Lutheran Sexuality Task Force Abdicates Responsibility

Editor's note: IRD Vice President Alan F.H. Wisdom is a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). He is commenting on a proposal within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because that proposal is related to developments in his own and several other denominations. We are hearing in all these denominations the same arguments for a "local option" to exempt churches and ministers from the Church's historic standards of sexual behavior. Denominations that have tried the "local option" approach, such as the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church, have not ended up in a "neutral" position on sexuality questions. Instead the top officials of such denominations have been emboldened as champions of the new sexual ethic that normalizes homosexuality and other sexual relationships outside of marriage. If the recommendations of the ELCA sexuality task force are adopted, we would expect the ELCA to follow the same course, slowly or rapidly. And we would expect to see similar proposals advanced in the PCUSA and other denominations.

I [Jesus] am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. (John 15:1-10, NRSV)

The just-released report from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's (ELCA) Task Force for Studies on Sexuality offers what is clearly intended to be a compromise. But its recommendations regarding same-sex blessings and homosexual ordination do not represent a true "middle way." They represent no way at all. By letting the church's standards on marriage and sexuality stand on paper, while gutting those standards of any practical force in the life of the church, the task force would leave the denomination with no real standards of any sort.

If adopted, this non-solution would not bring any lasting peace to the ELCA. At most, it would lend the appearance of a truce. But the price of that temporary truce would be exceedingly high. It would be an almost total abdication of the church's responsibility to proclaim God's will for human sexuality. There would be no clear answer to give young Lutherans who asked, "How does my church believe that I should conduct myself sexually?" The mute ELCA would move ever closer to cultural irrelevance, unable to challenge a society in which "every man [does] what is right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6).

Recommendation 1: Putting ?Communion' above ?Issues'
The report offers three recommendations to the denomination in preparation for the upcoming Churchwide Assembly in August. The first is a recommendation that the ELCA "concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements." This appears to be an attempt to frame the larger question, suggesting that the primary purpose of the task force is to devise a "way to live together faithfully."

Readers are told that "the God-given mission and communion we share is at least as important as the issues about which faithful conscience-bound Lutherans find themselves so decisively at odds." Note how the church's obligation to declare the law of God regarding sexuality?the subject of one of the Ten Commandments?is reduced rhetorically to an "issue" about which humans disagree.

The task force places such "issues" in opposition to the communion and mission of the church, as if the ELCA could choose to value its communion and mission more highly by devaluing these "issues." It never considers the question: How much communion and how much mission would be left for a denomination that deliberated defaulted on its obligation to declare the commandments of God? A church that is unwilling to declare the Law, Luther taught, will be unable to proclaim the Gospel.

"Approval of this [first] recommendation," the report says, "will be an indication that this church is willing to embrace the commitment to continue mutually respectful dialogue." Here the task force assumes that dialogue is an inherent and universal good. It does not allow for times when endless, fruitless public debates must stop?and the long slog of Christian obedience must begin. Nor does the task force allow for the possibility that some kinds of dialogue might be fully compatible with the church taking a strong doctrinal stand. After all, Lutherans continue to have conversations about justification by grace through faith?even as the church's teaching on that point remains clearly defined.

Recommendation 2: How ?No Change' Becomes Change

The second recommendation deals with the issue of blessing same-sex couples. The task force concludes that the ELCA should "continue to respect the pastoral guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops." In the body of its report, the task force paraphrases that 1993 statement in a single sentence: "In this time of conflict and uncertainty, the Conference of Bishops pointed the way by treating such decisions as matters of pastoral care and the task force believes that pastors and congregations can and should be trusted by this church to exercise the wisdom of discretion in their ministry to same-sex couples and their natural and congregational families." Stated in this manner, the recommendation amounts to an open invitation for pro-homosex pastors and congregations to conduct same-sex blessings at will.

The task force claims that it "declines to recommend any change" regarding same-sex blessings. But this second recommendation amounts to a vast change?indeed, almost a reversal of the bishops' 1993 position. Buried in a footnote of the task force report is the actual text from 1993. The bishops' main point is unmistakable: "We, as the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, recognize that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church's ministry." Then the bishops add a subordinate point: "Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister."

