A House Divided Against Itself Will Not Stand

One can certainly appreciate the hard work the ELCA Church Council performed in trying to strike an acceptable compromise in a conflicted church.  The Council recognized that a large portion of the church firmly believes in the traditional moral teachings of the church that proscribe homosexual behavior and that another smaller portion believes that homosexual sex in the context of committed relationships is morally acceptable.  Given that reality, the Council tried to strike a balance--by giving the traditionalists their due by apparently maintaining the official teachings and practices of the church for the time being and by giving the revisionists their due by allowing for the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy in committed relationships through certain carefully defined processes.   The Council strived mightily to strike an acceptable compromise.

But can such a compromise be acceptable in a church that is grounded in biblical and confessional authority?  Indeed, can such a compromise be faithful?  I think not, for a number of important reasons.  Each reason below corresponds to one of the three major recommendations of the Council.  Contrary to general opinion, the first recommendation, that we "concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements," is the most difficult to accept.  Why is this so?

I.

It is the most difficult to accept because a church that stands on biblical and confessional authority cannot maintain its identity and mission with two opposing views on an issue of such importance. The fact that it is recommending that these two opposing viewpoints co-exist in the church means that the ELCA has no authoritative teaching on homosexual behavior.  A compromise in such a situation is already a movement toward revision of classical Christian teaching.  For many this is an intolerable situation, although the Task Force, Bishops, and Church Council would have us think otherwise by asserting that this disagreement over homosexual conduct is not church-dividing.  They all assert that our "unity in Christ" far transcends our disunity or diversity on this issue.  Indeed, the Council goes so far as to deem this diversity as "God-given."  This is perhaps the end result of the ELCA's celebration of  diversity and inclusivity.  This emphasis on inclusivity--which is the doctrine upon which the ELCA has taken its stand--goes beyond race, ethnicity, class, and gender.  The ELCA has also carelessly invited--even promoted--diversity in biblical and theological perspectives.  That diversity has now undermined authoritative teaching in the ELCA.  And it pronounces that diversity both non-church dividing and even "God-pleasing."

The ELCA claims a false unity by isolating the doctrine of justification (our "unity in Christ") as not only the doctrine "upon which the church stands or falls," but as the only doctrine of importance.  It has moved toward a "Gospel reductionism" in which the Father's Commandments and the Spirit-inspired life of obedience are reduced to second- order importance.  It is as if we could have the true Gospel and at the same time revise the commandments against adultery or murder.  Or it is as if, as it once was proposed in the formation of the Lutheran Book of Worship, we could change the wedding vows from "until death us do part" to "until love ends."  Or it is as if, as it almost came to pass in the deliberations of the Committee for aNew Lutheran Church, the name of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be banished in favor of Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.

Would such tinkering with Christian teaching be church-dividing?  Of course, even though these revisions do not deny that we are "reconciled in Christ."  Would we consider such tinkering "God-pleasing?" Of course not.  Orthodox Christianity is a Trinitarian faith that holds Law, Gospel, and discipleship together.  It does not elevate a docetic Gospel beyond the necessity of repentance and amendment of life.  (By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. 1 John 5:2) Lutherans above all should know that the Gospel makes no sense without the Law, including, as Luther taught, its guidance for the Christian life.

Orthodox Christians throughout the world from New Testament times until now have held that homosexual conduct violates the clear commandments of God.  Traditional Lutherans within the ELCA hold that belief with great intensity.  They cannot "live faithfully in the midst of disagreements" when those disagreements involve matters essential to the faith.  Appeals to unity amidst such disagreements are not persuasive.  The church will have to come down on one side or the other.

II.

A second reason why the Council's proposal is not an acceptable compromise is that its second recommendation is not sufficiently clear.  The second recommendation urges that we should respect the guidance of the Conference of Bishops (which finds no scriptural or traditional grounds for an official ceremony of this church for the blessing of homosexual relationships) but "trusts pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to same-sex couples."  Although this recommendation has been understood by some as proscribing any formal blessing at all, it can and has been taken by others to mean that though there is no official church-wide rite sanctioned by the ELCA there is plenty of room for local rites that could be either private (in the home) or public (before the altar).  Such local rites are already being performed in the ELCA and this recommendation seems to open the door for many more.  Indeed, how could partnered gays and lesbians presenting themselves for ordination under the Council's third recommendation certify their formal commitment except by pointing to such a rite of blessing?

In order for this compromise to be acceptable, there would have to be clear guidelines for  "faithful pastoral care."  These guidelines would have to set limits and offer stipulations for such pastoral care.  Without adequate guidelines the door is open to whatever local pastors and congregations decide is "faithful pastoral care."

 III.

The third reason that the Council's recommendations are not acceptable is that the "exceptional ordinations" in its third recommendation would soon become normal. The third recommendation would "permit implementation of this limited process for exceptions to the normative policies of this church."  This process would allow for non-celibate, partnered gays and lesbians to be ordained through a carefully defined process involving various levels of authority, including the Conference of Bishops itself.

Oddly enough, it is under this recommendation that the Council outlines the church's two opposing perspectives on homosexual conduct.  By setting up a careful process for allowing exceptions the Council seems to be bowing to those who hold to the traditional Christian teaching on homosexual conduct.  But by allowing exceptions at all it is bowing to those who believe that the traditional teaching should be revised.  It uses the acceptance of divorced and remarried clergy as a parallel to the acceptance of partnered gay clergy.  (This is a dubious analogy because divorced clergy do not argue that divorce itself is right and therefore keep divorcing.)  And such exceptions might well lead, as the recommendation ominously suggests, to the "opportunity for continued discernment of where the Holy Spirit is leading this church."

However, this approach will temporarily set up two tiers of ordained ministry in the ELCA.  (Would the ordinations of these "exceptional candidates" be recognized throughout the ELCA?  How painful would it be to go through such a process?)  But such an arrangement would only be temporary.  Once the ELCA provides for this process, few  bishops are likely to resist pastors and congregations who request such ordinations.  Few gays and lesbians will tolerate "exceptional status" for long.  In time the limits and processes will become perfunctory and then all distinctions will dissolve.  The distinction between the marriages of heterosexual pairs and the blessings of gay unions will follow a similar trajectory.

All this hard striving after compromise is beside the point until and unless the fundamental disagreement is definitively addressed--whether or not homosexual conduct is consonant with the will of God.  Until the ELCA clarifies its mind on this matter all these compromises are distractions.  "No city or house divided against itself will stand."(Matthew 12:25)  And, of course, the mind of the ecumenical church throughout the ages is clear on these matters.  The only question is whether the ELCA will recognize that and properly set its house in order.

Robert Benne