LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 205

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

205

HS 1981 has been a valuable resource for The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the CTCR
recognizes its continuing validity. Many years have passed since the report’s adoption, however, and many current
assumptions about sexuality and marriage are markedly different than they were four decades ago.4

in the first section of the report in order to lay out Christian sexual ethics for understanding sexual identity, the
consequences of sin for sexual desires and behaviors, and the necessity of moral integrity in all sexual activities.

Consequently, Resolution 14–03A from the 2016 LCMS Convention resolved “That the CTCR be directed to update the document Human Sexuality (1981) in order to address current challenges to the estate of marriage” as part of
an overall call “To Respond Compassionately to Challenges to the Biblical View of Marriage and Human Sexuality.”5
In 2019 Resolution 11–03A, the LCMS convention noted questions about sexual orientation and gender identity as
specific challenges to biblical teaching in the realm of human sexuality. It expressed recognition of the significant
work the CTCR has done in the area of marriage and human sexuality since 1981, but also urged the Commission “to
prioritize the updating of the 1981 study.”6

I. HS 1981: REAFFIRMATIONS, NEW CHALLENGES
HS 1981 takes seriously the embodiment of humanity. Although the report gives full attention to marriage, it does
not begin there, but with humans as male and female.8 The same attention to men and women as embodied beings,
whether or not they are married, is evident in the report’s concluding affirmations.
We may summarize the chief points of our discussion of human sexuality articulated in this report in the
following propositions. We honor God and the neighbor rightly when we:

Part of the ongoing value of HS 1981 is its attention to profound truths that are implied in the biblical narratives
regarding human creation. In that regard we note this insight in the report’s reflection on Genesis 1:27:

[1] delight in our creation as male and female and affirm our identity as male or female;
[2] see in our creation as sexual beings an intimation of our creation for fellowship and give thanks for the
healing which God offers in marriage;

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”
(GEN. 1:27; italics added). The suggestion here is that it is impossible to come to know the significance of our humanity without reference to the sexual differentiation between male and female. To be human simply is to exist
in this male-female duality. Consequently, it will be insufficient to say that God has created two kinds of human
beings, male and female. Rather, we should say that God has created human beings for fellowship and that the
male-female polarity is a basic form of this fellowship. To stress that human beings are created for community
as male and female necessarily involves an equally firm insistence that they are male or female. We are created
not for life in isolation but for community, a community which binds those who are different. We are not simply
“persons,” however important that claim may on occasion be as a protest against inequities.7

[3] regard marriage as a divine, lifelong institution, ordained by God for the good of man and woman;
[4] respect marriage as the typical, though not necessary, expression of our creation as male and female;
[5] affirm God’s will that sexual intercourse be engaged in only between a man and woman committed to a
complete and lifelong sharing of their lives with one another in a marriage covenant not to be broken;
[6] affirm that the mutual love of husband and wife, while possessing God-given meaning in and of itself, is by
divine blessing ordered toward the birth of a child; and
[7] affirm that this union of mutual love is the only proper context for human procreation.9

The CTCR recognizes the continuing validity of these words. It is essential for the reader to understand that this
report is not a “revision” of HS 1981, as if our teachings have changed. The Commission wholeheartedly affirms
the 1981 report as a biblically faithful, confessionally orthodox consideration of our creation as male and female,
particularly regarding the gift of holy marriage.

We reaffirm these seven propositions and consider them a helpful starting point for this update.10 The CTCR
recognized the limitations of its 1981 report, but also offered this hope: “While the Commission recognizes that not
all problems in the area of human sexuality are addressed in this report, it is hoped that the affirmations stated at the
end of the study will provide guidance for Christians as they seek to order their lives as sexual beings in ways which
will honor both God and their neighbor.”11 Indeed, we believe the affirmations do “provide guidance” for us today as
we consider some challenges of the present time.

