogue (the Ten biblical-Christian doctrine of creation into account the contributions from the
Words of God). to imagine that God created all things ecumenical partners of the ELCA and
3) The early church found itself once upon a time and then let them run other Lutheran churches throughout
in a life-and-death struggle against their own course. the world. Wonderful! But there is no
gnosticism (e.g., Marcion). Gnosti- 6) This document claims that evidence that it does that. It refers now
cism negated the doctrine of creation the doctrines of the incarnation and and then to a biblical passage here or
and God’s covenant with Israel. Gnosti- justification form the theological foun- there and offers a few quotations from
cism based its understanding of w and dations of human sexuality, but, pray Luther, but it is woefully silent on what
--the mainstream of the classical Chris- the law are bad and that the only good will have much to teach from Scripture.
tian tradition has to say on the subject works are those motivated by the gospel? Over against Scripture the Draft refers
before us. This is what Paul Tillich That has led to antinomianism in Luther- to “society’s changing circumstances
called ‘the leaping theory of Protestant- anism. Luther was the first to blow the and growing knowledge” as well as to
ism.” It jumps from here and now back whistle on antinomianism. Antinomian- “insights of culture and human knowl-
to Luther and then back to the Bible. ism means that the law is silenced with edge.” In the balance the latter clearly
This Draft is extremely sectarian. It is regard to ordering the Christian life. outweighs the former. The contem-
all about “this church.” No other voice Antinomianism is a famous word in the porary Zeitgeist trumps the Scriptural
is taken into consideration. There is no Lutheran lexicon. The authors choose word and witness of the Holy Spirit at
hint in this document that Lutheranism not to mention it or define it. Why? every crucial turn. There is no teaching
by birth is part of the great tradition of Legalism is not much of a problem in on sexual ethics in this document that
churchly theology reaching back to Ire- the ELCA today; antinomianism is. The requires the witness of Scripture for its
naeus, Athanasius, and Augustine. Lu- other side of the coin of antinomianism verification. There is more superficial
ther is the only “church father” cited, is “gospel reductionism.” sociology in this document than seri-
but even for those who bear his name 11) It is hard to believe that a 50 ous biblical exegesis. If Scripture is re-
Luther is no church father. So what is page essay on sexuality would scarcely ally the “primary source” of Christian
going on in this document? What kind make any reference to the Ten Com- teaching, one would expect that what
of authority does it claim for itself? It mandments in general (once on page the Scriptures do say about human sex-
can claim no authority other than the 14) or the sixth commandment in uality would be attended to much more
consensus of the members of the Task particular. Here is an example of a carefully.
Force. That is no authority at all. statement that begs for an explanation: 13) Equally deficient is the com-
9) This Draft mentions the “Trin- “A Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the plete neglect of what historic church
ity” once, but it fails to name the Triune death and resurrection of Christ as the tradition has understood the Scriptures
God, because that would require the source for the values that guide it.” to teach concerning human sexuality.
use of such offensive words as “Fa- (p.11) This assertion sits there without Traditional church teaching, except for
ther” and “Son.” By its failure to name commentary. I have no idea what the a few references to Luther and the Lu-
the Triune God as Father, Son, and Task Force is trying to say. Taken at theran Confessions, is given the silent
Holy Spirit – according to Scripture face value, it is not a true statement. treatment. By contrast, the Confessions
and our ecumenical creeds – one can A Lutheran sexual ethic is not derived claim that they are not departing from
only conclude that this social statement from soteriology or the Christology on church tradition and in fact go to great
is ashamed of the biblical-Christian which it is based. The social statement lengths to quote the fathers and doctors
God in whom Lutherans believe and asserts: “We ground our ethics . . . in of the church catholic to demonstrate
place their trust. We can only assume the living voice of the gospel” (p.5) that they are not teaching anything
that the authors have made a deliber- Again, no mention of the law! At one new. Nothing similar can be claimed
ate effort to avoid the naming of God point this Draft states: “Both the Apos- for this social statement; it is a total
as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, such tle Paul and Martin Luther emphasized departure from the consensus magnum
as we profess in our baptism, in our the important role of the law to reveal of church tradition. Not even the Lu-
salutations and benedictions. Is there a to us God’s intentions and promises for theran slice of the Christian tradition is
word for this failure? Is it heresy? Is it our lives, and to constrain, support, and taken seriously. Not a single Lutheran
apostasy? Or is it just plain foolishness guide us in daily living.” (p.6) That is a theologian of any standing is quoted.
