Foreword
Dr. Armin Wenz, a pastor in the SELK, the sister church of the LCMS in Germany has rendered an important service is addressing exegetical, theological, and ethical issues raised by revisionists who would abandon the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the universal church on homosexuality in the name of an imaging inclusive “gospel” of love and tolerance rather than the forgiveness of sins which carries with it both the freedom from guilt and the power for the renewal of life. While Wenz focuses on developments in Germany, the parallels in North American Lutheranism are unmistakably clear. Like their counterparts in Germany, there are American Lutheran theologians claiming that the church’s has adopted an “excessively physicalist approach to homosexuality”[1] and that ethics should be focus on the quality of relationships rather than creational realities. Others such as Martha Ellen Stortz argue that sexual identity is overcome by baptism, thus baptism is severed from repentance and faith and is used for the justification of the sin, rather than the sinner.[2] In contrast both to these American theologians and certain German thinkers critiqued by Wenz, Wolfhart Pannenberg asserts: ““If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”[3] Such are the stakes in this issue that has come to the forefront at the inter-Lutheran intersection in both American and global Lutheranism in our day.
As Wenz points out the theological debate over the blessing of same-sex unions and the inclusion of homosexuals in the pastoral office, is far more profound than academic readings of a few isolated texts. A revision of the biblical strictures against homosexual behavior strikes at the heart of the doctrines of creation and sin, indeed at the doctrine of God. Homosexual activity is, in fact, the bodily enactment of idolatry. Using Romans 1:18-32 as a key text, Wenz carefully demonstrates how Paul sees homosexual behavior as part and parcel of a threefold exchange centered in the abandonment of God’s truth and the embrace of the satanic lie. The essay concludes with some suggestions for pastoral care of homosexual persons, centered in confession and absolution. Finally the church has something far greater to offer to sinners than tolerance and acceptance. It is the absolution that carries with it the promise of the resurrection to the newness of life.
This essay will be helpful to pastors, deaconesses, governing boards and staffs of Lutheran agencies that are involved with human care. In a day when many church bodies are severely compromised on matters surrounding homosexuality such as the blessing of same-sex partnerships, the admission of homosexual persons into the ministry, and church-related agencies advocating a homosexual agenda in the area of adoptions, it is essential for our pastors and church workers to have biblically accurate resources for the articulation of God’s truth as it shapes our practice. The questions for study and discussion appended at the end of the essay will facilitate the use of this document not only in circuit pastoral conferences and other forums for professional church workers but also for congregational Bible classes and individual study. As most of the secondary literature referred to by Dr Wenz is in German, a bibliography of recent books and journal articles in English is also included in this pamphlet. Dr. Holger Sonntag, pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Carver, Minnesota provided the translation of Exchanges: Theological Dimensions of a Sexual-Ethical Question into English.
-John T. Pless
Assistant Professor of Pastoral Ministry and Missions
Concordia Theological Seminary
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Pentecost 2006
Exchanges
Theological Dimensions of a Sexual-Ethical Question
Armin Wenz
Oberursel, Germany
Introduction
With the passing of the German Domestic Partnership Law [Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz] in 2001, the debate on the legitimacy of homosexuality in society and church in Germany has reached a new stage.[4] While society discusses the consequences of the Domestic Partnership Law, especially its constitutionality,[5] there seems to be an overwhelming pressure especially on the Protestant territorial and free churches. One synodical assembly after another debates and decides regarding the question of the blessing of same-sex couples. Publicly the admission and acceptance of those pastors and church workers is demanded, who have come out as homosexuals. And many a synodical resolution is nothing else than the retroactive legitimization of a reality that already exists in practice.[6] One can observe the quick change of theological-ecclesial positions within only a few years. What only a short time ago was held by a small minority, all of a sudden becomes part of the convictions of individuals governing the church and of synodical majorities. Older statements, which still opined negatively on the questions of blessing homosexual couples and of the admission of homosexual pastors to the office,[7] in part have been replaced by newer resolutions or overtaken by a contrary practice.