While this 1993 decision did not have the force of a law prohibiting same-sex unions, the bishops' disapproval of such ceremonies was manifest. And that disapproval was grounded in the bishops' reading of Scripture and tradition, which do not permit the church to give its blessing to homosexual relationships. Thus the bishops' closing expression of "trust" in pastors and congregations was not a green light for them to celebrate same-sex unions. On the contrary, it was an encouragement for them to explore other ways of providing pastoral care to homosexuals.

The current sexuality task force turns that 1993 statement on its head. It ignores and fails to reaffirm the main point of that statement: that same-sex blessings are to be discouraged, because they are contrary to Scripture. Instead the task force fastens upon a subordinate point, the expression of "trust" in pastors and congregations. Then it twists that phrase into what it was never meant to be: a permission slip for same-sex blessings. The result is a truly bizarre reversal of policy, disguised as "no change."

This second recommendation also displays a peculiar view of same-sex blessings as "pastoral care." Yet weddings?and, presumably, ceremonies aiming to mimic weddings?are not primarily acts of personal pastoral care. A church wedding is a celebration of the entire Christian community, bearing common witness to God's good purposes for marriage, with the spouses and the congregation committing themselves publicly to honor those purposes and support one another. If a person requires pastoral care, the best place to give that care is not in a public church service. It is in private prayer and counseling. And genuine pastoral care must be ready to address the sin that distorts a person's life. Anything less is a betrayal of the spiritual health of those receiving pastoral care.

The report insists, "Such an exercise of pastoral care [same-sex blessings] should be understood as a matter quite distinct from and in no way equivalent to marriage." Similarly, it asserts, "Surrounding people or households with prayerful support does not necessarily mean public approval of homosexual sexual intimacy." But these assurances ring hollow. The task force has chosen to ignore a manifest fact: Most pastors and congregations celebrating same-sex unions do see them as equivalent to marriages and do intend to convey public approval upon homosexual sexual intimacy. Nothing in the task force report would prevent such pastors and congregations from proclaiming these views in the name of the church. It gives them a blank check to "exercise the wisdom of discretion in their ministry to same-sex couples."

Recommendation 3: Opening a Loophole

The third recommendation is also introduced as a continuation of the status quo. It starts by stating that the ELCA should "continue under the standards regarding sexual conduct for rostered leaders as set forth in Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline." Once again, the body of the recommendation does not quote the specific provision that it is supposedly reaffirming?nor is there any paraphrase, in this case, nor is the language to be found in a footnote.

This missing language from Visions and Expectations reads in part: "Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." Heterosexual ministers, likewise, are expected to refrain from sex outside of marriage. These clear directives have been used, in some cases, to discipline ELCA pastors and congregations that have violated them. Even some pro-homosex bishops have felt constrained to honor the standard.

But the task force moves to undercut the standard. The loophole appears in the following convoluted phrase at the end of the third recommendation: "[A]s a pastoral response to the deep divisions among us, this church may choose to refrain from disciplining those who in good conscience, and for the sake of outreach, ministry, and the commitment to continuing dialogue, call or approve partnered gay or lesbian candidates whom they believe to be otherwise in compliance with Visions and Expectations, and to refrain from disciplining those rostered people so approved and called."

If this recommendation were adopted, there could be only scant discipline for ELCA clergy in matters of sexuality. Any appeal to "good conscience" would be sufficient to gain an exemption. The task force leaves the church's sexuality standards on paper, but guts them of all authority in the life of the church. And, having effectively dispensed with the old standards, the task force does not have any new standards to offer in their place.

The denomination would now have no particular expectations for the sexual behavior of homosexual clergy. (The term "partnered" is left undefined and meaningless.) And if the ELCA refused to censure homosexual relations outside of marriage, how would it ever muster the courage to discipline heterosexual misconduct in any but the most egregious instances?

The report endeavors to portray its third recommendation as a moderate compromise. It notes disagreements among task force members about the proper standards for rostered leaders. The traditional teaching of the church is presented as just one opinion?the most conservative: "Some of us believe that we should affirm and uphold the current policy and practice of the church, assuming that discipline will take place and be graciously endured."