and thoughtlessness? In any case, it is true statement, but this Draft does not The reason for this should be obvious;
not Lutheran; it is not Christian. The follow the lead of Paul and Luther. It there simply aren’t any Lutheran theo-
Task Force apparently has been taken replaces the law with the gospel, with logical ethicists – prior to the last thirty
hostage by the ideology of radical theo- talk about the incarnation and justi- years or so – who could be quoted to
logical feminism, for which male refer- fication as the foundation of ethics, support the orientation and position of
ring nouns and pronouns are regarded including the ethics of sex. this social statement.
as dirty words. 12) This Draft affirms that “the 14) This document is sectarian to a
10) This document is worried primary source for distinctively Chris- fault. After five decades of ecumenical
about legalism. Some Lutherans are so tian insight is Scripture.” (p.14) It goes dialogue it would seem that Lutherans
afraid of legalism they have thrown the on to state: “Scripture cannot be used in would strive to formulate theology that
baby out with the bath water. The root of isolation as the norm for Christian life can be acknowledged by our ecumeni-
the problem is confusion about the rela- and the source of knowledge for the cal partners as “simply Christian” (ct.
tion between law and gospel. Lutherans exercise of moral judgment. Scripture N. T. Wright’s book by this title). In-
have said that we are justified by faith sheds light on human experience and stead, this document abounds in state-
alone, apart from the works of the law. culture.” (p.15) These assertions do not ments that profess to speak just for
Fine! Does that mean that the works of arouse a lot of confidence that this Draft Continued On
--Continued from used to tear apart families with gay or This document lacks internal consis-
Lutherans. For example, “Lutherans lesbian members.” What Lutheran his- tency. It states that marriage is between
understand that intimacy, trust, and torical teachings does the Task Force a man and a woman and that sexual re-
safety, particularly for those most vul- have in mind? What evidence can the lations outside of marriage are not ac-
nerable among us, are best sheltered Task Force offer to support this pan- ceptable. However, is it not the case
within families. Lutherans take great dering kind of mea culpa? One histori- that when gays and lesbians perform
care to support whatever creates and cal teaching, not only Lutheran, is that sexual acts, they are doing so outside
sustains strong families as a ground and homosexual acts are sinful. That is the of marriage? Yet, the document gets
source of trust.” (p. 21) Which Luther- clear teaching of the Bible. Does that involved in weasel-wording at just this
ans? Some Lutherans? All Lutherans? tear apart families? Drunkenness is important juncture. The church is wait-
On what basis? By opinion polls? Any also a sin. Does it tear apart families ing for some definitive Christian teach-
documentary sources for these asser- that have members who are drunkards? ing. This document fails to meet the
tions? Or is this just so much sectarian Has the church been wrong to teach challenge. It’s a waste of the church’s
rhetoric that one would have thought that homosexual acts are sinful? The money.
