LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 393

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

393

for homosexual intercourse, they embody the spiritual condition of those who have
“exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”27

man and woman which is not open to any cultural redefinition that violates this creational
given.31

Romans 8:22-23 disconnected from Romans 1:18-32 is used as something of a proof text for
making a sexual ethic that is elastic and flexible. HSGT states: “Therefore, we believe that the
way we order our lives in matters of human sexuality is important to faithful living, but not
central to determining our salvation. We are to be realistic and merciful with respect to our
physical and emotional realities, not striving for angelic perfection as if our salvation were at
stake” (HSGT, 9). With these lines, HSGT is setting the stage for making the argument that New
Testament scholar Robert Gagnon has identified as
“the non-essential issue argument”: since matters of sexuality do not constitute the major theme
of Scripture, Christians may freely adopt differing ethical evaluations of homosexual activity.28

Yet at this juncture in HSGT, the teaching of the two kingdoms is invoked to give “reason,
imagination, the social and physical sciences, cultural understandings, and the creative arts” as
items that might aid in the church’s deliberations on questions of sexual morality (HSGT, 10).
Here HSGT is suggesting that, perhaps, contemporary scientific research might alter traditional
readings of Scripture on homosexuality. From the standpoint of theological ethics, however, it is
irrelevant whether homosexuality is a result of a genetic order, environment, or personal choice,
since Christians recognize that all of creation after the fall is subject to bondage, disorder, and
death. Robert Jenson wisely observes:
We need not here resolve the question of whether there are such things as 'sensual
orientations' and if so how they are acquired. What must anyway be clear is that
'homosexuality,' if it exists and whatever it is, cannot be attributed to creation; those who
practice forms of homoerotic sensuality and attribute this to 'homosexuality' cannot refer
to the characteristic as 'the way God created me,' if 'create' has anything like its biblical
sense. No more in this context than in any other do we discover God's creative intent by
examining the empirical situation; …I may indeed have to blame God for the empirically
present in me that contradicts his known intent, but this is an occasion for unbelief, not a
believer's justification of the evil.32

In buttressing this argument, HSGT wrongly enlists Luther’s teaching on the two kingdoms (or
the two realms). The introduction of this teaching is misplaced at this juncture as it is construed
in such a way to make space for a more permissive sexual ethic. Oswald Bayer suggests that
Luther’s treatment of the three estates29 is actually a more accurate starting point than the two
kingdoms for understanding Luther’s ethic.30 This is so, Bayer argues, because the three estate
framework is Luther’s hermeneutic of primeval history. It demonstrates that God’s Word has
instituted estates or places in life that are fundamental and universal for human existence. This
instituting word of the Creator establishes marriage as a lifelong, monogamous union between

27

Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics
(San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 388. Also see Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 111
and Thomas Oden, “The Classic Christian Exegesis on Romans 1:22-28” in Staying the Course: Supporting the
Church’s Position on Homosexuality, edited by Maxie D. Dunnam and H. Newton Maloney (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 2003), 85-96.
28
Robert Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes” Theology Matters
(November/December 2001), 4. Also see Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) as this book provides a comprehensive treatment of relevant biblical texts which
are largely ignored in HSGT. Also see “Excursus: Homosexuality” in Gregory J. Lockwood, Concordia
Commentary: I Corinthians (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), 204-209.
29
The three estates in Luther are the three “institutions established by God,” namely, the church, marriage (the
household), and civil government (see Luther’s Works, Vol. 37: Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], 364. Hereafter, references to the American Edition of Luther’s Works,
published by Fortress Press and Concordia Publishing House [various dates], are abbreviated as AE, followed by
volume number: page number[s] [e.g., AE 37:364].) In the Large Catechism, Luther speaks of the different “fathers”
to whom honor is commanded (fathers of blood or households, fathers of a nation, and spiritual fathers (First Part
[Ten Commandments]:158, KW, 408). The two realms or kingdoms doctrine is Luther’s shorthand for God’s twofold rule of both the church and the world. The church is his spiritual kingdom, and the world is the secular or civil
kingdom. For example, the Augsburg Confession says, “Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, that is, it is the heart’s
knowledge of God, fear of God, faith in God, and the beginning of eternal righteousness and eternal life. At the
same time, it permits us to make outward use of legitimate political ordinances of whatever nation in which we live,
just as it permits us to make use of medicine or architecture or food, drink, and air” (16:2, KW 231), The teaching of
the three estates might best be understood as presupposed by Luther’s exposition of the two kingdoms, for it is the
one God who is active in instituting and upholding life in both the worldly and spiritual realm. See also Oswald
Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, translated by Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 120-153.
30
Oswald Bayer, “Nature and Institution: Luther’s Doctrine of the Three Estates” in Freedom in Response-Lutheran
Ethics: Sources and Controversies trans. Jeffrey Cayzer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 94. Bayer adds
that “The two kingdoms doctrine and the doctrine of the three estates should not be opposed” (95).

