LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 318

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
may be viewed, at least in part, as marks of individuality taking
precedence over community (in specific, the marital/familial community, but also societal community). This is not simply nor even
primarily a religious observation, but is an assessment by researchers at secular universities, who sometimes describe the trend as
“secular individualism.”68
Consider divorce. Some divorces are unavoidable—for instance, where a spouse abandons the marriage, or persists in stubborn infidelity, or physically drives away the other spouse through
abuse. Yet, divorce always involves sin on the part of one or both
spouses. Such sin represents a triumph of selfish individualism
over the well-being of the spouse and their marriage and family,
and it occurs at a significant cost to society.
Secondly, sexual relationships outside the bond of marriage
and cohabitation without marriage also involve a decided refusal to
make the generously self-giving commitments to another that marriage requires. Because of overriding individual fears, desires, or
priorities, another individual is treated only as a potential or occasional partner, and not as the one to whom a life-long commitment
has been made and kept. If and when pregnancy occurs, abortion is
far more prevalent among unmarried than married women. When
a woman gives birth to a child outside marriage, the child from the
single-parent household suffers under the parents’ failure to make
or keep a commitment to one another. This child is burdened with
uncertainty about at least one parent’s presence and commitment to
him or her, learning implicitly that the parent’s individual desires
are more important than the security and well-being of the family, a
problem also occurring all too often in cases of divorce. Moreover,
the “single-parent household” will, on average, experience significantly greater economic distress than a married household.
Finally, homosexual relationships, regardless of how they are
labeled or the level of commitment existing between partners, are
also examples of individualism over community.69 Central to the
moral inappropriateness of homosexual behavior is that it ignores
the created purposes and functions of our bodies. Homosexual
activity is not a joining of different persons, but of like persons;
it involves the same sex, not the God-given opposite sex. In their
sameness, homosexual partners, whether two males or two females,
deny the gift of their creation as male or female.
Homosexual relationships are therefore by definition non-procreative. Man and woman rightly enter marriage not only to be in
community with one another, but also, depending upon the will of
God, to be partners in the procreation of a family. Children are a
natural extension of the marital community and they become part
of a wider community. While not every marriage will bear children,
only the marriage of a man and a woman can affirm the procreative
purpose for marriage (Gen 1:28). Rejection of the procreation and
nurture of children as a purpose and intention of marriage is an
example of individualism at the expense of community.70 It ignores
or denies the role of marriage within the wider community of humanity.
In light of these remarks, it is important to note that while homosexual behavior is identified by Scripture as sin (Rom 1:21–27),
it is one sin among many,71 and just as the Gospel frees every other
kind of “immoral” person (see 1 Cor 6:9–11) for new life in the
community of the church, it does the same for the homosexual.
God’s desire for the homosexual is the same as it is for the heterosexual: repentance of all sins, new birth in Christ Jesus, and full
incorporation into the body of Christ.
The unmarried person with sexual desires who nonetheless restrains those desires exercises an exemplary sacrificial love. The
challenge of celibate chastity confronts every unmarried person,
homosexual or heterosexual.72 This is God’s command for all peo-

318

ple in order to preserve marriage and for the well-being of society.
A comment on the witness to Christ and to the beauty of the Creator’s design which brought a homosexual woman to faith and to
chastity is a salutary reminder also to everyone as we seek to share
God’s truth about life as male and female:
They knew I was gay, and that I was pretty vocal
about it. They tried, when I asked, to explain church
teaching on homosexuality, but did it very poorly.
I’m glad that they instead wanted to talk with
me about the Crucifixion as the reconciliation of
justice and mercy, or Creation as an explanation of
the goodness and intrinsic, poetic meaning of the
physical world.73
Christians, whose bodies are claimed in Baptism as temples of
the Holy Spirit by which God is glorified (1 Cor 6:19) should be especially aware that they have a unique opportunity in today’s society to give a much-needed witness to the world. Chaste singleness
testifies that our individual personhood does not find its completion
in the pursuit of individual self-fulfillment and personal desires. Its
witness has both an eternal and a practical element. The enduring
element of celibate chastity is its testimony to the Word of Christ
that marriage does not continue in eternity so that marriage is not
placed on par with our relationship to God.74 The practical witness
consists in the ability of the Christian single person to devote undivided attention to God and His church.75
Failure to address the inherent gifts and weaknesses
of man and woman
Man and woman are uniquely created. Their individuality is in
some measure an aspect of their sexual nature. It is true that each
is made in the image of God and so shares a likeness to Him that
is more similar than dissimilar to one another. Yet each also has
within his or her created nature particular avenues for the destructive power of sin to show itself. It is the nature of temptation to
be individualized. The physically strong and powerful person will
know an individualized temptation to assert that physical strength in
selfish ways that violate God’s will and the communities He seeks
to create. The individual who is intellectually gifted or particularly
articulate will be tempted to assert these gifts to humiliate, confuse,
or cheat those who are less gifted.
It is the same with our sexual embodiment. Men, typically
stronger than women physically, too often misuse their strength
in violence toward women. According to the Center for Disease
Control, women are twice as likely as men to be the victims of all
forms of abuse, and three times more likely than men to die from
domestic violence.76 Women are designed by their Creator to carry,
give birth, and provide the earliest nurture to a child. This means a
woman may be tempted to abort an inconvenient child or to believe
that she is the only parent a child needs.
These are two examples of how sexual embodiment becomes
a vehicle for sin’s power. The social sciences and popular books,
even in an environment of sexual politics, have made plain many of
the disparate ways men and women act and think, because of their
gender.77 Such sexual differences are, in virtually every case, both
great gifts from God and also areas where men and women must
recognize their vulnerability as sinners.
Simple observations may be pertinent here with respect to
Christian life in the home and the church. To some degree such
observations are stereotypical and—certainly—have countless exceptions in the relationships of Christian men and women. Nonetheless, there may be some value in the following considerations.
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 318

4/15/10 2:40 PM