Bioethike

Meeting August 17-23, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is now in session. On the docket for deliberation is the church’s proposed social statement on sexuality, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. The church is expected to vote on the proposal this Friday.

From the ELCA News Service:

[Speaking to the Assembly,] Dr. Robert Benne, of the ELCA Virginia Synod said the whole project should be abandoned. “Call off the voting on the social statement on sexuality which will dramatically change our teaching on sexuality, from having teachings to having no teachings at all,” said Benne, the first of nearly 30 speakers to approach the microphones when the assembly met as a “committee of the whole” to discuss, but not formally amend the 10,000 word statement.
Benne was one of several opponents contending that accepting gays and lesbians lacks biblical support. “This is God’s law and we cannot change it,” said Roy Gibbs of the Northwestern Ohio Synod. “Everyone of us here today knows what is right and what is wrong. Our father has written it on our hearts and on our minds.”
A core disagreement is whether the proposed statement connects its proposals to the Bible. Several speakers contend that the Bible never speaks positively of gay and lesbian relationships. But the Rev. Jay McDivitt, Rocky Mountain synod, said “It is an incredibly scriptural and confessional document,” and “provides broad scriptural and confessional work.”

Writing April 14 in Lutheran Forum about the proposal, ELCA theologian Paul Hinlicky suggested that the issue to be faced by the Assembly was not homosexuality, per se, but was an attempt to change the church body from within:

If anything, homosexuality is being used as a wedge issue by the theological Left. Our problem in turn is not so much with a decent and Christian acceptance in the church of homosexual persons, like all the rest of us, with concrete issues, with brokenness, in penitence and humility. The real issue is the theological makeover of Lutheranism that is occurring in the process. . .

While Hinlicky is correct on that assessment, I believe underlying the whole discussion is something far worse. Hinlicky echoes my concerns when he writes,

One would never know from the Social Statement that the Bible contains a sharp word of judgment based upon God’s revealed Law protecting marriage and the family against any and all sins in the arena of sexuality, chiefly heterosexual sins like fornication, adultery, and divorce, but also homosexual relations. . . the central issue in contention in this controversy [is] whether God has created and blessed homosexual desire, or whether such desire is a deformation of God’s good creation.

I would suggest that the central question facing our brothers and sisters in the ELCA is this: Having rejected God’s Word in Scripture, are we now to reject God’s Word in creation?

Colleagues from my side of the aisle, The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, as well as other conservative commentators, will surely pillory the ELCA regarding this matter regardless what the Assembly decides (“I can’t believe they did that!” or “They should have never let it get this far!”). But I fear what my colleagues will not do is get to the root of the problem. In typical fashion, they will limit themselves to arguing on two fronts: for biblical authority and against homosexuality. They won’t seek to understand that the problem goes much deeper.

We’re not talking simply about the Bible and its do’s or don’ts. We’re talking about God’s Word in nature. Natural Law. The meaning and purposes of marriage. Why God created male and female in the first place. The proper roles of men and women. All that stuff we used to talk about as Lutherans, but now we talk about it in so very, very different ways.

And when we start talking about those things, we’ve got some soul searching to do. Like, why we allow unscriptural divorce in our churches, even among our clergy. Why we say that abortion in some circumstances is permissible. Why we do not talk about marriage but rather “sexuality,” a Romantic concept based on feelings and in use only about 200 years. Why we permit in vitro fertilization. And why we no longer teach what Luther and orthodox Lutheran theologians taught about contraception.

Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust is neither biblical, nor is it confessional. Heck, it mentions the word “sexuality” 123 times, but the word “Bible” only 3 times. As I’ve argued before, it is the last, gasping breath of the Twentieth Century Project, which templates systematic categories rather than deriving its doctrine and practice from the Scriptures. See “Bakernitions” for more details.

So, which way, ELCA? God’s blessings as you deliberate. I pray that you side with God and His Word, the Bible and in Creation. Eventually, we in the LCMS will also have to ask ourselves the same question. It’s just a matter of time.

And how we’ve answered so far could deal with some improvement.

Tags: ELCA, LCMS, Moral Philosophy