Rather than a revision, this is an update, expansion and defense of the previous report. It assumes the content of
HS 1981 and does not unnecessarily duplicate that material here. In a sense, the two should be read alongside each
other. Of special note for this update are the concluding affirmations from the 1981 report, which admirably summarize the central teachings of Holy Scripture about human sexuality. Despite the many changes over the past four
decades in attitudes about sexuality, Scripture’s teachings are consistent.
The present report will update HS 1981 in several ways. First, this report will reaffirm the “Affirmations” about human sexuality that close the 1981 report, while also calling attention to the new challenges that have complicated how
we understand and apply those insights in a cultural climate that shares little in common with the assumptions made
in 1981. Second, the report will take a detour from these pressing cultural challenges to reestablish the basic theological foundations for human sexuality that arise from a creedal, Trinitarian account of creation, fall, redemption, and
sanctification. Apart from this theological framework, any specific attempt at addressing contemporary sexual ethics
will simply engage in current socio-political commentary, not distinctly Christian moral theology. Third, the report
will apply Martin Luther’s catechetical insights of a “chaste and decent life” to the new cultural challenges raised
4
For a recent Lutheran treatment of sexual ethics that addresses these contemporary challenges from a biblically faithful standpoint, see the essays in Gifford A. Grobien, ed., Ethics of Sex: From Taboo to Delight (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2017).
5

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Convention Proceedings 2019 (July 20–25, 2019), pages 215–16. The following documents, produced by the CTCR since
HS 1981, were named in the resolution: Response to Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2012) https://files.lcms.org/
dl/f/097FB019-A398-4AA5-A6DE-FC611BFA06C6; The Creator’s Tapestry: Scriptural Perspectives on Man-Woman Relationships in Marriage and the Church (St. Louis:
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2009) https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/5E4302F9-322E-4924-BA3D-5BC2AEB94476; and Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria
in Christian Perspective (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2014), https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/53E2B773-CD82-4B0D-96F4-D3FB56B17952; as well as
the treatment of these matters in Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (produced by the CTCR in cooperation with the Office of the President and published by
Concordia Publishing House, 2017).
HS 1981, 6–7.

HUMAN SEXUALITY

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

2

and a woman throughout history, that is no longer true.14 Marriage has now been legally redefined in North America,
throughout most of the West, and in many parts of Latin America and Asia. Although it is now widely affirmed,
the current legal understanding of marriage in the United States is incompatible with biblical teaching and, for that
matter, is a novum in human history. Since 2015, legal understanding holds that the right to marry is a fundamental
right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that a State must “license a marriage between two people of the
same sex.”15 As a result of this change in how marriage is understood, the threefold ends of marriage assumed by
the Commission in 1981 would be unconvincing not only to those of a secular mind,16 but also to many professing
Christians today. For these reasons, the “issues” of the present go well beyond those faced in 1981 and require
this update.
The seven affirmations from 1981 stand on their own and continue to reflect the stated beliefs of our Synod in
its life together as a biblical and confessional church body. Nevertheless, already in 1981 the propositions would
have faced significant opposition from those outside the Christian church, and today that opposition is virulent.
Significant voices regularly condemn groups or organizations that promulgate or defend traditional Christian
doctrines about marriage and human sexuality with a charge of hate speech.17 Simply by stating the belief that
the legitimate realm for sexual activity is in male-female marriage would lead many secular American voices to
charge the LCMS with hate speech against LGBT people.18 Moreover, even some within the LCMS might share that
perspective and would seemingly question, if not oppose, parts of each of the seven affirmations.19

Delight in our creation as male and female and affirm our identity as male or female
The first affirmation of HS 1981 urges us to “delight in our creation as male and female and affirm our identity as
male or female.” The report adds that the male-female creation of humanity teaches us that “To be human simply is to
exist in this male-female duality.”20 There is no way to be a human being other than as male or female.
Delight in our male-female sexuality could be commended in 1981 without any expectation of serious objection.
Of course, many at that time would have disputed that there is a God or that He is the creator of all that exists. What
was not present then, however, was any significant objection to the idea that humanity is male and female or that the
sexual distinction of man and woman is cause for delight.

10

While the affirmations are not numbered in HS 1981, we have added numbers for ease of reference.

11

HS 1981, 5.

12

HS 1981, 4.