The question of a theological evaluation of homosexuality and of the practical implications of such an evaluation is controversial within churches and between churches. For instance, the criticism of ecumenical institutions by the Orthodox Church time and again is sparked by the question of homosexuality.[8] The attempt is being made to deal with such resistance within and between churches by means of defamation and marginalization. A favorite instrument of church leaders and theological trend-setters is the fundamentalism-label. Regardless of a substantive evaluation, it is interesting to see how the churchly approval of homosexuality and blessing of homosexual couples, which some see as long overdue, goes hand in hand with the stigmatization of those who reject such a course of action. Now that person is called a sinner who is not ready, without reservation, to promote the homosexual lifestyle and to advocate for its equality. Lifting the traditional theological condemnation thus goes hand in hand with issuing new condemnations.[9] It is said: “You are no longer within the sphere of the gospel and thereby within the Protestant or Lutheran Church.” The question of homosexuality therefore touches on being the true church.[10]
All this clearly shows that the debate concerning homosexuality is not a marginal question, but a question which, due to its far-reaching implications for doctrine and practice, touches on the unity of the church and the salvation of man. After all, especially the normativity of Holy Scripture is controversial. Everybody confesses adherence to the Reformation principle of Scripture; but immediately the question arises, what this confession really means for evaluating homosexuality and for dealing with homosexual Christians in the church.
This essay takes the statements of the apostle Paul in Rom. 1:18-32 as its starting point. In the mind of many of the protagonists on both sides, these verses represent a key text of Scripture for the evaluation of homosexuality. This corresponds to the high importance of the Letter to the Romans within the NT canon and as testament of the apostle Paul. One can therefore expect that here foundational matters are laid out which are relevant far beyond one particular congregational situation.
Especially important is the observation that homosexuality indeed is not an independent topic, neither of the bible nor of Romans nor of the passage Rom. 1:18-32. This anthropological phenomenon is rather viewed in a theological perspective. It is thereby placed into the biblical context of the history of salvation and damnation of God with his humanity. It is placed into the context of the acting of the triune God in judgment and salvation. Yet in this context we still live today – and today’s society and today’s churches still live in this context as well. For this reason the theological explanations of the apostle in Romans can lead to an understanding of homosexuality in theological perspective, based on which then also the current controversies can be sorted out.
One basic element of the Reformation principle of Scripture is the clarity of Scripture. It is therefore not our time which sheds light on the Scripture which is seemingly dark and in need of interpretation; but it is Scripture which sheds light on our time. Along these lines we want to pursue the following double question: In which horizon does Paul perceive the phenomenon of homosexual intercourse which apparently already back then could not be ignored and could therefore also not be theologically neglected in the course of the missionary expansion of the church? And how do his explanations, in the context of the whole bible, shed light on the current churchly and societal controversy?
1 The Threefold Exchange (Romans 1:18-32)
The statements on homosexuality in Romans are found in the context of Romans 1:18-3:20, in which Paul speaks of the revelation of God’s wrath over all men; of the fact that all of mankind, Jews and Gentiles, are without excuse before God. This serves as preparation for the proclamation of the righteousness of God in Christ. In Rom. 1:18ff he first speaks about the Gentiles among whom the guilt before God manifests itself differently than among the Jews.[11] From the beginning, avse,beia, ungodliness, here corresponds to avdiki,a, doing what is against God.[12] God’s wrath aims at both. Truth is held down by avdiki,a, the injustice of man (1:18). This is then unfolded further in two series of thought (vv. 19-23 and 24-31).
