# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S396
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

396

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Testament views homosexuality as a distortion of creation which falls into the shadows
outside of blessing.63
In spite of many thoughtful and critical voices within the ELCA,64 HSGT became the theological
foundation for a devastating departure from Holy Scriptures in regard to the blessing of same sex
couples and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. In an essay written in 1936, Lutheran
theologian Hermann Sasse observed that “Where man can no longer bear the truth, he cannot live
without the lie.”65 Sasse then goes on to describe forms that the lie takes on: the pious lie, the
edifying lie, the dogmatic lie, and finally the institutional lie. We must frankly conclude that each
of these aspects of the lie finds its way into HSGT. Most pertinent for our response is the fact
that what Sasse called the dogmatic lie—the notion that our age has greater understanding than
our ancestors and so we have reached a “doctrinal maturity” that enables us to modify dogma—
has now been made concrete in the ELCA by means of “the institutional lie” as that church body
has officially adopted a heretical position on human sexuality. This is not merely a case of
misapplied ethics but a dogmatic decision that is, in fact, schismatic. The evaluation of Wolfhart
Pannenberg rings true: “If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to
treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual
unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no
longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took
this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”66 The ELCA has now
taken this step, embodying apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints.67

63
Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 194.
Also OT scholar Hans Walter Wolff: “Homosexuality is a failure to recognize the differences of the sexes, and with
it the basic way of arriving at a fruitful life through the over-coming of self-love.” Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology
of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 176. The fact that homosexual intercourse lacks the
capacity for procreation is not a biological irrelevancy in the OT understanding of the divine blessing pronounced on
Adam and Eve in creation.
64
See, for example, Marianne Howard Yoder and Larry Yoder, “Natural Law and the ELCA” in Natural Law: A
Lutheran Reappraisal, 157-177.
65
Hermann Sasse, “Union and Confession” in The Lonely Way- Volume I (1927-1939), edited by Matthew C.
Harrison (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2001), 266.
66
Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Revelation and Homosexual Experience” Christianity Today (November 11, 1996): 37. It
should not be assumed that this judgment implies that all congregations or all individuals affiliated with the ELCA
are outside the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” That is not Pannenberg’s point nor is the opinion of the
CTCR. It is the case, however, that to stand “against the unequivocal witness of Scripture” is contrary to the faith of
the church catholic.
Appended to this document are four resolutions adopted by the LCMS at its 2010
Convention which express grave, love-based concern for the ELCA and its congregations and church workers in
view of the sexuality decisions made at the 2009 Assembly of the ELCA: 2010 Res. 3-01A “To Commend ILC and
Task Force Statements as Responses to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions:” 2010 Res. 3-02A “To
Support Confessional Lutheranism at Home and Abroad;” 2010 Res. 3-03 “To Cooperate in Externals with
Theological Integrity;” and 2010 Res. 3-05 “To Request a Thorough Response to the ELCA Social Statement
Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.” Noteworthy is the first “Resolved” of 2010 Res. 3-02A: “That the LCMS
earnestly pray for her brothers and sisters in the ELCA, including those who have departed from this biblical and
Christian understanding [of human sexuality], asking that the ELCA would reconsider—even now—its actions.”
67
Note the words of Richard J. Niebanck: “Of the blessed union of Christ and the church, the marriage of one man
and one woman is the matchless icon. The willful departure from this norm is an offense for which ‘heresy’ is too
mild a designation.” “Marriage at the Crossroads” Lutheran Forum (Summer 2005), 37. See also Mark Chavez,
“Biblical Authority in the ELCA Today” Concordia Theological Quarterly (January/April, 2010): 105-121.

