LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 394

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

394

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
relational language in such a way as to diminish or ignore the bond of biological connectivity.
Once again, Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions are used as decorative symbols, bases to
touch, while their dogmatic assertions are being set aside.
HSGT devotes sparse attention to divorce: “This church recognizes that in some situations the
trust upon which marriage is built becomes so deeply damaged or is so deeply flawed that the
marriage itself must come to a legal end” (HSGT, 17). Supportive pastoral care is suggested but
without meaningful reference to sin, confession and absolution. Nor is there the recognition in
HSGT that divorce—even when allowed on account of the hardness of the human heart (see
Matthew 19:3-9)—is incompatible with the New Testament’s picture of marriage. Rather, “If
marriage is the New Testament’s final symbol of eschatological redemption, then divorce cannot
be consonant with God’s redemptive will.”39 Evangelical pastoral care of divorced persons will
be grounded in confession and absolution not in therapeutic affirmations.40
While highlighting the relational dimensions of life within various configurations of “family,”
HSGT gives only brief mention to the sexual bond between man and woman, the one flesh union
that engenders new life. Rather the document asserts, “The critical issue with respect to the
family is not whether it has a conventional form but how it performs indispensable social tasks.
All families have the responsibility for the tasks of providing safety, shielding intimacy, and
developing trustworthy relationships” (HSGT, 23). Regret is expressed for ways in which
historical Christian teachings on sexuality (i.e. pregnancy outside of marriage, homosexuality)
have made a negative impact on families. HSGT calls “for greater understanding of sexual
orientation and gender identity” (HSGT, 24) within the church and continuing evolution of
family law in the civil realm to enhance and protect intimacy, trust, and safety.
The relational theme is further developed in an extensive discussion on “sexuality and trust in
relationships” (HSGT, 27-33). In language that in large part seems to be more reflective of a
popular use of psychological and social sciences, the document discusses growth and
development with maturity and responsibility in view as questions of appropriate sexual
expression are addressed, including self understanding, gender and friendship, and cohabitation.
Non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual relationships of any kind are opposed on the grounds
that “such relationships undermine the dignity and integrity of individuals because physical
intimacy is not accompanied by the growth of mutual self-knowledge” (HSGT, 31). This section
is almost totally devoid of any theological reflection and framed instead with therapeutic
categories.
A final section of HSGT treats “sexuality and social responsibility” (HSGT, 33-36). Noting that
because individuals and families are set within larger social contexts, the church needs to address
patterns of abuse and discrimination for people “with varied sexual orientation and gender
identity” (HSGT, 33). Prostitution and pornography are rejected as detrimental. Efforts to halt
discrimination toward those afflicted with sexually transmitted disease are encouraged, as is sex

education and the development of medical means of birth control (HSGT, 34-35). A strong
warning is given against inappropriate sexual behavior by professional church workers as such
activity is a violation of trust (HSGT, 35). Given the previous arguments advanced for a more
generous approach to sexual ethics, it seems not a little incongruent that HSGT now adopts a
rather assertive tone in admonishing church members on these issues.
6. The Place of Marriage
While the historic Christian teaching on marriage is acknowledged, the trajectory of the
document moves in the direction of emphasizing the relational dimensions of marriage at the
expense of marriage as a gendered and engendering estate of creation. HSGT defines marriage
“as the covenant of mutual promises, commitment, and hope authorized legally by the state and
blessed by God” (HSGT, 15). Citing Mark 10:6-9, HSGT notes “The historic Christian tradition
and the Lutheran Confessions have recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a
woman” (HSGT, 15). Yet the next two pages of HSGT reflect a discussion of marriage without a
reference to the gender of those who enter into this covenant. It is no surprise, therefore, that the
section on marriage ends with this summary:
Recognizing that this conclusion differs from the historic Christian tradition and the
Lutheran Confessions, some people, though not all, in this church and within the larger
Christian community, conclude that marriage is also an appropriate term to use in
describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same gender-couples entering into
lifelong, monogamous relationships. They believe that such accountable relationships
also provide the necessary foundation that supports trust and familial and community
thriving. Other contractual agreements, such as civil unions, also seek to provide some of
these protections and to hold those involved in such relationships accountable to one
another and to society. (HSGT, 18.)
Yet, without sexual differentiation there is no marriage. Carl Braaten’s words may appear harsh
but are nevertheless true: “It is possible to blaspheme the Creator by degenerating the dignity and
goodness of human sexuality in its differentiation between male and female.”41
Legal scholars Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson make the argument from
the perspective of jurisprudence that marriage is unique in that it entails a conjugal act that unites
a man and a woman organically and is distinct from every other contractual agreement, including
civil unions:
Because bodies are integral parts of the personal reality of human beings, only coitus can
truly unite persons organically and thus, maritally. Hence, although the state can grant
members of any household certain legal incidents, and should not prevent any from
making certain private legal arrangements, it cannot give same-sex unions what is truly
distinctive of marriage—i.e., it cannot make them actually comprehensive, oriented by
nature to children, or bound by the moral claims specific to marriage.42

39

Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 366. Also see
Richard Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to J. Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1” Journal of
Religious Ethics (Spring 1986): 184-215.
40
See Divorce and Remarriage: An Exegetical Study (Saint Louis: Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1987), 37-39. Also note Oswald Bayer: “The Church has to deal with
divorces without justifying them; what it must do in particular is to speak about sin and forgiveness” (Freedom in
Response, 166).

