# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S335
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

point fo some traits in ju ation of the hushand’s headship
also miss the point. And finally. it is improper tu object that
the wife is considered on this account to be of less worth than
the husband, Considerations uf meritand value are sper ifieal-
ly ercluded in hierarchies of function. Instead. they proceed
solely from the requirements of ae organic ativan in lave
committed fu permanence, Suck a union is not dominated by
considerations uf either authurity or merit hut rather by
mutual service of the kind we find in the ministry of Jesus
Christ in our behalf.

The connection between permanence and hierarchy has
been looked at in this section largely from the side of the wife.
Thatis. if the permanence of the union is to be certain. she must
be willing to recognize the superordinate role of the husband.
However, as we have begun to set forth in this section. the
implications for the husband's understanding of his role are not
less important. In cases of disagreement. how shall he exercise
headship? Must he “wield authority as a domestic tyrant’?% If
he is really committed to mutual service and the permanence of
this union, his first question ought certainly to be, what are her
desires, her wishes, her needs? The distortion which sin brings
to human relationships all too often enters in here as well. for
this is certainly not the first question husbands always ask
themselves. Because the authority which has been entrusted to
them can be misused. it is not out of place in Christian teaching
to stress that love will seek to treat the other as partner. This
should not be misunderstood to mean that marriage is, there-
fore, a mere contractual association. Rather it is a necessary
emphasis in the face of misuse of the concept of hierarchy. Our
marriages are lived out in a fallen creation. a fact which must
enter into our understanding of what is possible and desirable
in marriage.

C. Homosexuality
Homosexuality comes under a categorical prohibition in

the Old and New Testaments (Ley. 18:22, 24; 20:13: 1 Cor.
6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10), Paul writes in Romans } of the “dishonor-

significance we found in suggesting that the one-flesh union ofa
man and woman is ordinarily expeeted to be fruitful.

Hence. we can say on Christian premises that mutual
consent or even genuine affection is not enough to justify a
homosexual relationship. The human being is. according to the
Scriptures, more than mere freedom to define what he or she
will be. There are acts or relationships to which we cannot
consent without stepping beyond the limitations our Creator
hax set for His creatures (Rom. 1:26 ff.1. Sexuality provides an
excellent example of this truth. Mutual consent alune between
partners does not. on the Christian understanding. make
heterosexual intercourse permissible. (See Section I] above on
marriage and its purposes.) Similarly. mutual consent alone.
even when joined with affection, cannot justify a homosexual
union. An unwillingness to make such affirmations is part of a
“flight from creation” which besets the contemporary world
and contemporary Christendom. It ought to be resisted in the
name of the Redeemer who is also our Creator.

In discussing the sins which follow upon man’s refusal to
honor (sod as Creator of all things (Rom, 1:26-32), the apostle
Paul singles out the sins of homosexual behavior for special
comment. Such behavior comes under God's judgment not
because it is any more heinous than the 2] vices listed in 1:29-31,
but because it, too, illustrates man’s rebellion against his
Creator. Like these sins, homosexual behavior is illustrative of
how rebellious man turns in upon himself and makes “an agony
of the common !ife that should in God's intent have been a
blessing to mankind.” *

The apostle’s condemnation. however, is not meant to
deprive those guilty of these sins the help which God would
extend to them. While not minimizing the threat of God's wrath
against all forms of enslavement to sin. the church needs to
recognize in its efforts to help the homosexual that all people are
born in need of deliverance from the effects which sin has
imposed on their lives. With this in mind it is important to
realize that there are those persons who, apart from any
deliberate choice on their part. have a predisposition toward
homosexuality and have no desire to enter into a relationship

BA

able passions” to which God gives up those who worship the
creature rather than the Creator and says: “Their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men like-
wise gave up natural relations with women and were con-
sumed with passion for one another. men committing shame-
less acts with men... .” (Rom. 1:26-27). In a discussion of
homosexuality one might stop here with the fact of the con-
demnation uttered in such passages. If we consider homo-
sexuality in the light of the total Biblical context regarding the
purpose of marriage and the man-woman duality discussed
above, however, we may come to aclearer understanding of why
Christian thought has condemned and should continue to
condemn homosexual lusts and acts.

The creation of human beings for covenant community
finds its original expression in the fellowship of male and
female. This fellowship, as we have stressed above. requires a
commitment to the integrity of our sexual identity. The fellow-
ship of male and female implies a recognition that we are male
and female and that we should not strive to transcend that
distinction. The ultimate fellowship for which God is preparing
us, of which the man-woman polarity is an intimation, is nota
merging of those who are alike into an undifferentiated oneness.
It isa harmonious fellowship of those who. though different. are
united in love. From this viewpoint we may say that the
homosexual relationship approaches too closely the forbidden
love of self and minimizes the distinction between lover and
beloved. The male-female duality as the created pattern of
human fellowship requires of us fidelity toour sexual identity,a
willingness to be male «7 female.

Second, and very obviously. a homosexual relationship is
nonprocreative, and it is so not merely by choice or accident but
because the nature of the relationship itself could under no
circumstances be procreative. Some, of course, may regard this
as mere biological fact. irrelevant when the possibility of deep
affection and love in a homosexual! relation is considered.
Nevertheless. the Scriptures do not place love insuch “splendid
isolation.” “Mere” biology becomes very important when Chris-
tian teaching about human nature takes seriously the fact that
we have no personhood except one that is incarnate. Further-
more, when we point to the fact that the homosexual relationship
is nonprocreative. we do so against the background of the

33

witha person of the opposite sex.’ Inorder to offer such persons
the compassionate help they need. the church, having con-
demned all homosexual acts engaged in by such persons or by
those of a heterosexual orientation, must stand ready tooffer its
assistance to those who seek to overcome the temptations which
beset them and who desire to remain chaste before God despite
their homosexual orientation.

Ttmustte said thata predispositian toward humosecuatity is
the resuitat the disurde ring, corruptong ¢thect of the fall inte
Uso the predisposition toward any sce is sign pte

marten ginal sin? Furthermore whatecer the causes of
sucha conditian neta bee. eneiconnental or genetic

forme

sual avientatoan os protuandlig Cannataral” withwat

crear that suck a person's secaalarcentittion isa matte pat

es deliberate chores, However, thes tact cannot he used

bathe famous curls are cease to jastty komoss cial be hiaccur.
Asascnfulhanian beng ths homuse cual isheld accountable ty
frod for komesernal thoughts, words, and deeds, Such a
per Stil he enunseled to heed the charck’s enll te
ri pentanes, trast in Gud’s pranise ofdelionrance (Px, SOL),

tind ordi r his her dif) on accord aith the Creator's ontent,

We should stress that the judgment made here is moral and
theological, not legal. The question whether homosexual acts
between consenting adults snould be legally prohibited is one
about which Christian citizens may disagree. Not al] matters of
morality are fit subjects for legislation. Although law does play
an educative role and must. therefore. shape mora! convictions.
questions of morality are especially fit subjects for legal
codification when they impinge on the rommen good. Whether
homosexual acts privately engaged in damage the common
good insucha way that public concern and control are needed is
difficult to judge. Even if one felt that such relationships were
nota fitsubject for legislation. however. the law would still have

335