Lutherans had left behind fifty years church has taught that homosexual per- 18) This is supposed to be a teach-
ago? If there were only one or two sons are called to live chaste lives, just ing document of the church. What is
such instances of special pleading, one as heterosexual persons are so called. the teaching? The document states that
could overlook such irritating self-con- The church has traditionally taught that “this church lacks consensus.” It goes
gratulatory kind of language. In fact, sexual intercourse outside of marriage on to say, “Some pastors and congre-
however, this trait runs throughout the between a man and a woman is sin- gations will advocate repentance and
document. ful. Is such a teaching responsible for celibacy. Other pastors and congrega-
15) The Draft drops the ball on tearing apart families? The church has tions will call our same-gender-oriented
the issue of homosexuality. According traditionally taught that fornication and brothers and sisters in Christ to estab-
to Lutheran theological ethics God has adultery are sinful? Does that tear apart lish relationships that are chaste, mutu-
two ways of working in the world, one families that have members who are al, monogamous, and life-long. These
through creation and law, and the other fornicators and adulterers? This is the relationships are to be held to the same
through the gospel and the church. This question: Is it sin that tears apart fami- rigorous standards and sexual ethics
document confuses the two ways. One lies or is it the church’s teaching about as all others.” This document has not
does not need to read the Bible to know sin that tears apart families? The Bible informed us about “any rigorous stan-
by reason and conscience that homo- is full of examples of the destructive dards.” In other places it has eschewed
sexual behavior is against the norm of consequences of sin against the sixth language about rules, standards, norms
God’s created order. When God cre- commandment. This document has got of right and wrong, since they reflect
ated the world and human beings, he it backwards. the law and encourage legalism. They
designed all things to obey laws. There 17) This social statement does not are supposedly not intrinsic to Lutheran
is the law of gravity; God invented it. deal with the issue whether homosexual ethics based on the gospel (incarnation
There is the second law of thermody- acts are sinful. If they are not sinful, and justification). If sexual acts outside
namics; God invented it. There is the why not leave the issue alone? If they of marriage cannot be approved, then
law called suum cuique (“to each his are sinful, why not say so in a teach- what sense does it make to encourage
own”), on which the principle of justice ing document of the church? If, how- persons who perform such acts “to es-
is based. The Golden Rule is univer- ever, members of the Task Force do tablish relationships that are chaste?”
sal. One does not need to learn from not know whether homosexual acts are A person who engages in sexual rela-
the Bible that cheating is wrong. That sinful, that is, against the will and com- tions outside of marriage is not living a
is based on the law of creation. The ba- mand of God for the behavior of human chaste life. Not to worry, because this
sics of what is morally right and wrong beings, then not much of anything wise church will under all circumstances
are built into human nature. There is or useful can be expected from its so- offer “a pastoral response.” (p. 37) The
the law that male and female are cre- cial statement. This Draft states: “This category of sin has become obsolete.
ated for each other; their sexual organs church does not favor or give approval Nevertheless, be assured, God will
match. That is no accident; God created to cohabitation arrangements outside forgive; that’s his job, as Voltaire said.
the sexes to complement each other. If of marriage.” (p. 35) Would not this But where there is no sin, there is no
they do what comes naturally, they will very statement also necessarily rule out need for forgiveness. Why is this social
together procreate the human race. cohabitation of gays and lesbians? The statement on ethics afraid to speak of
16) The treatment of homosexu- statement affirms that “marriage” (why sin? Here is how H. Richard Niebuhr
ality in this document is very thin and the quotation marks?) is “a life-long characterized the theology and preach-
squishy. On page 24 it states: “Lu- and committed relationship between ing of liberal protestantism: “A God
theran historical teachings concerning a woman and man, and does not wish without wrath brought people without
homosexuality sometimes have been to alter this understanding.” (p. 37-38) sin into a kingdom without judgment
--through the ministry of a Christ with- words: “We believe, teach, and confess dation of Scripture, but rather, in op-
out the cross.” This could well be the . . .” These are the Confessions of the position to its unanimous witness. A
epitaph of this social statement. ELCA according to its Constitution. church that moves in such a direction
19) The fact that some pastors No polls need to be taken. Consensus would therefore have ceased being an
and congregations in the ELCA believe is irrelevant. Some pastors and congre- evangelical church following in the
that it is morally acceptable to gays and gations may not conform their teaching footsteps of the Lutheran Reforma-
lesbians to live together as man and to the Lutheran Confessions, and many tion.” (W. Pannenberg, Umassstabe
wife – whether it is called marriage or do not, what does this prove? It proves zure kirchlcihen Urteilsbildung uber
not – that is supposed to prove that on that discipline is lacking in the church Homosexualitat,” Zeitwende 65/1 (Jan-
this matter there is a lack of consensus and that the bishops of the ELCA are uary 1994). Does the ELCA move in
in this church. What difference does not performing their duties accord- that direction?
