LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 209

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
discussing with others matters of confusion about sexual identity and sexual rebellion may be a temptation to indulge
pride, as if we Christians are somehow free from sin ourselves.
Human beings are not generic. We are male and female. HS 1981 therefore affirmed that “The male-female duality
as the created pattern of human fellowship requires of us fidelity to our sexual identity, a willingness to be male or
female.”77 Our bodies with all our members (including our sexual members) are God’s creation, who makes us “male
and female” (GEN. 1:27). The words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 19 (V. 4) affirm this duality for all time. To reject our
created sex is therefore to reject our Creator.
However, there is a measure of truth in the claim that not everyone fits easily in the category of male or female.
For example, approximately nine in every 50,000 children born have genital abnormalities that prevent the physician
at delivery from determining the infant’s sex with certainty. These children, once referred to as hermaphrodites, are
now commonly stated to be intersex rather than male or female.78 Both in conjunction with such external, visible abnormalities and apart from any genital abnormality, there are also a number of rare chromosomal disorders that may
complicate the matter of sexual identity.79
Medically speaking, these are all defects present from birth, akin to other birth defects of a genetic or external
nature.80 Theologically, an intersex condition or chromosomal abnormality that makes sex determination difficult
is an element of the effects of the fall on creation itself — part of its “groaning” (see ROM. 8:22–23).81 Such ambiguity is
not a denial of the biblical doctrine of creation. Neither does it disprove the Bible’s assertion that God creates man as
male and female, rather, each of these very real problems is a corruption of male and female. Their rarity and their
deeply problematic character rightly reinforce the view of natural reason and natural theology that human beings
are male and female. Such defects involve significant tribulation and deep challenges for the afflicted individuals,
their families, and the medical community that treats them. And from the church, they require a thoroughgoing
compassionate response.
A similar compassionate and supportive response is needed for individuals who suffer from sexual dysphoria or
sexual identity disorder. Such persons, who are of one sex physically, may feel out of place in their own body — and
may come to be convinced that, internally, they are the opposite sex.82 For such genuine confusion and discomfort, the Christian response ought to be loving encouragement. Such an approach, however, should not condone or
encourage a misguided desire to reject the body God has given.83 Loving acceptance of one who is suffering is at the
heart of the Christian ethos, but it is important to realize that such affirmation can never involve a rejection of biblical teaching. The distinction between love for individuals and acceptance of false beliefs they may hold is vital.

See Leonard Sax, “How Common Is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling,” J Sex Res. 39, no. 3 (August 2002):174–78, Doi: 10.1080/00224490209552139.
PMID: 12476264.

David reflects on the impact of the fall on creation in Psalm 60:1–2: “O God, you have rejected us, broken our defenses; you have been angry; oh, restore us. You have
made the land to quake; you have torn it open; repair its breaches, for it totters.”
82
According to the Gallup organization’s 2020 survey, 0.6% of US adults identify as transgender. The total percentage of individuals identifying themselves as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or transgender has grown steadily from 3.5% in 2012 to 5.6% in 2020. This is almost entirely a result of increasing numbers of young adults identifying
as something other than heterosexual with 15.9% of adults born from 1997–2002 (Generation Z) identifying within an LGBT category. Jeffrey M. Jones, “LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest US Estimate,” Gallup, February 24, 2021, https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx.

See the CTCR report, Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria, https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/53E2B773-CD82-4B0D-96F4-D3FB56B17952.

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

This set of ideas or teachings about human nature must be addressed directly. The rejection of the “binary” view
of sexuality — that human creatures are male or female — is a frontal challenge to biblical teaching. While, as noted,
some individuals have an intersex condition, the transgender ideological movement against a dimorphic view of
humanity is not fueled by the fact of actual physical and/or chromosomal differences. Rather individuals, whose
bodies from birth are clearly male or female, make the claim that they have discovered that they are something
other than simply male or female: perhaps a male trapped in a female body, or a female trapped in a male body, or
something else that is not the sex “assigned” to them because of their actual bodily sex.89
The church cannot accept the current claim to autonomy over one’s sexual nature. Neither can the church relinquish the teaching of the Scriptures that views human creatures in a “binary” manner, as male or female. “All flesh,”
including animals, is male and female (GEN. 7:16; SEE ALSO GEN. 6:19; 7:3, 9). This simple, basic truth is what has been affirmed
from the beginning of time. The church cannot abandon it now, or ever.

