The recent hoopla trickling down from the ELCA’s General Assembly occurring this week in Minneapolis over the adoption of Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, as well as a revision of clergy expectations for rostered leaders in that church body, has renewed my interest in how my own denomination, officially (or rather, semi-officially) deals with the issue of “human sexuality,” however defined.
I won’t play all my cards here, but the tornado that swept through the Minneapolis Convention Center and took down Central Lutheran’s steeple cross could have been, and in many corners was, predicted. Some 23 years ago, while a college senior, I distinctly remember a telephone conversation I had with my then-LCA Lutheran pastor’s wife over the direction that that church body (a predecessor to the ELCA, which was formed by merger in 1988) was taking over this very issue. That was just a quarter century ago. I left the ELCA for the LCMS in 1992.
And yet, the foundation for change in official doctrine and practice in the ELCA was laid even before Minneapolis. Cartesian and Lockean empiricism basing truth on demonstrable experience, the influence of Kant and Schleiermacher, rationalism, romanticism, the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation (promoting the inerrancy and inspiration of the interpreter), the high fashion and ecumenism of liturgical renewal, the concept of sexuality that developed in the nineteenth century, all sprinkled with a generous portion of Freudian sex-centrism and fraudulent Kinseyan sexology has–voila!–brought brought us where we are today.
As I mentioned, not that surprising. Confusing, maybe, but with hindsight, at least explainable.
And yet, it would be not only uncharitable but also dishonest to maintain that we on the other side of the aisle (orthodox, conservative, biblical, confessional, or however you wish to hyphenate yourself) Lutherans have been unscathed by the philosophical, theological, and linguistic undercurrents of our culture that have swept us also away from our traditional moorings, however far. Before we take a look at the LCMS’s own sexuality statement, Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective (LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1981), let’s peek at two secular organizations that offer their contemporary insights about “sexuality.”
The first is SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). SIECUS is a strong proponent of comprehensive public sex education beginning at birth in order to “complement and augment the sexuality education children receive from their families, religious and community groups, and healthcare professionals.” SIECUS also advocates non-marital, consensual sex between adults (regardless of gender), and promotes masturbation. SIECUS asserts that:
All persons are sexual, in the broadest sense of the word. . . Sexual feelings, desires, and activities are present throughout the life cycle.
SIECUS follows the sex-centric approach of Alfred Kinsey, who maintained that “children are sexual at birth.” For a low down on the down-low of Kinsey, spend a few moments at Judith A. Reisman’s Web site. Then read a few psalms to get it out of your system.
The second is Planned Parenthood, which advocates for and provides abortion “services,” provides contraception, and supports the homosexual lifestyle:
We are all sexual. We are sexual from the day we are born until the day we die. Our sexuality affects who we are and how we express ourselves as sexual beings.
Again, Alfred Kinsey. Do note that Kinsey, SIECUS, and Planned Parenthood are connected not only in theory, but also organizationally. SIECUS’s founder and pro-abortionist Mary Calderone was also Planned Parenthood’s first medical director.
Now compare these contemporary examples to Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective:
Few characteristics so deeply stamp our selfhood as our maleness and femaleness. In fact, it is quite impossible for us to know ourselves as God’s good creation without a recognition of our identity as sexual beings. . . what Jesus did to redeem us from the power of sin and its affect on our lives as sexual beings. . . it is hoped that the affirmations stated at the end of the study will provide guidance for Christians as they seek to order their lives as sexual beings. . . (pp. 4-5).
Striving to be charitable you may say, “Well, that may be the same phrase those others groups use, but here it has a different meaning.” I respond, “I wish that you were right. And here I am neither succumbing to the ‘correlation is causation fallacy,’ nor am I making false accusations about the document or its authors. I am merely pointing out the similarity in phraseology that is striking, so much so, in fact, that it should not be ignored. But, even if this is a benign use of common parlance, it is nevertheless disturbing to read it today. And if the foundational understanding of our thinking in this area begins with the concept that we are sexual beings, as understood by other groups today, then have we not laid, perhaps, the wrong foundation for discussing male and female, the blessings and purposes of marriage, procreation, and so on?”
More on this later. As is my practice, I will be in contact with the Rev. Dr. Joel Lehenbauer at the CTCR advising him of this post. In previous e-mails with him concerning other matters, he has always been very cordial and receptive.
Besides, I think Luther would have appreciated the freedom to debate without acrimony or prejudice matters of theological import, don’t you?