Paul first points out, in 1:19-23, that the relation between man and God is wrong, even though God can be known from his works in creation (v. 21). The gratitude owed to the Creator for his creation is replaced by the enslavement of the thoughts to futility and the darkening of the foolish heart (evmataiw,qhsan evn toi/j dialogismoi/j auvtw/n kai. evskoti,sqh h` avsu,netoj auvtw/n kardi,a). “To live as humans within creation should have its meaning and goal in doxology. In reality, however, humans refuse to give this doxology – and by doing so they fall into the lack of meaning and goal which, according to the OT experience, is the essence of the idols understood as ‘futilities.’”[13] The result is that man – claiming to be wise – becomes a fool and exchanges the glory of God for images of men and animals (h;llaxan th.n do,xan tou/ avfqa,rtou qeou/ evn o`moiw,mati eivko,noj fqartou/ avnqrw,pou kai. peteinw/n kai. tetrapo,dwn kai. e`rpetw/n, v. 23). “Man now becomes like the animals and begins to worship animals.”[14]
The section 1:24-31 is subdivided by a threefold pare,dwken. This term describes God’s judging,[15] the effects of the revealed divine wrath, which consist in that God gives up man “to the results of their apostasy which plays itself out in their relationship to themselves.”[16] The first giving up concerns the human heart which, according to v. 21, is ungrateful and foolish. This giving up to the lusts of the heart is tantamount to “impurity” and implies that man dishonors his own body. Verse 25 brings to memory again that here are dealt with those who have exchanged God’s truth for a lie (meth,llaxan th.n avlh,qeian tou/ qeou/ evn tw/ yeu,dei) and who worshiped the creature instead of the Creator. As in the Old Testament, according to Paul “idolatry [shows itself] as uncleanness and harlotry against God … [and] in sexual uncleanness and ‘abuse’ … of the bodies by the humans themselves.”[17] The second giving up concerns dishonorable passions (pare,dwken auvtou.j o` qeo.j eivj pa,qh avtimi,aj, v. 26). This is now explained by pointing to the exchange of the natural intercourse for the unnatural (meth,llaxan th.n fusikh.n crh/sin eivj th.n para. fu,sin) among women and men. In this way, those who do such things pay themselves the wages of their error (pla,nh).[18] The third giving up concerns the mind or spirit (nou/j) of man which is depraved (v. 28). This shows itself in that man does what is not right (poiei/n ta. mh. kaqh,konta), and it is further elaborated in a list of vices, which is opened by the term avdiki,a, which is already known from v. 18.
The threefold giving up of man by God corresponds to a threefold exchanging on the part of blinded man: He exchanges God’s honor for images of idols (v. 23); he exchanges truth for lie (v. 25); and he exchanges the natural intercourse for the unnatural (v. 26). The ingratitude toward God becomes apparent in doing what is not right before God. This is punishment insofar as man not only does not give God the honor that is due him, but also insofar as man, by his unnatural behavior, robs himself of the honor bestowed on him as man and woman by God. The threefold exchanging characterizes sin as perversion “of the possibilities for life granted by the Creator.”[19] Therefore, as “giving up” by God denotes the fate-like nature of all of what takes place, so the “exchanging” denotes man’s guilt, for which he is held responsible by God. The inescapability of the divine giving up and the human responsibility and guilt are definitely not mutually exclusive.[20] For verse 32 shows “the eschatological-forensic consequence:”[21] Those who have made themselves guilty of the exchanges named, become liable to the divine death-sentence. They are responsible for their action; there is no “excuse” for it (eivj to. ei=nai auvtou.j avnapologh,touj, v. 20).
One does not have to view the threefold giving up as steps in temporal sequence, but primarily as three contemporaneous aspects of God’s judging, which Paul thus presents as threefold. God’s wrath manifests itself in that God exposes man to the lust of his blind heart, to his drive-like passions, and to his foolish mind, without protecting him from the consequences of his godlessness anymore. The punishment consists precisely in that God lets man do as the latter pleases, which is, however, against God’s good order for life. Even if all do not commit every evil act, there is nonetheless solidarity among the sinners against God: No one asks for the will of God; instead, even if one does not participate in everything, one nonetheless approves of those who live it all out.[22]
It is important to note that homosexuality is by no means the only avdiki,a, which separates from God. Thus, the point is not to single out a certain group of people from a humanity that is otherwise presumed sinless. On the contrary, one rather needs to ask if not every man, due to the total blinding of humanity, bears in himself the potential to live out to the extreme the consequences of his distance from God. When one considers that God is the one who gives up humanity, one can hardly deny this.[23] This becomes even clearer when one looks at Romans as a whole. All men are living under sin without excuse (3:9-20) – that is the point of the argument of the apostle, by which he “characterizes the situation of ‘man,’ which is presupposed in the gospel”[24] and which is fundamentally changed by the revelation of the gospel which is directed toward the sinner. “This is why what has been said in 1:18-32 belongs to the contents of the gospel, in which both are fulfilled: the wrath of God which destroys all sinners and his righteousness which makes this result of his wrath of no effect.”[25] The total context of Romans shows how the end of God’s wrath in the gospel of Jesus Christ affects the modes of behavior described in 1:18-32. Accordingly, the time under God’s wrath and the modes of behavior characterizing this time are past for the Christians.[26] The vices listed in Rom. 1 fall under God’s forgiveness for Christ’s sake; they are covered “by forgiving the sins which had been committed in the time of his patience” (3:25-26). The effect of the gospel on the fruits of the wrath of God is thus not their miraculous transformation from deadly vices to Spirit-filled gifts of creation to be enjoyed in gratitude. It is not that the behaviors under God’s wrath are sanctified and integrated into life. Rather, they now ought to remain past and overcome by virtue of baptism, for the question of the apostle applies here: “How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (6:2). The Christians is free from the rule even of these sins (6:3-23; 7:24f.; 8:2, 13) which brought death before (1:32; 6:23). They belong to the works of darkness which the Christian, in light of the coming day of the Lord, puts down in favor of the weapons of light (13:11-14).