This last sentence is a caricature of the traditionalist position. Traditionalists do not blithely "assume that discipline will take place and be graciously endured." They are acutely aware of how hard it is for sinful humans to administer discipline with firmness and love, and how hard it is to receive discipline with humility. But they are convinced that the effort must be made, because God commands it and promises his grace to those who persevere through discipline.

Then there are two other more liberal views cited. "Some of us believe that we should review and modify Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, especially regarding homosexual people living in committed relationships," according to the report. In addition, "Some of us believe that the ELCA should find a way to ?create a space' in our church (for example, by allowing local option, developing a process to grant exceptions to policy, ordination to place, non-geographic synod, etc.) for ministries that would fully accept the gifts of gay and lesbian rostered leaders without fear of discipline or rejection."

The task force apparently would like readers to see its third recommendation as somewhere in the middle between the one more conservative position and the two more liberal positions. But, in reality, there are only two positions: Either the church will uphold the biblical and traditional teaching confining sexual relations to the marriage of man and woman, or it will bless and honor any sexual relationship that is said to be "loving" and "just."

Ultimately, there are no substantial differences between the task force recommendation and the two supposedly more liberal positions. Upon closer examination, they all collapse into a single basic position?with minor tactical differences. The task force recommendation is, in effect, a "local option" proposal to "create space" for those in homosexual relationships. The report explains, "This approach allows the ELCA to trust congregations, synods, candidacy committees, and bishops to discern the Holy Spirit's gifts for ministry among the baptized and make judgments appropriate to each situation."

Likewise, the task force recommendation amounts to a change in the Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline. It renders the sexuality standards in those documents void of any force. The task force would have fostered a more honest debate if it had straightforwardly proposed the deletion of the current standards. Then it might have seen its duty to propose a new standard, and to demonstrate that the new standard expresses the law of God as revealed in the Scriptures.

An Argument about Conscience
So what reasons does the task force adduce for its proposed radical revision of Lutheran standards on sexuality? All the arguments are sociological, based upon particular notions of how the church might "live together faithfully." The most prominent theme is an appeal for toleration of all "deeply held and conscience-bound positions." The report quotes Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms: "It is neither safe nor right to go against conscience."

Of course, Luther was not asking for a private exemption for his own convictions. He was pleading for the whole church to reform its teaching and practice. And if the authorities would not heed his voice, he was prepared to accept the consequences.

Luther made his appeal on the basis of Scripture, insisting that "my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Where God's law spoke clearly, he felt that the church and all its members were under obligation to obey. It was only in matters of moral "indifference" that Luther, following the thinking of the apostle Paul, allowed latitude for various views.

Sexuality, however, is not an area of moral "indifference." It is a crucial aspect of human life, and one to which the Bible speaks repeatedly and emphatically. Jesus warned his disciples: "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication [porneia], theft, murder, adultery?." (Mark 7:20-21). Jesus and his contemporaries understood porneia as referring to all sex outside the marriage of man and woman.

This and related scripture passages form the basis for the current ELCA policies on sexuality. If the current sexuality task force believes that porneia should be redefined, then let it explain why it has a better understanding of what Jesus and his apostles meant. But neither the Bible nor Lutheran tradition authorize the church to grant special exceptions to God's law against porneia. Dissenters should find other ways of satisfying their consciences.

We might also ask: If the ELCA gets into the business of granting special exceptions to God's law, why stop at sexual matters? Why not "create space" for those who would revise the commandments prohibiting theft and murder and false witness? Surely, too, there are persons with "deeply held and conscience-bound positions" dissenting from ELCA teachings on racism. Would the task force recommend that the denomination "choose to refrain from disciplining" such persons?

An Argument about Consensus

A much weaker sociological argument is the contention that "there is no consensus on these matters [of sexuality] within the ELCA." Apparently, the task force believes that the church cannot set standards without some undefined "consensus."

But there is no Lutheran doctrine establishing "consensus" as the church's preferred method for making decisions. If Luther had waited for a consensus to develop, the Reformation would never have gone very far. More recently, the ELCA did not require a consensus when it made the historic decision to enter "full communion" with the Episcopal Church. A two-thirds vote was sufficient on that occasion.