Conclusion
HSGT is deeply problematic from a number of perspectives. It operates with a hermeneutic that
renders the Scriptures unclear and uncertain concerning the fundamental nature of human
existence, i.e., as male and female created by the Triune God in His image to live in communion
with Him by faith and in love for the neighbor within the structures of His creation. Biblical and
catholic teaching on God’s design for sexuality and the essential place of marriage as an estate of
His creation are rendered optional. While HSGT claims to work with primary Lutheran
categories such as justification by grace through faith, the distinction of law and Gospel, the
duality of faith and love, and vocation, they are distorted to serve an ideological purpose that can
in no way be identified with confessional Lutheranism nor catholic Christianity. While the
language of “gift” is dominant in HSGT, it misses the point that gift also implies a certain
“givenness.”68 Strong and passionate voices within the ELCA69 have warned their church body
for over two decades of the dangerous path which has now reached its conclusion in HSGT. It is
with profound grief that the LCMS can do nothing other than conclude that HSGT represents a
“different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).70
In attempting to distance the ELCA from a past where it is assumed that matters of sexuality
were dealt with repressively and legalistically, with embarrassment and shame, HSGT is replete
with the rhetoric of openness and a refusal to speak in any way that might imply judgment and
the call to repentance. In what is intended to be compassionate and pastoral, there is a deep
cruelty in HSGT for it is incapable of finally speaking either law or Gospel. Failing to do this,
tolerance and affirmation of freedom for choice within the bounds of a community of love and
trust take the place of absolution. Our deepest disappointment with HSGT is not only that it is a
revised ethic that only mimics our decadent culture but that it undercuts the church’s proper
work of absolving sinners in the name of Jesus Christ.
A challenge before confessional Lutheran churches is to continue to bear clear witness to the
biblical and creedal truth which has been seriously distorted in HSGT. In catechetical instruction,
youth gatherings, Bible classes, publications, and other forums, our laity needs to be taught what
the Scriptures tell us regarding God’s design for sexuality in contrast to alternative teachings
present in the larger culture and, as we have observed, even within other churches that identify
themselves as Christian and Lutheran.
68

See Oswald Bayer, “The Ethics of Gift” Lutheran Quarterly (Winter 2010): 447-468. Bayer points out that the
theme of ethics is not merely “What should I do?” but “What has been given to me?” (447). HSGT redefines the gift
of sexuality apart from the Word of the Giver.
A few examples of these voices will suffice: Robert Benne, “Reinventing Sexual Ethics” in Reasonable Ethics
(Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 259-265; Carl Braaten, Because of Christ: Memoirs of a Lutheran
Theologian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 164-178; Gerhard Forde, “Law and Sexual Behavior” Lutheran
Quarterly (Spring 1995): 3-22; Richard J. Niebanck, “What’s at Stake?” Lutheran Forum (Winter 2003): 12-16;
William Lazareth, “ELCA Lutherans and Luther on Heterosexual Marriage” Lutheran Forum (Autumn 1994): 235268; James Arne Nestingen, “The Lutheran Reformation and Homosexual Practice” in Faithful Conversations:
Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, edited by James Childs (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 41-58.
70
The Task Force on Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions provided an initial LCMS response to
the 2009 ELCA sexuality decisions. 2010 Res. 3-01A commended the task force statement for affirming the
“continuing relevance” of the biblical teaching that every homosexual act “violates the will of our Creator,” that
there is forgiveness in Christ for all sin including homosexual sin, that a biblical response to homosexuality requires
both compassion toward the sinner and condemnation of sin, and that scriptural commands are “kind words” by
which God seeks our wholeness.
69

21

The catechesis provided by culture in this matter is pervasive and influential, and when it is
wrapped within theological language it is hardly surprising that it can be deceptive and
misleading to well-meaning Christians who desire to show compassion to all people. Proper
Christian compassion for and patience with sinners must not be confused with generic notions of
acceptance, affirmation, and tolerance.71
It is imperative that confessional Lutheran church bodies continue to develop theologically
responsible ways to provide authentic pastoral care to individuals whose lives have been marred
by sexual sin of whatever kind. Our unflinching rejection of current attempts to provide
theological justification for homosexual behavior is not born out of a Pharisaical stance of selfrighteousness or a squeamish homophobia but from a commitment to God’s truth revealed in
Holy Scripture. We are equally committed to showing appropriate compassion to those who
struggle with this sin. Sin is never to be addressed with hateful attitudes, words, or actions. The
truth of God’s law must be spoken with clarity but it must be articulated with kindness and care
for those to whom it is addressed. Bigotry and disdain will only deepen the resistance of those
who are secure in their sin. Ministry to people who are enticed with same gender attractions or
who have committed homosexual sins will require patient and consistent speaking of both God’s
law and Gospel, even as congregations support them in the struggle to live as sons and daughters
of the Father in the freedom that comes only in the forgiveness of sins. Given the climate of our
culture this is a daunting work. Yet we have the promise that the Word of the Lord will not
return to Him empty. Clothed with the deep compassion of Christ for sinners, we will seek to
undertake this work with both truth and mercy.72
God’s Word calls each of us to repent and to turn away from any and all sin. Confidence before
God can never be based on our own actions, for we can never justify ourselves. Instead, our sole
comfort is found in the fact that Jesus Christ has taken all our sin into Himself, for He “was
delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Romans 4:25). Because of
Christ’s cross and His rising from the dead, the Lord forgives our iniquity and remembers our sin
no more (Jeremiah 31:34).