It is therefore noteworthy that Paul explicitly mentions homosexual intercourse in Rom 1 and does not simply make general remarks concerning deviant sexual desires. Rather, he elaborates “concretely what is meant: homosexual ‘intercourse’ (crh/sij) among women and men which Paul condemns as ‘exchange’ (cf. vv. 23, 25) of the ‘natural’ intercourse for the ‘unnatural,’ as a shameful act.”[27] This apostolic judgment, however, cannot be rejected in principle by simply pointing to the apostle’s ignorance of human sciences.[28] Instead, one has to ask for the meaning of the elaborations of the apostle in the entire context of biblical revelation. Only in this way the theological rationale becomes clear, because of which Paul here sees in homosexual intercourse a behavior against God deserving of God’s wrath and death-sentence. The questions why Paul sees the turn to homosexual intercourse as an ungodly “exchange” can only be answered based on the remaining biblical statements regarding human sexuality. Thus, what is needed is not simply the apodictic quoting of proof texts, but, alongside the explication of the individual passages, an “interpretation of the pertinent passages in the full context of biblical anthropology,”[29] which is accountable both biblically and hermeneutically.
2 “They exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices”
2.1 The biblical view of man and sexuality – man as male and female
A favorite method of dealing with the exclusively negative statements on homosexuality in Paul is to place them in opposition to the proclamation of Jesus. Time and again, it is pointed out that Jesus did not address homosexuality at all. Jesus, it is said, is only concerned about the love in relationships. However, this argument is contradicted by the fact that Jesus, according to the witness of the evangelists, did not leave any doubt about his view of man. Against the law’s regulations concerning divorce, he explicitly upholds the primordial creation and determination of man as male and female. For he prefaces the later regulations of the institution by what has been “from the beginning of creation” and thus critically juxtaposes what was first to what came later. By doing so, Jesus immediately takes the foundational words from Genesis into his present context and relates them critically to human regulations. Because God has created man male and female from the beginning, “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6-8; Mat. 19:4-6). Man and woman’s “being one flesh” is thereby explicitly confirmed by Jesus, who takes up Gen. 2:24, as the “wherefrom” (origin) and “whereto” (goal) of man. Whenever man turns to woman, Adam’s archetypical life is repeated. Adam, to be sure, is, by virtue of the breath of life breathed into his nostrils, a “living being” by himself (Gen. 2:7), but he is not yet complete: God does not want the loneliness of man; he is to get a helper (Gen. 2:18). This helper is not found among the animals (Gen. 2:20), but led to Adam by God himself (Gen. 2:21-22). Adam recognizes her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” At the same time, the correlation and difference is expressed right away: “she will be called woman because she is taken from man” (Gen. 2:23). OT scholar Horst Seebaß judges: “Because here as always in the Old Testament life is the goal of God’s acting and life and blessing belong together (both in the widest sense), it is impossible to apply Gen. 2:18-23 to homosexual relationships.”[30]
It is furthermore important to note that Jesus’ support of the fundamental anthropological realities in Mark and Matthew immediately precedes the blessing of the children (Mark 10:13-16; Matt. 19:13-15). The adults are not to hinder the children, who are born in the relationship of man and woman, from entering the kingdom of heavens. By doing so, Jesus not only upholds marriage as creational gift of his Father, but he also connects the “generation of children” to the kingdom of heavens. The children who are born in the wedlock arranged by the Creator are to be allowed to come to Jesus. Thus, Jesus shares with the Old Testament a view of man, in which sexuality is not a goal in itself, but something that is to be seen within the context of the Creator’s blessing aiming for the passing on of life. Man and woman’s “being one flesh” is not exhausted by sexual intercourse. Rather, the purpose of the union of both sexes lies in the expansion of the union by means of offspring. Man’s commission and the Creator’s blessing consist in passing on life.