In summary, then, while we must directly affirm the biblical view of humankind as male or female, we do not
wish to imply that our creation as human sexual beings is unaffected by the fall, hence the discussion above about
intersexuality and genetic disorders. Moreover, to identify the theological error of the transgender movement does
not mitigate the need for a pastoral response to individuals experiencing sexual dysphoria or intersex individuals
and their families. The distress at work in such cases dare not be minimized. Nor should we think that Christians are
84
For the history behind such thinking, see Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual
Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2020).

“Gender Revolution Guide,” Introduction, 4. We note that National Geographic‘s assessment of the so-called “gender revolution” is itself wide and imprecise. Much
attention is devoted to the matter of political and socio-cultural inequalities between male and female, such as the lack of educational opportunities for girls in many
countries, cultural patterns that encourage women to be wives and mothers rather than pursuing careers outside the home, female genital mutilation, and other
examples of what are viewed as injustices against females. The CTCR acknowledges that girls and women have suffered many injustices and inequities and that such
suffering continues. However, to address those issues in this report would take us far afield from our central concerns.

87

Examples of common defects include Down syndrome, cleft palate, and defects of the heart, stomach, eye and musculoskeletal system.

81

HUMAN SEXUALITY

Such thinking is routinely fostered by American media and educational leaders. For example, the prominent
publication, National Geographic, devoted a special issue to the topic of the “Gender Revolution” in January 2017.86
The stated goal of the special issue is to “provide a wealth of facts, images, and ideas about gender and how it is
expressed in our contemporary world,” but, citing the World Health Organization, it affirms “different identities that
do not necessarily fit into binary male or female sex categories.”87 A similar desire to focus on gender variation and
fluidity led to the term “cisgender” to refer to those who continue to identify with the sex they were “assigned” at
birth.88

86
An online guide that summarizes the issue is available at https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/file/GenderRevolution_GUIDE_UpdatedFeb9.pdf. The print
publication accompanies a video documentary hosted by Katie Couric, Gender Revolution: A Journey With Katie Couric. The video is encouraged for use in schools, is
also available for purchase or for viewing via some streaming services.

79
For example, Klinefelter syndrome (XXY male), XX male, XYY male, Turner syndrome (a female with a missing or altered X chromosome), trisomy (XXX female),
XXY female, XY female, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia.

83

The Census Bureau of the U.S. provides an indication of how this perspective now permeates American thinking.
According to a July 2021 survey, more than 10% of all Americans no longer think of themselves simply as male or
female but identify themselves sexually in another way. While 88.3% of American adults say they are “straight” (either
male or female), 4.4% identify themselves as bisexual, 3.3% say they are either gay or lesbian, 2.1% say they do not
know their sexual identity, and 1.9% say they are “Something else” other than male or female.85

85
Lydia Anderson, Thom File, Joey Marshall, Kevin McElrath, and Zachary Scherer, US Census Bureau, “New Household Pulse Survey Data Reveals Differences
between LGBT and non-LGBT Respondents During Covid-19 Pandemic,” https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/11/census-bureau-survey-explores-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity.html.

HS 1981, 33.

78

80

since gender is fluid it must therefore be a matter of individual discovery or choice.84

The idea that human creatures can or ought to attempt to remake their sexual identity as something other than
male or female is a dangerous falsehood. It is, at its heart, a violation of faith in God, our Creator. As Luther says so
simply, “God has made me.”90 For a creature to determine that he or she is not really the individual God has made is
nothing less than a bid to be one’s own god, one’s own creator.

Another level of ambiguity about sexual identity is quite different from the person suffering from an intersex
condition or from the psychological condition of sexual dysphoria. The acceptance of what is sometimes called
“expressive individualism” — an ideology that sees individual identity as something one chooses for oneself,
particularly in terms of gender — has resulted in ambiguity about the whole matter of sexual orientation. This has
resulted in the aforementioned revolutionary thinking about gender, at least in the western world. The heart of
the revolution is a rejection of the male-female duality in favor of a tendency to view gender as a spectrum and a
personal truth — something that can ultimately be decided by the self of a particular individual. As the thinking goes,
77