According to survey collected by the task force itself, there is likely a two-thirds majority in the ELCA today favoring the current sexuality standards. Using a representative sample of 4,000 responses to its earlier study guide, the task force tabulated answers to the question "What course do you think our church should follow?" Those opposing same-sex blessings and homosexual ordination outnumbered those in favor by 56 percent to 23 percent. (The other 21 percent had no opinion or gave an answer that was more difficult to classify.) A demographic breakdown of the respondents showed that support for current ELCA standards spanned virtually all ethnicities, age groups, and geographic regions.

One must ask: How much more would it take for the task force to admit that there was a consensus within the ELCA? If only 15 percent dissented from the standards, would the task force still deny that a consensus existed? Ten percent? Five percent? How small a minority will the denomination allow to silence its witness to God's law?

An Argument about Dialogue

A third sociological argument is the appeal for "mutually respectful dialogue on the issues of human sexuality." The task force speaks of an "emerging consciousness" as "human experience and knowledge can change, as it seems to have, in some ways, with respect to our understanding of sexual orientation." It concludes, "These developments suggest that there may be a need to allow some ?space' in our practices and attitudes in order for further insights to emerge."

Let us attempt to translate this somewhat obscure prose: The task force is sympathetic to the view that the latest generation of Western liberals (the "emerging consciousness") has new moral insights into sexuality that render ancient biblical commandments obsolete. But it knows that this view has not persuaded the majority in the ELCA. The majority still disapproves of sex outside of marriage. But if the majority can be prevented from acting on its biblical convictions, then there will be "space" for the "emerging consciousness" to grow. Eventually, "further insights" will carry the day for the sexual revisionists.

This seems to be the strategy behind the task force report: Render the church's voice on sexuality incoherent, until such time as that voice will say what the revisionists want it to say. Yet there is no necessary reason to suppose that the triumph of the revisionists is inevitable. If it is not inevitable, then there is no reason why the ELCA should not maintain and enforce standards based on its historic and current understanding of Scripture. Dissenters will remain free to question the standards, but not to defy them.

This same situation applies to most other issues on which the church takes a stand. The church remains open to conversation about its teachings, but it does not suspend them. The burden of proof rightly lies on the side of those who would change the teachings.

A Question Unanswered: What Say the Scriptures?

The ELCA constitution states, "This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life." This declaration would lead one to believe that major controversies in the ELCA would be resolved on the basis of the church's reading of the Scriptures. And the current sexuality debate would seem to qualify as a major controversy.

Yet there is astonishingly little attention given to the Scriptures in the sexuality task force report. Among its 32 pages, one finds barely four pages that address matters of biblical interpretation. (By contrast, ten pages summarize the task force survey of participants in the sexuality study.) The recommendations contain not one single quote from the Bible. The rest of the report directly quotes but two biblical passages?one in a prefatory letter, one in a more conservative minority proposal.

There are scattered parenthetical references to particular biblical chapters and verses; however, readers are left to look up the passages on their own. Only one of the scriptural passages dealing directly with homosexuality (Leviticus 18) is mentioned?without any explanation of what that passage says about the subject. Amazingly, there are no references to crucial New Testament texts such as Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-11.

In fact, most of the material related to biblical interpretation is not any kind of exposition of what the Scriptures themselves say. Instead it is a recitation of what various parties in the church say about the Scriptures. For example, consider this paragraph, which is the closest that the task force comes to addressing the basic question before it:

Many people have asked for a simple answer to the question: Does the Bible say that sexual activity between two people of the same sex is always a sin? This question is near the heart of the division of opinion in our church because Christians who are faithful to God's Word give different answers. Among other responses that could be mentioned, some say the teaching of the Bible is clear and condemns such activities as sinful, while some say that the verses in the Bible usually cited do not apply to a love relationship between two consenting adults in a committed relationship. In this matter the ELCA needs to continue in prayerful study of Scripture with one another.

Thus the discernment of God's Word is reduced to a choice between two sets of human words. Judging the human words only by the presumed motives of the speakers (all are said to be equally "faithful"), the task force is unable to distinguish truth from falsehood. It refuses to decide which interpretation corresponds more closely to what God has said in the text of Scripture. It treats every sincerely-held interpretation as equally valid.

This "he said, she said" approach to the Scriptures is not the approach taken by Martin Luther or other great teachers of the Church. While they studied to find the best interpretation and bring it to bear upon the daily lives of Christian believers, this new relativistic approach abandons the search for the best interpretation. God's Word is rendered inaccessible, and believers' lives are detached from it. Lacking any "authoritative norm" in Scripture, decisions must be made on some other basis.