71
The Scriptural posture toward sin is not tolerance, but rather patience. Such patience has repentance, forgiveness,
and salvation from divine judgment as its explicit goal. 2 Peter 3:9 describes God as “patient (makroqumei/) toward
you, not wanting anyone to perish, but all to come to repentance.” (See also Romans 2:4–5). Merciful patience,
rooted in God’s essential character (Exodus 34:6, Septuagint: makro,qumoj), should also characterize the approach
of pastors and congregations toward those who struggle with homosexual sins.
72
Helpful theological reflection and pastoral guidance is offered by Tom Eckstein, Bearing Their Burden (Galatians
6:1-2): Speaking the Truth in Love to People Burdened by Homosexuality (n.p.: Lulu, 2010); James Arne Nestingen,
“Ministry to the Sexually Conflicted” in The Jasper Commission (Delhi, New York, 2009), 15-25; and Phillip Max
Johnson, “The Spiritual Nature and Destiny of the Human Body: A Pastoral Perspective on Human Sexuality” in
Christian Sexuality: Normative & Pastoral Perspectives edited by Russell E. Saltzman (Minneapolis: Kirk House
Publishers, 2003), 73-88. Also see A Plan for Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families (The Task Force on
Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999).

23

2013 Convention Workbook

22

Excursus: Brief Analysis of Timothy J. Wengert’s “Reflections on the Bound Conscience in
Lutheran Theology”
Given the central place that the conceptuality of “the bound conscience” plays in the overall
structure and argument set forth in HSGT, Dr. Timothy J. Wengert, Ministerium of Pennsylvania
Professor of the History of Christianity at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and
a member of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality authored an interpretative and
apologetic essay of ten pages, “Reflections on the Bound Conscience in Lutheran Theology”
(hereafter Wengert).73 This document deserves some comment as it helps to inform readers as to
how the terminology of “bound conscience” is used in HSGT.
Wengert begins his essay by noting that Luther used the language of conscience in at least two
ways: “On the one hand, he sometimes simply accepts the medieval scholastic understanding of
the conscience as a faculty of the soul that can distinguish right from wrong and truth from
falsehood. However, both Luther and Melanchthon also use the term more generally to apply to
the entire person as we stand before God and view ourselves in the light of God’s Word,
understood as Law and Gospel” (Wengert, 1).
Citing Luther’s words to Cardinal Cajetan that he does not want “to be compelled to affirm
something contrary to my conscience, for I believe without the slightest doubt that this is the
meaning of Scripture” (Wengert, 2), 74 Wengert argues that Luther appeals to his conscience as a
way of avoiding having to choose between the Holy Scripture and obedience to the Pope. On the
basis of Luther’s words, Wengert says, “the bound conscience always appeals for comfort from
those who speak God’s Word of promise and hope” (Wengert, 2). However, Luther says nothing
of a “bound conscience” in this setting. He does make a plea that church officials do not force
him to act against his conscience, which Luther sees as instructed by the Holy Scriptures.
Three years later, before Emperor Charles V, Luther would make his confession at the Diet of
Worms: “I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word
of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to act against
conscience.”75 Here Luther is asserting not an autonomous conscience but a conscience that is
subject to the Holy Scriptures. From Luther’s statement at Worms, however, Wengert draws the
erroneous conclusion: “This means that we cannot simply assert one interpretation of Scripture
over another but must always respect the conscience of others with whom we may disagree. If
Luther had no choice but to appeal to the conscience bound to the gospel in his case before
Rome, so much more must we respect lesser cases of bound consciences regarding matters of
law and ethics!” (Wengert, 2).
At least three points need to be made in response to this argument. First, Wengert does not
adequately grasp the fact that Luther’s conscience is bound to the Word of God, the Holy
Scriptures. This is helpfully put by Bernhard Lohse: “Luther no longer saw the conscience as
subject to the decision of the church, with the result that we may no longer act contrary to our
73

This essay can be found online at
http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/What%20We%20Believe/Social%20Issues/In%20Process/Human%20Sexuality/
Wengert_on_Bound_Conscience.pdf.
74
From Luther’s “Proceedings at Augsburg 1518,” AE 31:275.
75
AE 36:112.

24