88

18

B. REBELLIOUS SEXUALITY IN NEED OF REDEMPTION
1. Sexual rebellion, constant and changing
One aspect of rebellious sexuality is the rejection of the male-female distinction in the name of gender fluidity and
radical self-determination. This is, in many respects, a new phenomenon — one that the Bible does not explicitly
address and that, consequently, previous Christian thought did not directly consider. But both the Scriptures and
Christian theology have given ample attention to the underlying reality of a sexual dimension in human rebellion
against the Creator. The presence of a specific command against adultery in the Decalogue is the most striking
evidence for this (EX. 20:14; DEUT. 5:18). In the commandment God condemns the blatant act of infidelity against one’s
spouse or the spouse of another person. But implicit in that same command is a condemnation of the subtle rebellion
of the heart that lusts for someone other than that person to whom God has joined us (MATT. 5:27–28). That this
commandment is first given to Israel is a reminder that rebellious sexuality is a problem for the people of God, and
not just for those who are apart from him (see JER. 7:8–10).
Lest sexual rebellion be viewed too narrowly as only a matter of marital infidelity, the Scriptures directly
address all forms of immorality and sexual impurity. In both the Old and New Testament worlds, prostitution was a
widespread phenomenon. The OT faced the serious problem of the Baal cult’s religious practice of sacred prostitution
while the NT had to wrestle with the Greek world’s widespread secular prostitution and lax sexual morality. In
each case the result was both forbidden sexual conduct and also the sin of apostasy from God. However, in both
testaments, the term that sometimes refers only to engaging in prostitution in the Greek and Roman worlds (either
as the prostitute or the one who uses her or him) takes on a wider meaning of committing any kind of extra-marital
sexual intercourse.92 The English term fornication, or sexual immorality, in our translations renders terms that
connect illicit sexual behavior to abandoning the true God (e.g., EZEK. 16, 23; 1 COR. 6:18).93
It is important to note that the Bible’s condemnation of fornication is primarily addressed to sexual acts between
men and women, not to same-sex acts. This is a salutary reminder that the heterosexual person is as perverse as
any other sinner. Jeremiah is speaking about all humanity when he rightly laments: “The heart is perverse above all
things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (17:9). Sexual rebellion, then, is certainly not confined to the
present-day.
However, each age gives its own shape to human sin, including sexual sin. Luther implies as much in the Large
Catechism. He suggests that in the Old Testament world, “adultery was the most widespread form of unchastity,” but
claims a somewhat different kind of unchastity in his day with its “shameless mess and cesspool of all sorts of immorality and indecency among us.”94 So also in our world, we see sexual rebellion in the forms of a dramatic decline of
marriage in favor of cohabitation and short-term and “one-off ” sexual connections, high rates of intentional single
motherhood, a widespread affirmation of the legitimacy of same-sex acts and same-sex marriage, and other behaviors
that heretofore were viewed as abhorrent. So, while we may simply say that sin is at the root of all sexual rebellion in
every age, it is also worth asking what other cause may be at work leading to our own age’s sexual rebelliousness.

The Hebrew term is zānâh; the Greek word, porneuō. Kyle Harper, in “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2
(January 1, 2012): 374, says of the Greco-Roman world: “By the first century c.e ., πορνεία was the chief vice in a system of sexual morality rooted in conjugal sexuality.
Πορνεία was broad enough to cover sexual sins as diverse as incest and exogamy.” He adds, “But for Hellenistic Jews, in a culture where sex with dishonored women, especially prostitutes and slaves, was legal and expected, the term condensed the cultural differences between the observers of the Torah and Gentile depravity” (374–75).

For a summary of the way Scripture addresses the whole gamut of sexual sin under the prohibitions of porneia (and cognates), see R. Hauck and S. Schulz, “πόρνη,
κτλ,” TDNT 6:579–95; BDAG, 854–55; H. Reisser, πορνεύω, Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975), 1:497–501.
LC I 199; KW 201, 202.