In the case of the ELCA sexuality task force, that basis is dubious arguments about "conscience," "consensus," and "dialogue." These are too flimsy to sustain any policy in an area as important and difficult as sexuality. When detached from its proper basis in Scripture, even the current standard barring sex outside of marriage would lose all authority. Those words on a page would be seen as merely an expression of the personal prejudices of church members.

Another Question Unanswered: What Says the Church Universal?

When biblical interpretations are disputed, it is often helpful to consult the collected wisdom of the wider Church Universal. Our 21st century U.S. perspective can sometimes make us blind to important parts of God's message. We need the perspectives of Christians in other times and places to correct our limited vision.

An ELCA task force dealing with a tricky topic ought to be eager for that kind of wider perspective. The ELCA constitution defines the denomination as an ecumenical church: "In length, it acknowledges itself to be in the historic continuity of the communion of saints; in breadth, it expresses the fellowship of believers and congregations in our day." So two natural questions would be: How has the Church through the centuries interpreted the biblical teaching on homosexuality? How do Christians around the world today interpret the biblical teaching on homosexuality?

The task force report, stunningly, shows not the slightest interest in the first question. Among the listed "voices of the baptized children of God" to which the task force says it listened, the voices of 80 earlier generations of Christians are not mentioned. Martin Luther is quoted on conscience, but his views on sexuality are not discussed.

The task force shows a glimmer of interest in the opinions of the contemporary worldwide church. "We offer this report to the church with a deep awareness that it will affect our partners in ministry across the country and around the world," the task force leaders say in their introductory letter. But they never explain how those partner churches would be affected if the ELCA gutted its standards on sexuality.

The task force reports that it worked to "keep ourselves aware of the state of the discussion [about sexuality] among our ecumenical partners, other Christian churches, and the churches of the Lutheran World Federation." But it gives only the briefest hint at what it heard from those partner churches: "The task force members came to recognize that the biblical-theological case for wholesale changes in this church's current standards had not been made to the satisfaction of the majority of participants in the study. This judgment ? also corresponds to the weight of opinion among our ecumenical partner churches and the partner churches of the Lutheran World Federation."

What the report fails to tell its readers is the following: Every generation of Christians before the present has been virtually unanimous in its understanding that the Bible prohibits sex outside of marriage (including homosex). This has been the unbroken teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, and all the "mainline" Protestant churches prior to 1970. It is an understanding shared by the overwhelming majority of Christians today in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?the continents where an increasing majority of the world's Christians resides. The only deviations from this teaching are to be found among a handful of extremely liberal, declining denominations in North America and Western Europe, representing less than one percent of the world's Christians.

If the ELCA were to adopt the task force recommendations, its sexuality standards would remain orthodox on paper. But the denomination's practices regarding sexuality would be severed and detached in multiple ways: severed from the putative standards, detached from the authority of Scripture, severed from the Lutheran tradition of declaring God's Law alongside God's Gospel, detached from the convictions of most Lutherans (and most Christians today and in the past), severed from any possibility of effective Christian discipline. The effect would be simply to ratify the varying prejudices of local groups of ELCA members. Any alleged standard would be powerless and contemptible.

In approving such recommendations, the ELCA would separate itself from the main body of global Christianity. Like the Episcopal Church after the consecration of Gene Robinson, it would be seen increasingly as a marginal and schismatic sect. Irrelevant in its own society, it would be isolated internationally.

A Different Outcome is Possible

Fortunately, the task force recommendations are only a proposal so far. The ELCA Conference of Bishops, the Division for Church in Society, and the Division for Ministry will now review that proposal. In April, the ELCA council will decide what resolutions it wishes to present to the Churchwide Assembly in August. Individual synods will also have the opportunity to recommend a course of action in response to the task force's findings.

We remain hopeful that the voice of the vast majority of ELCA members, the vast majority of other Christians, and (not least) the Scriptures will prevail. Faithful Lutherans should know that many fellow believers will be praying with that desire. We seek to be united more closely with them in Christ and his Word, not sundered by human agendas of self-justification.

(Steve Rempe also contributed to this report