13

See comments on the first affirmation below.

HUMAN SEXUALITY

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

3

abnormalities.21 Far more common, however, are those who argue that the categorization of “male and female” is a
form of socio-cultural oppression that forces individuals to fit into stereotypes and demeans individuality.22

B. HS 1981: SECOND AFFIRMATION
See in our creation as sexual beings an intimation of our creation for fellowship and give thanks for the healing which
God offers in marriage
The second 1981 affirmation reminds us that we “see in our creation as sexual beings an intimation of our creation
for fellowship and give thanks for the healing which God offers in marriage.” In this regard the report states: “We are
created not for life in isolation but for community, a community which binds those who are different.”23 This profound
conclusion follows from our embodiment as either male or female. “Thus we do not find in the other simply an image
of ourselves, an alter ego; rather, the fellowship for which we are created is a fellowship of those who are different and
who yet are joined in a personal community of love.”24

Moreover, the secular perspective on diversity differs in nature and scope from the Christian affirmation of the
“fellowship of those who are different” as developed in HS 1981. The secular mind affirms not only the value of
diverse races and ethnicities, but also that different forms of religiosity, a wide spectrum of moral views and virtually
all “sexual orientations” are of equal value. Yet, while its view of diversity theoretically allows great moral leeway in
many areas, the secular mind generally rejects moral judgments against specific sexual acts or orientations, especially
when those judgments are associated with religious convictions.
When secular support for “diversity” touches such areas — for instance, judging that all religious beliefs are
essentially equal or that popular standards are adequate to determine whether behavior is right or wrong — no
biblical Christian or confessional Lutheran can agree. The Word of God must have authority in such matters as
religious beliefs, sexual practices or the attempt to alter the sexuality God has given to us. The secular view in these
matters departs dramatically from the Bible’s teaching about the dignity and commonality of humanity. Human dignity
flows from our common creation “from one man” (ACTS 17:26) and from the atoning work of Christ for all those fatally
infected by Adam’s sin (ROM. 5:12). When diverse beliefs and behavior are affirmed and encouraged without regard to our
Creator’s judgment about them, such a view is rebellion against God and an encouragement to sin with impunity.

That is no longer the case. Today much of Western culture is greatly troubled by the assertion of Genesis — “male
and female he created them” (GEN. 1:27). Many decry this “binary” view. The arguments against it are to some small
degree based on scientific observation, namely, the reality that a small percentage of children are born with genital

We also note that in this affirmation HS 1981 adds a thanksgiving “for the healing which God offers in marriage.”
Unlike its emphasis on community, the healing that HS 1981 speaks of in this statement is not widely affirmed,
however, because the healing God offers in marriage is healing for sin and its effects, specifically for sexual sin.26 This
perspective is impossible for the secular mind to accept since its worldview often sees sex as little more than play — a
healthy outlet between consenting persons.

14
See, e.g., Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage (New York: Penguin Books, 2005). Coontz’s detailed history of marriage is from
beginning to end a story of marriage between a man and woman, even though she certainly favors same-sex marriage and is dissatisfied with specific anthropological
definitions of marriage (see 24–32).
15
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). On this, also note the Commission on Theology and Church Relations’ 2006 opinion, “Legislation Regarding Same-Sex
Civil Unions.” https://files.lcms.org/f/768CB35B-7D1F-4643-89A3-4FD4289017B2.
16
For simplicity, this report uses the adjective “secular” (e.g., secular mind, secular perspective, secular thinking, etc.) as a modifier that contrasts with religious and,
especially, specifically biblical thinking, values, and beliefs.
17
One example is the Southern Poverty Legal Center (SPLC), which classifies Alliance Defending Freedom as a “hate group.” The SPLC provides a list of ADF statements as rationale for declaring it a hate group. In virtually every case, the statements from ADF spokespersons reflect the kinds of concerns any biblically-committed
Christian may have. See https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom.