This is the reason why human sexuality is not addressed in an isolated manner in Scripture. What is addressed is the life-long marriage of man and woman as Creator-given context of sexuality. The command and the promise to pass on life in this union hold true beyond the fall into sin. Gen. 5-11 and its lists of nations and families show how this is fulfilled. The patriarchal narratives show that infertility and the lack of children are experienced as existential problems. As the place where life is passed on in a comprehensive sense, marriage of man and woman is therefore also the presupposition for, and the expression of, the fact that man finds himself in a succession of generations, that he, in other words, is a historical being.
What is new in the New Testament is that here God’s blessing in Christ can also be passed on in unmarried life. In view of salvation in Christ und of the passing world, marriage and family do not represent absolute values in the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 14:26; 1 Cor. 7:29). According to Jesus and the apostle Paul there is the unmarried life for the sake of the kingdom of heavens, but this is clearly the exception and includes sexual continence (Matt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:1-7). The command of chastity applies to the married and to those who are, either currently or permanently, unmarried (cf. in addition to Gal. 5:23 and 1 Thess. 4:3 also John 8:11!). Meilaender reminds us that the Reformation – beyond worldliness and world-flight – does not fall back behind the New Testament, when Luther, in his explanation of the Sixth Commandment, makes chastity the foundational principle in these matters. “Although the sixteenth-century Reformers often exalted the importance of marriage, especially as part of their attack on monastic vows, marriage itself is not the fundamental requirement. Chastity is.”[31] Unmarried life[32] and the estate of marriage are in the New Testament two ways of life which God uses to propagate the kingdom of God by men and to pass on the faith in the saving word. In the New Testament, marriage and family are thus not only fruits of the blessing of the Creator and Sustainer, but also the place where salvation in Christ is passed on.
The marriage between man and woman, instituted with the passing on of life in mind, is therefore not only relevant in the article on creation but also in that of the church. This is further highlighted by the fact that in numerous passages in the Old as well as in the New Testament marriage between man and woman is seen as an image of the relationship of God to his chosen people (Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2:2; 3:1; Ez. 16:23f.; Eph. 5:21-33). These texts show very clearly what marriage is all about: it is about a life-long covenant in which two people of different sexes faithfully share and pass on life. As marriage is an image for God’s faithfulness to his people, sexual immorality is an image for the unfaithfulness of God’s people. As marriage and faithfulness to God are under God’s blessing and contribute to life, harlotry and apostasy from God are under God’s wrath and judgment. This is focused Christologically in the New Testament, where, in Ephesians, the self-giving of Christ for his congregation is presented to the married couple as an example for their life together (Eph. 5:23-33), or when, again and again, the relation between Christ and the church is described in the images of marriage feast, bride and bridegroom.
All this can be summarized as follows: The union of man and woman in marriage is an essential part of the biblical view of man in the Old as well as the New Testament. It is the place in which man finds – not only sexual – fulfillment and life together. Additionally, marriage plays a role for the view of God, since it reflects God’s faithfulness to his people. Life and faith in Christ are passed on in marriage and family. According to the New Testament, the relationship between man and woman in union and difference corresponds to the relationship between Christ and his church. Marriage between man and woman is therefore not only an “order of creation,” but a gift of God for which and through which God wants to work in his world and church for the salvation of mankind. Aspects of the doctrines of creation, salvation, and of the Holy Spirit here work together. Marriage is about the acting of the triune God.
2.2 The exchange: homosexual intercourse
Old and New Testament, Jesus and his apostles speak about marriage and the blessing of children in the perspective of the doctrines of creation and church. On the flipside of marriage,[33] so to speak, this leads us to addressing homosexual intercourse in the perspective of the doctrine of sin. The bible deals with specific sins in a twofold perspective: in that of judgment and in that of forgiveness and sanctification.
