Solid Rock's Response to Bishop Ullestad

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Bishop Steven L. Ullestad of the Northeast Iowa Synod of the ELCA, together with Bishop Peter Rogness of the St. Paul Area Synod of Minnesota, has recently proposed that exceptions be made to the guidelines for ordained ministers in the ELCA that would allow for the ordination of homosexuals in life-long committed relationships. Currently, the ELCA ordains single people, but only if they are celibate. This is the case for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Bishop Ullestad's proposed exception would be contrary to scripture and healthy sexual boundaries and would damage the proclamation of the gospel.

Bishop Ullestad is still on a "journey of faith" as he says, so that his proposal merely reflects his "Best Thinking" at this time [Thus the title of his paper: "My Best Thinking at this Time"]. We are all on a similar journey and certainly appreciate Bishop Ullestad's attempt to keep the ELCA intact. But the argument he presents lacks certain key elements that are often ignored and others which are contrary to his position.
First, his recitation of scriptural texts is problematic. He cites the story ofSodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. He maintains that the primary sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality toward strangers. He cites Ezekiel 16:49 as justification for this view, which condemns the Sodomites for various abominations including economic discrimination. What Bishop Ullestad does not realize is that the term "abomination" includes sexual sins in Ezekiel 22:11 and 33:26. Therefore, we may not assume that Ezekiel's indictment of Sodom and Gomorrah had only to do with economic discrimination. The Bishop also says that "culture has imposed an interpretation of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah that does not have a consistent basis in scripture." However, the Bishop ignores Jude 7 which clearly calls the sin of the Sodomites "unnatural lust." The interpretation of the Sodomites' sin as unnatural sexual activity comes from scripture, not culture. Therefore, the Bishop may not dismiss that interpretation as easily as he wishes.