41

Carl Braaten, Eschatology and Ethics: Essays on the Theology and Ethics of the Kingdom of God (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1974), 165.
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public
Policy 34 (Winter 2010): 282.
42

13

In HSGT marriage might be seen as having an erotic or sensual dimension, but it would not
necessarily involve a conjugal act which unites male and female organically. George and his
colleagues argue that “the conjugal view” of marriage serves the common good in such a way
that the “revisionist view” cannot, precisely at the point of procreation. HSGT will not concede
this point.
Even though HSGT sees in the creation of Adam and Eve as male and female the revelation of
God’s creation of gendered beings with the capacity for companionship and procreation, this is
largely disconnected from a discussion of gender. The sturdy language of God’s institution of
marriage in the Holy Scriptures is absent in HSGT. Again we may contrast HSGT with Luther:
“He has established it (marriage) before all others as the first of all institutions, and he created
man and woman differently (as is evident) not for indecency but to be true to each other, to be
fruitful, to beget children, and to nurture and bring them up to the glory of God.”43 Marriage is a
divine institution that is lived out within the sphere of creation (“kingdom of the left hand”)
according to God’s purposes:
 God established marriage as the relationship of mutual love between one man and one
woman (Genesis 2:18).
 God locates the procreation of children within the bond of the one flesh union of
marriage (Genesis 1:28).
 God uses marriage as a way of curbing and healing sinful lust (I Corinthians 7:2).44
These purposes are summarized by Luther in his lectures on Genesis:
Yet the true definition of marriage is this: marriage is the divine and lawful union of a
male and female in the hope of children, or at least to avoid the cause of fornication and
sin, to God’s glory. Its ultimate end is to obey God; to remedy sin; to call upon God; to
seek, love, and educate children to God’s glory; to live with one’s spouse in the fear of
the Lord; and to bear the cross.45

14

The redefinition of marriage suggested by HSGT discounts the heart of Luther’s definition. More
importantly, the document represents a radical departure from what God has instituted and it
opens the way for the church to bless what God condemns.46
7. Bound Conscience and Sexual Ethics
HSGT next proceeds to lay out a way for the ELCA to change its practice so as to allow for
churchly recognition and blessing of individuals in “lifelong, monogamous, same-gender
relationships” (HSGT, 18). HSGT acknowledges “that consensus does not yet exist [in the
ELCA] concerning how to regard same-gender committed relationships after many years of
thoughtful, faithful study and conversation. We do not have agreement on whether this church
should honor these relationships and uplift, shelter, and protect them or precisely how it is
appropriate to do so” (HSGT, 19). It is argued that this lack of consensus, however, should not
prevent pastoral care, which the document understands as inclusive of some form of blessing and
recognition for those who are in same gender relationships.
Without giving any biblical or confessional documentation HSGT asserts that in response to this
need and in the face of the impasse in failure to reach consensus, “this church draws on the
foundational Lutheran understanding that the baptized are called to discern God’s love in the
service to the neighbor” (HSGT, 19). In a crucial move HSGT does two things. First, it identifies
the question of same-gendered relationships as falling into the arena of ethics and church
practice, suggesting that this not an issue of doctrine which should divide the church. Second,
HSGT argues that committed Christians engaged in moral deliberation and discernment may
indeed arrive at conflicting conclusions. These varying conclusions could be protected by an
appeal to “the bound conscience;” thus, “We further believe that this church on the basis of ‘the
bound conscience,’ will include different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks
to live out its mission and ministry in the world” (HSGT, 19). There is no hint in HSGT that the
failure to reach consensus in the ELCA on the morality of homosexual activity might lead the
church to retain the received catholic tradition.47
HSGT then goes on to outline four positions that different individuals in the ELCA hold “with
conviction and integrity,” each on the basis of conscience-bound belief:
 Same-gendered sexual behavior is contrary to both biblical teaching and natural law.
Pastoral care is to call for repentance and to work toward a change of behavior and/or a
celibate lifestyle.

43
LC I:207, KW, 414.
44
Note CTCR Human Sexuality, 10-32. See also Paul Althaus: “Thus marriage is both God’s original intention for
his creation before all sin and the means he now uses to protect people against the destructive power of unrestrained
sexuality” (The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert Schultz [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972], 85). Also
Albrecht Peters: “As God’s ordinance, marriage is an estate that, as a widely observed one, permeates not only
Christendom but all of humanity. It connects all who have a human face; all people know it as a public estate and
protect it in manifold forms and different shapes by means of custom and law” (Commentary on Luther’s
Catechisms: Ten Commandments, trans. Holger Sonntag [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009], 247).
45
Martin Luther cited by Albrecht Peters, 257. See also Oswald Bayer, “Luther’s View of Marriage” in Freedom in
Response, 169-182. Bayer says that Luther placed emphasis on the “estate” of marriage as “the concept of estate was
intimately connected with both steadfastness and energy, products of the reliability of the Word that ensures that life
together will have the quality of endurance. The Word holds all the various facets of an active life together, its
beauty and peace as well as its crises and conflicts. The Word of God lends stability to marriage and brings about
the unconditional and permanent unity of one man and one woman” (170).

15

2013 Convention Workbook

 Acknowledgement that homosexuality, even when expressed through a lifelong
monogamous relationship, reflects a broken world not in keeping with God’s pattern for
creation. These relationships are recognized as being lived out with mutuality and care,
but they should not be given the status of marriage.

46
On the misapplication of “blessing” to homosexual unions, see Ephraim Radner, “Blessing: A Scriptural and
Theological Reflection” Pro Ecclesia (Winter 2010): 7-27. “To bless is a resolutely public thing to do, because it is
at base a confessional thing to do that is bound to a particular claim about who God is and what God does” (27).
47
“Catholic” tradition refers to the consistent teaching of Christianity on this issue since its very origin.

16