Paul’s statements in Rom. 1 are paradigmatic for dealing with homosexuality from the vantage point of the doctrine of sin. As seen above, homosexual intercourse is presented here exclusively in the perspective of God’s judgment and wrath and, on man’s part, in the perspective of loss of honor and the missing of one’s own determination as God’s creature. This corresponds to the findings in the Old Testament where homosexual intercourse is never viewed positively, but is considered to be expression and symptom of a fallen world (Gen. 19; Judges 19).[34] This corresponds furthermore to the condemnation of homosexual intercourse in the law as ungodly – excluding from fellowship with the holy God – “abomination” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Hans Walter Wolff comments: “Homosexuality is a failure to recognize the difference of the sexes, and with it the basic way of arriving at a fruitful life through the overcoming of self-love. Sodomy is resisted in the same way (Lev. 18.23).”[35] The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, expresses the intended meaning of the Hebrew original by prohibiting intercourse between men (kai. meta. a;rsenoj ouv koimhqh,sh koi,thn gunaiko,j\ bde,lugma ga,r evstin, Lev. 18:22). One cannot fail to notice that Paul, by using the word avrsenokoi/tai in 1 Cor. 6:9 (cf. 1 Tim. 1:10), quotes the Septuagint almost verbatim. Especially in view of the fact that the New Testament does not uphold many of the other rules even of the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26), it is noteworthy that Paul applies the statements of the Holiness Code on homosexuality also for the sanctification of the Christians. When Paul writes in 1 Cor. 6:9 that intercourse between men excludes from the kingdom of God, then this corresponds to the rejection of such intercourse by God in the Old Testament as “abomination” (hb'[eAT),[36] which excludes man from God’s blessing and thus abandons him to death.
Yet how does Paul arrive at this harsh condemnation? Rom. 1:27 speaks of error in connection with homosexual behavior. One has to keep this in mind when Paul now in 1 Cor. 6:9 admonishes: “Do not be deceived.” The errors from Rom. 1 still affect the Christian congregation, which is not surprising given the fact that Rome and Corinth were large cities back then.[37] According to 1 Cor. 6:9-11, these errors are present as temptation from the past of some members, but also in the pagan surroundings. As Rom. 1:18 speaks of unrighteousness, so here the unrighteous are addressed: They are, as they are, excluded from the kingdom of God.[38] Paul also mentions those who practice homosexual intercourse.[39] They stand right next to the other sinners. Paul states nonchalantly: “Such were some of you.” Then a reminder of baptism[40] follows: “But you have been washed; you have been sanctified; you have been justified by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Faced with the threatening return of the old habits in the congregation, Paul thus reminds his listeners of baptism and its effect. Baptism is two things: Reception of the heavenly inheritance and end of the old godless life – the other side of the new beginning in Christ. Forgiveness of sins and sanctification are both given through baptism (v. 11). The old patterns of behavior are thus not integrated into the new Christian life, but are forgiven and done away with, even deprived of their power, through baptism: “‘Being made holy’ denotes, beyond this aspect, not only the freedom from the guilt of sin, but also from the power of sin. By means of baptism, man is drawn from being fallen to the sphere of power of the old world into the sphere of God’s holiness and committed to holiness.”[41]
“Especially because Paul views baptism not only as something cognitive, but as something effective-causative, it can serve him as the foundation of a thoroughgoing renewal and commitment.”[42] The life of the heirs of the kingdom of God is no longer focused on the idol, on sex, on intoxication, or on money, but on the holy God. As he is holy, so they too are holy through baptism. Paul shows in 1 Cor. 6:20-7:40 how this has consequences especially for the sexual life. 1 Tim. 1:8-11 also refers to homosexual behavior. Against a false legalism Paul asserts what the law says and what it does not say. While marriage is a gift to man from God (1 Tim. 4:1-5), the law does apply, according to 1 Tim. 1:8-11, to sinners and the godless (cf. Gal. 5:18-23!), among them murderers, the sexually impure, those given to homosexual intercourse – patterns of life which are “contrary to sound doctrine” (v. 10).
The New Testament statements on homosexual intercourse thus fit into the baptismal admonitions of the apostles, which are foundational for the instruction of the Christian congregations in a life corresponding to the gospel. Important not only, but also for the debate on the homosexual lifestyle is the following observation: The New Testament mandates for the life of the Christians cannot be reduced to the commandment of love. Rather, specific – and universally present – behaviors are named which correspond to a life in fellowship with God and others which lead to a separation of the baptized from the kingdom of God.