Bishop Ullestad next cites the supposed analogy to divorced and remarried clergy, saying that if the Church allows such things to happen, even though Jesus clearly condemned divorce, perhaps we should allow the same consideration for homosexuals. The Bishop thus puts himself in the unenviable position of saying that two wrongs make a right. It is as if we were to say that since the Church has supported various wars of armed conflict in the past and popes and pastors have actually taken up arms themselves, the Church should therefore embrace all wars. But that is foolishness. If the Church defies Jesus in one respect, it is no virtue to defy him in others.
Besides, the analogy is inappropriate since, it is my fervent hope, pastors who are divorced and remarry do so with a spirit of repentance. Such is not the case with homosexuals. They do not think they need to repent for their sexual lives. If a remarried Pastor is repentant for the break-up of her marriage and recognizes her guilt, the Church may indeed forgive. But if one is defiantly unrepentant, how can the Church forgive when no forgiveness is sought? Therefore, it is the absence of repentance that disallows the analogy between homosexual unions and divorced clergy.
Bishop Ullestad, on the other hand, does say that Romans chapter 1 seems to condemn homosexual behavior quite clearly. He then goes on to say that this passage in Romans is part of a larger condemnation of all people and cites Romans 2:1. He's quite right. But if he intends to say that no one may criticize others for their behavior because they are equally sinful, he ignores the many times the New Testament writers admonish their brothers and sisters in the faith when they see them acting contrary to the faith. Being critical is not being judgmental. It is actually a form of love.
Bishop Ullestad says there is a growing consensus within the scientific community that homosexuality is an orientation, not a choice, and that homosexuals cannot change. We agree that homoerotic impulses are not consciously chosen by the individual but arise through complex conditions. However, sexuality is fluid and not fixed as is indicated by the countless lives of ex-gays and lesbians. These are the most persecuted people in the Church, because Bishops, pastors, and laity refuse to acknowledge their existence and give them the same consideration offered to others. Does Bishop Ullestad know any ex-gays and lesbians? Probably not. If he did, his thinking might change. If we sanction gay and lesbian pastors and same-sex unions (which Bishop Ullestad's proposal assumes) what do we do with all our ex-gays and lesbians? Do we kick them out of our Churches? Do we sweep them under the rugs? Where is our precious justice if we do that? They will certainly feel unwelcome and discriminated against in any Church that denies their existence. The Church is headed for a serious crisis in values if it accepts Bishop Ullestad's proposal.
As for the supposed "consensus" the Bishop must name names and give examples and cite books and studies to convince us of that. But there is no consensus in the scientific community. There is only controversy, and the Bishop ought to make that clear.
Bishop Ullestad speaks of the calling of "God's prophetic word to create safe relationships and safe communities and the church's pastoral response in a world broken by sin" that would challenge the Church to bless same-sex unions and ordain practicing homosexuals. I hope he does not mean to say that if sin is too tough for the Church, it ought to approve it. We should not go along to get along.
Most importantly, the Bishop claims that he has heard no argument from those who advocate change that affects the proclamation of the gospel. "In none of my conversations have I heard a challenge to the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the administration of the sacraments." To whom has the Bishop been speaking? Is he not aware of the argument from emotion that when a person feels something so intensely, like homoerotic desires, that such a person should surrender to those desires and identify himself by them? Has he never heard the argument that homosexual identity is constructed from within the individual quite apart from the gospel? As Dr. Jonathan Sorum (Docent in Systematic Theology at the Evangelical Theological Faculty of Comenius, Bratislava Slovakia) asks, "Will we find our common identity outside of ourselves, in Jesus Christ, with the result that he, in turn, is the ultimate source of our moral norms? Or will we insists that our true identity is one we construct from the desires and feelings we find within ourselves, with the result that our desires and feelings become the source of our moral norms?" This issue is very much a question of identity and therefore a question of the gospel.
If we are only what we feel then Jesus should not have told us to deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow him (Mk 8:34). If we are only what we desire then St. Paul should have reversed his thinking and told us to gratify our fleshly desires, instead of being clothed with the identity of Christ (Ro 13:14). If we are only the sum total of our impulses then Jesus should have fled to safety from the garden of Gethsemane instead of praying that not His will, but God's be done. (Mk 14:36)
Identity is very much a gospel issue. If our identity is not shaped by Christ but by our urges and passions, then we have rejected Christ in favor of the self and have refused to follow his example of suffering for the sake of a higher will. If the Church accepts the homosexual argument, it must reject self-denial and the new identity it has in Christ. That indeed is a gospel issue.

Bishop Ullestad appends a letter to his own that was written by Rev. Steven M. Jacobsen of Decorah, IA. That letter is another attempt at the false analogy between accepting Gentiles and accepting homosexuals in the Church. The analogy is false for at least two reasons. First, the Church already accepts homosexuals, and any sinner who walks in the door. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, baptized, communing, and singing in the choir. No pastor I know of wishes to exclude gays and lesbians from our fellowship. Those who do are guilty of self-righteousness, for we have all sinned. The issue is not welcoming gays and lesbians but approving of certain sexual practices. The issue is behavior. It always has been. Misdirecting the discussion toward the welcoming or not welcoming of gays and lesbians in Church is a red herring.
Second, whereas scripture clearly shows a trajectory toward the inclusion of Gentiles as a race from Genesis to Revelation, nowhere does it do so concerning all sexual behaviors. Again, the issue is not race but behavior. "Love the sinner but hate the sin" is a good motto to follow since it reflects the deep Christian wish to embrace all people, but not all actions.

In conclusion, Bishop Ullestad's suggestion of granting exceptions ignores key biblical truths, pays attention to false analogies, and would strike at the very heart of Christian identity and the gospel. If the Church acquiesces to such suggestions it must relinquish any right to speak out on any other moral issue. How could the Church speak against polyamory and bisexual behavior or sex before marriage if we accept the common identity argument for homosexuals? Any smart teenager would recognize the hypocrisy of it and knock us about the head with our own words.
Bishop Ullestad is trying nobly to keep the Church from splitting over this issue. We appreciate that sentiment and pray that the communion of saints within the ELCA remains faithful and intact. But unity at the cost of the gospel is just too expensive.