A RESPONSE TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FROM THE TASK FORCE FOR ELCA STUDIES ON SEXUALITY

We are grateful to every member of the Task Force for their time, commitment,
and effort, and accept the invitation welcoming the "prayers, responses, and
admonitions of all our partners." In response to that request, and based on our
careful review of the Report and its recommendations, we maintain that the
third and primary recommendation of the Task Force, contrary to its stated
intention, threatens to destabilize the unity and constitution, as well as the
historical, biblical, and confessional teachings and practice of this church.
Further, this final proposal places the first two, although in principle
containing some assertions that are indeed admirable and commendable, into an
interpretative context that makes them objectionable as well.

The most conspicuous logical inconsistency in the Task Force's Report is that
in the name of a "no change in policy" it advocates a fundamental shift in
policy. It asks the church "to refrain from disciplining those who . . . call
or approve partnered gay or lesbian candidates whom they believe to be
otherwise in compliance with Vision and Expectations and to refrain from
disciplining those rostered people so approved or called" (7). Unable to make a
recommendation that would resolve the issue of gay/lesbian ordination and/or
blessings through legislative action based on Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions, the Task Force proposes that permission for such activities be
granted on the basis of "conscience" and a "pastoral approach" in lieu of the
traditional criteria employed by this church. This proposal, in our view,
suffers from several flaws. We offer the following theological observations:

Ecclesiology

By using the language of "this approach" (8) instead of "this change in policy"
the Task Force advocates that the ELCA should "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"
(8). In the New Testament, however, the criterion for the discernment of the
gifts of the Holy Spirit is a broadly based, ecclesial determination and not an
individual, local preference. If the Report before us were to be implemented,
the ELCA, as a national church body, would abdicate its theological and moral
constitutional responsibility by relegating the decisions for which it alone is
responsible to regional and local components. Far beyond transforming the
polity of the ELCA into a congregational one, such an action would so fatally
extend the boundaries of diversity in matters of doctrinal and ethical
substance that this church would no longer be an effective collaborator either
in the communio of the Lutheran World Federation or in the multiple dimensions
of ecumenical dialogue. The proposed shift of matters of such enormous import
from the national to the local levels will have two adverse consequences: 1.
structural dissolution of the ELCA as it currently exists, and; 2. creation of
intense division and disunity at the local level, thus effectively undermining
"ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements" (5).

Conscience

The Task Force imposes a subjective understanding of "conscience," one bound
only by private judgment, upon Scripture and Luther, thus misrepresenting both.
Whenever conscience severs itself from faith in Christ and fidelity to the Word
it is no longer conscience in the true sense. Indeed, some in the Corinthian
church wanted to solve their disagreements by applying precisely such a
therapeutic model of conscience, an approach that Paul unequivocally rejects.
Weak consciences, led into error by social pressures and alien ideologies, can
never be ultimately determinative sources of truth or unity. For Luther, the
holy and righteous conscience of the Christian must agree with God's Word; an
erring conscience, separated from Scripture, can react only in accordance with
selfish desires resulting from weakness in faith.

Pastoral Care

In Scripture the term "pastor" is never dissociated from the standard of sound
teaching. Much like the term "conscience," "pastoral concern" must be governed
by that which is righteous and holy in the eyes of God. "Pastoral concern" is
not a neutral category and cannot, therefore, be determinative in discerning
the correctness of actions or behavior. Since pastors can either teach sound or
false doctrine, Titus is urged to "teach what is consistent with sound
doctrine." Neither Scripture nor the Confessions entrust the theological or
ethical teaching of the church to pastoral "discretion" (5). In listening to
the contemporary "voices of the baptized children of God" (9) we cannot and
must not disregard the voices of the church universal over the past two
millennia; Scripture can never address us independently from that communal
history.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given we urge that all three recommendations of the Task Force
be rejected since, if adopted, they would alter fundamentally the ecclesiology
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and that, in turn, would threaten
not only the unity and stability of this church but, as a consequence, its
ability to proclaim the truth of the Gospel.

Robert Benne Carl E. Braaten James R. Crumley, Jr.

Karl P. Donfried Gerhard O. Forde George W. Forell

Roy A. Harrisville Hans Hillerbrand Robert W. Jenson

Marc Kolden William H. Lazareth James A. Nestingen

Michael J. Root William G. Rusch Walter F. Taylor, Jr.

David S. Yeago