A peculiar understanding of time and reality plays itself out here. Then and now; darkness and light; old and new are not related like two stages of a development in the New Testament; rather, they are treated like opposites. The old way of life, past and overcome since baptism, constitutes a constant danger out of which the Christian is called. Yet, faith does not lead to isolation from the world. Rather, the New Testament admonitions direct into a salutary way of dealing with the creational gifts of God and thus also with sexuality. Old and new; the slavery to sin and the freedom in sanctification; life in darkness and life in light; life in the flesh and life in the Spirit are juxtaposed, e.g., in the following passages: Rom. 6; 8:1-17; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 4:17-5:20; Col. 3:1-17; 1 Thess. 5:1-11; Tit. 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:13-16. The First Letter of Peter (1:16) can even restate the demand from the Old Testament Holiness Code (Lev. 19:2): “Be holy, for I am holy.” Paul, for his part, establishes a direct connection between this holiness and the avoiding of sexual immorality by means of marital faithfulness (cf. 1 Thess. 4:3f.).
All these passages show two things: On the one hand, the behaviors from the pre-Christian time of the baptized and from their non-Christian surroundings remain a temptation for the Christians standing in the faith.[43] This does not only affect sexuality, but also dealing with money and goods etc. This applies also not only to the sinful deed, but already to the sinful wish, lust, even aberrant “heterosexual” lusting (cf. also Mat. 5:27-32; 2 Peter 2:14). On the other hand, the Christians are now emphatically called, not to resign themselves to such behaviors, but to let them be past. At the same time, the proclamation of the saving effects of the redemptive acts of Christ (cf. besides the passages already mentioned especially 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Peter 1:18f.), of baptism, and of the presence of the Spirit opens up the freedom to avoid the former sins and to live the Christian “virtues,” the fruits of the Spirit. The Christian is free to use God’s gifts in the area of sexuality, property, and food; but he is to do this within the limits in which God gives these gifts. This means for the area of sexuality: The place where sexuality may and ought to be lived within the sanctification effected by baptism is the marriage between man and woman.[44] This excludes extramarital intercourse as well as homosexual intercourse.[45]
This demonstrates yet again that the New Testament mandates concerning homosexuality do not represent a foreign element in the bible. They rather reflect the view of man which can be discerned in the central biblical passages on the creation of man in the Old as well as New Testament – a creation which has been severely damaged by human sin and perversion, but which, under the gospel, enters again into the hallowed service of the Creator, so that Christian ethics, not only in questions of sexual ethics, avoids falling into ascetical rigorism as well as unrestrained pursuit of human urges. The boundaries drawn by the apostle are neither determined by his times, nor are they arbitrary, but they correspond to the original will of the Creator for his creatures. The fact that the New Testament again and again names the boundaries in ethical questions so concretely shows how much Christianity is tempted to conform to its own Pagan past and surroundings. According to the unanimous opinion of the apostles, the Christians back then did not need to be focused on some abstract commandment of love, but they needed to hear concretely what corresponds to love as summary of the law of God and what does not; what are the fruits of the Spirit and what those of the flesh are. The baptized Christian’s ability to make ethical judgments also needs to be constantly clarified and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, as it is expressed in the apostolic admonitions.
In this context, homosexual intercourse is not only an exchange of what is according to creation and the Creator for what Paul calls “unnatural,” which, however, must not be misinterpreted naturalistically, but within the context of the biblical understanding of Creation and man. In addition, practiced homosexual love, as every kind of sexual immorality, represents an exchange in the sense of a turning away from a life hallowed by God’s Spirit in baptism, an exchange of the Spirit for the flesh; of the new being, destined by God for life, for the old, lost being. The rejection of homosexual intercourse in the New Testament therefore follows from theological reasons; it is not a result of adapting the proclamation of the gospel to the circumstances of the times. For the answer of the New Testament to the exchange of Spirit for flesh is, not only in the case of homosexuality, the call to repentance and the call back to baptism; the New Testament also places the Christian again under the reality of salvation of the congregation of God which is brought about in baptism by the Holy Spirit. A theological ethic which takes these realities seriously is therefore “guardian, not over some ‘conformity’ with ‘evangelical norms’ – an idea which goes quite well with the antinomianism of the notion that whatever exists is already thereby justified – but over the evangelical plh,rwma of actions, over their Spirit-wrought content of reality in contradistinction from all instances of absence and lack of Spirit which are immediately judged as such.”[46]
3 “They exchanged God’s truth for the lie”
3.1 “New insights” and Holy Scripture
Already for some time now, many in the ecclesial discussion have attacked the notion that homosexual intercourse can be questioned based on biblical statements. Two basic points are repeatedly adduced for this: On the one hand, new insights in the human sciences; on the other hand, changes in the exegesis of Holy Scripture itself. The collection of essays, Die Menschlichkeit der Sexualität, edited by Helmut Kentler already in 1983,[47] shows paradigmatically how both points are combined.