that make with respect to the obligation ing to Article XXVIII of the Augsburg This “Draft Social Statement on
of the church to teach the truth about Confession. It proves that heresy is Human Sexuality” is not only deeply
faith and life? If, for example, some rampant in the church and is met with flawed from a Lutheran theological
pastors in the ELCA do not believe in a high degree of tolerance. This is ex- perspective, it is also so poorly written
the incarnation of God or in justifica- actly what the Christianity of the En- that I believe there is very little in it to
tion by faith alone (and some do not), lightenment sought to achieve. Should salvage. This document states that “this
does that mean that this church should we now celebrate that we have arrived social statement on human sexuality
cease and desist from teaching these at this blessed state? taps the deep roots of Scripture and the
doctrines? Should the church teach 20) Wolfhart Pannenberg is Lutheran witness . . .” It does noth-
only those doctrines on which there is perhaps the greatest living Lutheran ing of the sort. Its treatment of both
consensus? Since when did a church systematic theologian. Was he right or Scripture and the Lutheran tradition
with a confessional tradition submit its wrong to make the following assertions? of confessional theology is extremely
teachings for popular approval? Should “Whoever pressures the church to alter and ideologically distorted. I cannot
this church take a poll on how many the normativeness of its teaching with ever remember reading a document
pastors still affirm the name of the Tri- regard to homosexuality must be aware that purports to speak for the Lutheran
une God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? that that person promotes schism in the confessional tradition that is more off
The fact that this social statement re- church. For a church that would per- the mark than this one.
fuses to name the name of the God of mit itself to be pressured to no longer
the Bible and the Christian Creed, this understand homosexual activity as a
is wrong-headed even if it could be deviation from the biblical norm, and
shown to be a consensus in this church. to recognize homosexual partnerships
Our Lutheran Confessions start each alongside of marriage, such a church
of its affirmations of faith with these would no longer be based on the foun-
FOCL-POINT On-line
Get FOCL on the Internet
Join in the WebDialogue. Request
regular updates for timely reprints and articles
for your e-mail. Share our website
with friends who, as you do, want
“evangelical and confessional
loyalty to our Christian Heritage.” www.foclnews.org
--Robert Benne
A SEXUAL ETHICS FOR TELETUBBIES, or
Lutherans Embrace a Formless World. — page 1
Carl E. Braaten
A Critique of the “Draft Social Statement on Human
Sexuality” — page 1
The ministry of FOCL is funded entirely by the tax-deductible gifts of its supporters.
Please prayerfully consider your gift and send to: 333 El Molino Way, San Jose, CA 95119-1616
(Ask the editorial office for a copy of FOCL’s Mission Statement — “A Call to the Center”.)
Name _ ____________________________________________________
❏ $500
❏ $100 Street __________________________________________________________
❏ $50
❏ $35 City _ __________________________________________________________
❏ Other
State _____ Zip __________
LAYOUT & Design
Rev. Dan Selbo
Rev. Dr. Jeffray Greene
FOCL POINT EDITORS
Rev. Roland Wells, Jr. Rev. Thomas Parrish
Dr. Walter Sundberg Dr. George Muedeking
Mr. Richard Rogers Dr. James Kallas
Gov. Al Quie Dr. James Berquist
ADVISORY
Mrs. Lee Horn
Rev. Herbert Hoff Mr. Richard Zimmerman
Rev. Dr. Jeffray Greene Mr. James Wenzel
Mrs. Janet Brians Mr. Randy Weitz
Mr. David Bunn Rev. Dan Selbo
FOCL BOARD
Citrus Heights, CA
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Permit No. 142
PAID Member, The Associated Church Press
U.S. Postage San Jose, CA 95119-1616
Non-Profit Org. 333 El Molino Way
Editorial Office AddressYou can also read