21
For an article by a biologist who tries to make a case against binary sexuality on the basis of intersex and other genetic and hormonal abnormalities, see
Liza Brusman, “Sex Isn’t Binary, and We Should Stop Acting Like It Is,” Massive Science (June 14, 2019), https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/. The CTCR addressed sexual ambiguity briefly as an excursus in its 2014 report, Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria.

This report will use LGBT as a shorthand reference for those who classify themselves as non-heterosexual. We are aware the it is now common to add additional
letters to this acronym. The additional letters are impercise in their meaning. As the University of California-Davis LGBTQIA Resource Center states on its website, the
acronym LGBTQIA+ cannot be defined precisely. It has its roots in the older acronym LGB (Lesbian Gay Bisexual), but evolved, first becoming LGBT as Transgender
persons were added. Q means either Queer or Questioning and I means Intersex, while A could mean Allosexual, Androgyne, Aromantic, or Asexual. See https://
lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.
18

19
Already in 2015, Pew Research results indicated that over half of the membership of LCMS churches thought homosexuality should be accepted, and nearly half of
the same respondents supported same-sex marriage. While this does not necessarily imply belief that Christian teaching on homosexuality or on same-sex marriage is
wrong, it certainly indicates changing attitudes. Pew Research Center, “Members of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” Religious Landscape Study, Washington,
DC, May 12, 2015. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/lutheran-church-missouri-synod.

22
Daniel Bergner writes about an individual who wants to be neither male nor female and the counselor who encourages this. See “The Struggles of Rejecting the
Gender Binary,” New York Times (June 4, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/magazine/gender-nonbinary.html. See also Penelope Eckert, “The Problem with
Binaries: Coding for Gender and Sexuality,” https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12113.
23

HS 1981, 7; emphasis added.

24

HS 1981, 7.

Biblically speaking, we are all “of one blood” as descendants of Adam. In Adam all have sinned and all are justified in the same way — through Christ. See 2019
Res. 11–04A, Proceedings of the 2019 LCMS Convention, 216–17.
25

26
On the healing dimension of marriage, see Gilbert Meilaender, “The Sixth Commandment: Marriage as the First of Institutions,” Luther’s Large Catechism with
Annotations and Contemporary Applications, ed. John T. Pless and Larry M. Vogel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2022), 236–40.

HS 1981, 6.

HUMAN SEXUALITY

HS 1981, 6.

9
HS 1981, 40. These Affirmations remain not only expressions of the CTCR, but have been endorsed by the Synod in convention. 1983 Res. 3-14 “To Commend Statement on Human Sexuality for Study” resolved that the 1981 report “be commended to the Synod for study and guidance, calling special attention to the concluding
‘Affirmations.” The affirmations were then quoted in full as part of the resolution.

However, the secular appreciation for diversity is largely grounded in current intellectual and social trends, not in
the Christian doctrine of creation. A Christian appreciation for diverse community has a much stronger foundation,
since Christians confess that all humanity comes from a common ancestry in our first parents and that the redemptive work of Christ is emphatically promised to all people — to every tribe and nation (see GEN. 1–2; ACTS 17:26; MATT. 28:19;
ROM. 1:21–24).25

A. HS 1981: FIRST AFFIRMATION

20

The CTCR’s work on each of these three matters continues to offer much needed instruction and guidance. At
the same time, however, new challenges have emerged that require additional consideration in each area. While the
first purpose speaks of a “framework of human sexuality” (our emphasis), we note that the concept of sexuality has
largely been replaced by imprecise and often agenda-driven “gender” terminology. The understanding of humanity
as male and female is rejected by many.13 And while marriage had been universally understood to be between a man

8

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Convention Proceedings 2016 (July 9–14, 2016), Res. 14-03A, pages 242–43.

6

7

HS 1981 was prepared with a threefold purpose: “(1) to place the order of marriage within the larger framework
of human sexuality as God’s creation; (2) to discuss the purposes or ends which marriage serves, as these are taught in
the Scriptures and understood in the history of the church; and (3) to discuss, in the light of these purposes, certain
problems or ‘issues’ which must inevitably engage the attention of those who think about human sexuality.”12

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

4

HUMAN SEXUALITY

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

2023 Convention Workbook

5