9

The discussion of social trust references the place of conscience: “Social trust is grounded in the
practice of mutual respect for the dignity of all people and their consciences. Strong communities
ensure social trust when they provide social support for disagreement and dissent, and nurture
the values of mutual respect and regard for the opinions of others” (HSGT, 13). With these
words HSGT puts in place a significant plank in the platform that it will seek to build for the
application of the “bound conscience” as a means of establishing a churchly community capable
of living together with diverse opinions on sexual morality in general and homosexuality
specifically (see section 7 below).
The ever strong and present focus on qualitative characteristics of human relationships and the
ascendancy of trust (and by default the capacity for human trustworthiness), become key
elements in a revised sexual ethic. Here the warning of Gilbert Meilaender is particularly
relevant: ”In a world in which the languages of love and consent have gradually come to trump
all other moral language, we do well to remind ourselves at the outset that marriage, the first of
all institutions, is not simply about love in general. It is about the creation of man and woman as
different yet made to be true to each other; it is about being fruitful, begetting and rearing
children. This pours content and structure into our understanding of sexual love, and it takes
seriously the body’s character within nature and history.”33
With this shift away from an ethic marked by attentiveness to the character of the body in nature
and history to the relational language of social trust, the church’s task is changed. This is a
change that is noted and celebrated in HSGT:
As this church and its members engage the changes and challenges of contemporary
society related to human sexuality, careful thought must be given to which changes
enhance and which erode social trust. The development of social trust must be a central
concern for Christians who seek the good of the neighbor in pursuit of justice and the
common good. This church must be a leader in refocusing attention on practices and
attitudes that build social trust. Likewise, it must contribute to the development of
responsible economic and social policies and practices that shape the expression of
sexuality within social life (HSGT, 13).
Here the church appears to be envisioned as an institution for social change and justice, taking on
the responsibilities that properly belong to the realm of God’s left hand.34
The rhetoric of justice in relation to sexuality as noted in HSGT is a dominant theme. With this
accent on justice, there is a distancing from the body as the locale of human life. The
distinctiveness of the body as male or female and the requirements evoked by this reality given
in creation are diminished or ignored by giving primary place to discourse that is governed by
33

Gilbert Meilaender, “The First of Institutions” Pro Ecclesia (Fall 1997): 446. Also see Meilaender’s “Honoring
the Bios in Lutheran Bioethics” Dialog: A Journal of Theology (Summer 2004): 118-124. Bernd Wannenwetsch
detects a kind docetism that would separate “body” and “spirit” in contemporary efforts to legitimize homosexuality.
See Bernd Wannenwetsch, “Old Docetism—New Moralism? Questioning a New Direction in the Homosexuality
Debate” Modern Theology (July 2000): 353-364. See also the CTCR’s Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective
(Saint Louis: Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1981), especially 6-9 and 32-36.
34
For a more careful and thorough discussion of the church’s role in the left-hand kingdom, see Render Unto
Caesar…and Unto God: A Lutheran View of Church and State (Saint Louis: Commission on Theology and Church
Relations, 1995), online at http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=360.

11

One may not appeal to “God made me this way” as a justification for sexual sin any more than
he or she could invoke this for any other sinful inclination or behavior.
5. The Language of Trust and Relationship
The definitions of sexuality given in HSGT are largely shaped by the vocabulary of
contemporary social and psychological sciences with eclectic references to God. Throughout
HSGT, the language of “trust” predominates (as we have already noted). This is especially the
case in Section III “Trust and Human Sexuality” (HSGT, 10-15). After asserting that “Sexuality
especially involves the powers or capacities to form deep and lasting bonds, to give and receive
pleasure, and to conceive and bear children” (HSGT, 10), the document proceeds to assert that
“Sexuality consists of a rich and diverse combination of relational, emotional, and physical
interactions and possibilities” (HSGT, 11). The potency of this combination is recognized as a
gift that is open to abuse through unrestrained desires for self-gratification, coercion, and
irresponsibility with damaging consequences. Trust is seen as the necessary ingredient to
safeguard the appropriate expression of sexuality within the human community.