HUMAN SEXUALITY

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

20

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

19

We earlier noted that this view claims “that each of us finds our meaning by giving expression to our own feelings and desires.”97 But such a claim goes beyond this individual claim. It easily accepts a corollary assumption: that
anyone or anything that claims authority over me and limits my individual autonomy is oppressive and ought to be
overthrown. From this it is a small step to reject all biblical moral teachings about the self and sexuality, beginning
with the claim of God and His authority over all people. And if God’s authority over ourselves is questioned, the idea
that parents or other human authorities can make any claim to speak truths that could rightly limit one’s autonomy is
certainly ruled out.
Given such widespread assumptions it is no accident that biblical morality is increasingly viewed as out of order.
Indeed, some would argue that Christianity is immoral.98 And even if many would not engage in such a frontal attack
on the Christian faith, there is no doubt that increasing numbers of people want less and less to do with the church
and its doctrinal claims about who we are and how we are to live. Many see the church’s teachings on sexual morality
to be oppressive demands placed over them — demands that would deprive them of their freedom of self-determination.99
This is particularly evident among younger age cohorts. Even people raised in the church are increasingly likely
to drop out of church after high school. Among the reasons cited for this drop out are that many younger adults view
traditional Christianity as judgmental or hypocritical and disagree with the church’s socio-political positions — such
as opposition to gay marriage.100
2. Heterosexual rebellion
As much as the LGBT agenda challenges the church today, we should remember that the majority of people continue
to be heterosexual in their desires and sexual activity. This fact may give a certain comfort, but it should not blind
the church to the fact that widely accepted heterosexual views about human sexuality are also deeply contrary to the
Word of God.
C.S. Lewis says, “Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the
Christian rule is, ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.’”101 Lewis wrote
more than half a century ago, but as we have seen, humanity has always rebelled against this uncompromising truth.
It is so still today. And, given that the majority of people are attracted to the opposite sex, the human rebellion against
God’s will for human sexuality most often takes the form of heterosexual fornication.
95
See Carl R. Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).

Trueman, Triumph of the Modern Self, 76–78.

97
Trueman, Triumph of the Modern Self, 46. This report does not deny that individuals are unique in some ways and therefore develop likes and dislikes, find some
things more personally meaningful than others, choose priorities for themselves, and so forth. Such subjective aspects of personal identity are not at issue.
98

Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007).

99

See, for example, Barna, “Signs of Decline and Hope Among Key Metrics of Faith” (March 4, 2020), https://www.barna.com/research/changing-state-of-the-church/.

See, for example, Aaron Earls, “Most Teens Drop Out of Church When They Become Young Adults,” LifeWay Research, (Jan. 15, 2019), https://lifewayresearch.
com/2019/01/15/most-teenagers-drop-out-of-church-as-young-adults/. For more extensive consideration: David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Unchristian: What a New
Generation Really Thinks about Christianity and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 26, 89–118; and David Kinnaman and Aly Hawkins, You Lost
Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 149–68.
100

101

|

|

In recent decades much of the western world came to assume the legitimacy of a nearly endless sexual “freedom”
that is an outgrowth of a more subtle revolution regarding the human self.95 On its simplest level, many assume
no ongoing order that governs the world — no foundation. Rather, individuals must find their own meaning for
existence, their own ethical codes, and — above all — their own sense of who they are, their identity.96 All preferences
and standards are equal, so that no one dare to question the validity and worth of another person’s preferences and
standards. An overarching moral or ethical code for all people is viewed as inherently oppressive. Morality is strictly
personal, emotional and pragmatic. What is right is what is right and desirable for me. What is wrong is what is
wrong and undesirable for me.

92

93

Small Catechism, II, First Article.

HUMAN SEXUALITY

96
91
A helpful resource for pastoral care of transgender persons is Mark A. Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture (Wheaton, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). See also CTCR, Gender Identity Disorder, as well as Paul O. Wendland, “A Pastoral Statement on the Transgender Movement,”
available at http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/4507/WendlandTransgender.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

The term is increasingly used beyond the LGBT world. Consequently it is now included in the Oxford English Dictionary: cis-, prefix: Oxford English Dictionary (oclc.org).

89
Transgender individuals who seek to remake their bodies into the opposite sex are actually thereby affirming a binary view of humanity. Their discomfort with their
“assigned” sex (the sex of their bodies) leads them to seek to become the other sex, not a third sex on a gender continuum.
90

immune from such sexual dilemmas. Bodily life on every level — including our sexuality — groans for redemption.
Individual pastoral care acknowledges this. It requires that every sinner, every sinful aspect of our lives, and every
result of sin’s corruption of creation be addressed in an individual manner.91

94

209

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1952), 91.

HUMAN SEXUALITY

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

2023 Convention Workbook

21