The Evangelical Lutheran Church still struggles to free itself from its bondage to the Twentieth Century Project and from the shackles of fundamentalism and social conservatism. Which is really a shame, when you think about it. The treasures of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are far, far richer than the church-sounding secular arguments we’re so accustomed to using when treating ethical or moral issues presented by the the world around us.
To wit, at its August, 2009 meeting in Seoul, the International Lutheran Council, to which my church body, The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, belongs, approved a statement affirming traditional marriage and condemning homosexual acts as sinful. Fine, well and good, right? Well, yes, but what was the basis? Let’s look at part of the statement as reported in the October 1, 2009 ILC News:
In evaluating the question of homosexuality, even in the 21st century, we believe we are ultimately dealing with the authority of Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God. Even in the sensitive matter of human beings and their sexual identity, the church is to submit in humility to the authority of the Word of God. The Scriptures testify clearly and repeatedly that the lifelong committed union of one man and one woman is the place the Lord intends for human sexuality to be lived out. Biblical passages which address the practice of homosexuality do so in terms of disapproval.
Rooted in the Bible’s witness and in keeping with Christian teaching through 2000 years, we continue to believe that the practice of homosexuality – in any and all situations – violates the will of the Creator God and must be recognized as sin.
Bypassing the gross problem that this statement utilizes nineteenth and twentieth-century socio-psycho-babble concepts such as “homosexuality” and “sexual identity” (which are completely foreign to Scripture), this statement also fails to recognize that “the lifelong committed union of one man and one woman,” i.e. marriage, and the disordered-ness of same-sex sex is also rationally recognizable even apart from Scripture.
Are we to assume, for example, that if only folks would accept the authority of the Scriptures they would have a proper understanding of marriage? How so? Can’t unbelieving Muslims, Hindus, and even atheists conceive of marriage even apart from Scripture? Well, of course they can and they do. Believing and submitting to the authority of Scripture is not a requirement for an adequate conception of marriage. What about homosexuality? Is the Bible absolutely required in order to see the disordered-ness of same-sex acts? Of course not. True, the sacred writings of other religions and secular musings of pagan philosophers sometimes approve, yet more-often-than-not disapprove of them.
This brings up the way that some contemporary “conservative” Lutheran theologians argue in favor of traditional marriage and in disfavor of same-sex acts. Sadly, the usual default mode of discussing these issues is 1) biblical inerrency, and 2) that homosexuality is a sin. Both are theologically correct. However, merely leaving the matter there falls short of a full appreciation of what Scripture tells us about why male and female were created in the first place.
Here I maintain that we must appropriate all that the Bible says not only to condemn same-sex acts, but also to affirm traditional marriage. Here, affirming traditional marriage includes the purposes of marriage: 1) the procreation and education of children; 2) the love and help of husband and wife; and 3) due to the Fall, a protection against sin.
Yes, the Church is to submit to the written Word of God. But in its proclamation, the Church is to proclaim all that God has to say about a subject in His Word. The Church should also not shy away from connecting that Word to God’s will revealed in Creation. Most call this Natural Law. St. Paul did it, so it’s OK.
Same-sex sex is sinful. Why? Because the Bible says so? That the Bible says it is sinful is not the same as saying, on the basis of Scripture, why it is sin. Same-sex behavior is sin because it is a full, frontal assault on God’s will revealed in Scripture and expressed in Creation, notably His desire to grow and to educate His human family through male/female marriage and child bearing/rearing.
And that, curiously, is what some “conservative” Lutherans seem unable or unwilling to proclaim.
God is no capricious despot approving the sexual activities of some of His human creatures, while disapproving of the sexual activities of others. No, God created male and female, and their life-generating organs, in order to populate the earth with human creatures believing in and serving Him with willing hearts. To use those life-generating organs against His will as expressed in Scripture (our only sure guide and deposit of truth), and against His will expressed in His Creation (accessible by human reason, or Natural Law) is a gross violation of God’s sovereignty (which is also a Lutheran concept).
Now, then, since we are assured that a proper understanding of these matters entails a proper understanding of God’s will concerning the use of our sex organs, what other issues remain at hand that present similar moral difficulties?
I can think of one.
Contraception.