31

Note Luther in “On Marriage Matters” (1530): “Now we have taught so often that we should do nothing unless we
have the express approval of God’s word; God himself has nothing to do with us, nor we with him, except through
his word, which is the only means by which we recognize his will, and according to which we have to govern our
actions. Whoever has a god but not his word has no god, for the true God has included our life, being, estate, office,
speech, action or inaction, suffering, and everything in his word and shown us by example that we must not and
shall not seek or know anything apart from his word, even of God himself, for apart from his word he does not wish
to be understood, sought, or found through our invention or imagining” (AE 46:276).
32
Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume II: The Works of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),
93.

10

contemporary canons of egalitarianism. The words of Colin Gunton are a bracing corrective to
this line of ethical reasoning: “Modern Christianity is so strongly inclined to lecture the world on
the merits of justice, that we are in danger of neglecting the weightier matters of the law: our
dealings with our bodies and our immediate neighbours.”35
Arguing that “sexual relationships may be among our most profoundly intimate, crucial, and
self-giving expressions of trust” (HSGT, 13), the document advances its case that the church
should work toward the creation of “trustworthy relationships and social structures” that will
promote human dignity, protect from physical, emotional and spiritual harm, demonstrate
compassion, ensure accountability, provide for the welfare of the individual as well as the
common good of society, and value the protection afforded through the making of promises and
contractual agreements (see HSGT, 14). Through the advancement of these social virtues, it is
said that the neighbor is served. The claim is made that, “We look to the Scriptures, to the
Lutheran Confessions, to the social and physical sciences, and to human reason, mercy, and
compassion” in determining what “trust” looks like “in relation to human sexuality” (HSGT,
14).36 In formulating the above-mentioned list, the document makes no attempt to provide either
scriptural or confessional references to support its rather expansive claims.
Instead, “trusting relationships” are described as loving, life-giving, self-giving, nurturing,
truthful, faithful in word and deed (including sexual fidelity), committed/loyal, supportive,
hospitable, and a blessing to the larger community (HSGT, 14-15). These “trusting relationships”
appear to be inclusive of marriage but far broader than marriage in HSGT. But “trusting
relationships” lack the physicality of marriage which is a “one flesh” union of man and woman.
Oswald Bayer’s words serve as a corrective to this lacuna in HSGT: “The importance of being
one flesh cannot be stressed too greatly. Marriage is not a kind of harnessing together of two
individuals; it is a third, new entity, that is, one flesh, one distinct and substantial whole. In this
conjoint being as ‘one flesh’ lies the ‘great mystery’ of Eph. 5:32.”37 The adjectival descriptions
of marriage catalogued in HSGT may be applied to variety of human relationships; marriage is
distinguished, however, in that it is the “one flesh” union established by God in creation (Genesis
1-2). Paul’s treatment of marriage in Ephesians 5 as an icon of the union of Christ with His bride,
the church, is anchored in creation. Just as Christ (the Bridegroom) is not interchangeable with
His church (the Bride) so male and female are not interchangeable.38
Intimacy, safety, and trust are underscored in HSGT as best protected within the context of
family understood in the sense of a household (HSGT, 21). Given the fundamental significance
of family in human community, “Lutherans take great care to support whatever creates and
sustains strong families as a foundation and source of trust” (HSGT, 21). Here HSGT uses
35
Colin Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 226.
36
By way of contrast note Bayer’s description of Luther’s approach: “Luther did not give in to the temptation to
search for clarity other than the reliable word of promise. Therefore, the world is not perspicuous to him, not
through and through calculable and disposable; his theology is unyielding to any historical-philosophical speculation
of unity. To the extent to which his theology contradicts such speculations – for instance, the illusion of a constant
progress of world history – it is sober, realistic, and full of concrete experience of the world. Thus, the much
invoked but frequently misunderstood ‘worldliness’ of Luther is something thoroughly theological. For with this
worldliness the world is perceived as created by God’s reliable word and preserved through constant threats. This
perception is a forensic one – a perception of judgment and grace.” (See “Creation as History,” 259.)
37
Oswald Bayer, Freedom in Response, 160.
38
Here see The Creator’s Tapestry, 47-48. Also see John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of
the Body (Boston: Pauline Books, 2006).

12

2013 Convention Workbook