According to Kentler himself, the biblical statements on homosexuality ought not to be relevant anymore because one has meanwhile recognized, on the one hand, that homosexuality is not a free decision of man’s will, but part of his nature; and, on the other hand, that man is actually bisexually disposed[48] so that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Kentler claimed that heterosexuality and homosexuality are “alternative shapes of style in the process of forming a sexual life that matches the personality type;” they are two different “dialects” of the same “body language” sexuality;[49] they “become alternative projects which continue to make human life possible after the end of the intimate togetherness of the child with the mother.”[50] The authorities adduced for these insights are, on the one hand, psychotherapeutic schools and, on the other hand, the post-WW II Kinsey-reports on questions of “human sexuality.” At issue here is a changed understanding of sexuality in church and society. Claiming the support of science,[51] an enhanced notion of sexuality[52] is advocated against tying sexuality to marriage and the imparting of life to the next generation which is promoted by state and church. This enhanced notion stands out in that here sexuality and procreation are basically separated. Sexuality, according to this view, is not important for procreation – in nature, it takes place often asexually – but for the mixing of the genetic pool.[53]
This enhanced notion of sexuality is also the basis for criticizing the traditional statements of churches regarding the homosexual lifestyle. Accordingly, what is criticized is that they consistently tie sexuality to marriage and thereby do not do justice to man. Marriage is here understood as an order and not based on the inner life. Against this, it is necessary to speak about love; and marriage must not be kept out of the discussion and changeability. The “strange fixation on marriage” prevents human sexuality from being perceived in an unbiased way.[54]
However, newer insights concerning the recreational and fun functions of sexuality, which apply to all ages from child to old age, are said to be more substantial.[55] What is needed, it is said, is therefore the cultivation of desire, for whatever is experienced as arousing is not natural but learned and acquired, which is why, also according to this approach, the first years of life have to be seen as decisive and formational.[56] Sexual communication as an achievement of culture and as body language is therefore valuable in itself; it is not in need of any “‘ennobling’ by external goods or by placing it into ‘higher’ relations (which is to say, not first by a wanted child and not first by marriage does a sexual encounter become human and dignified).”[57] Research into so-called sexual perversions is said to have revealed basic truths: Sexual formation is part of the formation of identity and personal integration. Also the perversion is therefore to be considered as a “respectable ego-accomplishment,” which strengthens the ego and keeps the person together. Suffering is first caused by the lack of understanding on the part of others. Since in our society no one lives without developmental deficits, their sexualization plays a major role to defend against fears and to domesticate conflicts.[58]
According to this view of things, it is therefore important that sexuality independent of procreation can be a source of healing for people; that it therefore represents an advantage in the survival of the fittest; that it has recreational effects and makes communication possible; that it provides outlets for dissatisfaction experienced elsewhere; that it creates a sense of integration and identity; that it helps to overcome hardships in life and to improve one’s chances in life. This is why, it is said, prohibitions in this area should be used very sparingly, since one might otherwise take away a means of self-healing.[59] In short, sexuality as such contributes to healing and benefits life regardless of whether it is practiced with a partner or not; regardless of the kind of partner. Since sexuality is not hereditary, but learned, it must be practiced in education just like walk and speech, otherwise it will remain underdeveloped and pathological. In each case, society is formative.[60] Each society shapes the sexual behavior that fits its order; there is nothing imaginable that is not practiced among the various peoples, all the way to child sex.[61] Since sexual education creates various types of human beings, it is irresponsible to speak of “orders of creation” in this area. Such a word is suspicious of being ideological, because here a certain type of morality is to be given preference. But this has the effect of destroying culture.[62]
The view of history connected to this approach shows what is meant here. Accordingly, misogyny and, respectively, sexism and homophobia in the church grew out of the same root.[63] Particularly the raising of children along roles determined by their sex has traditionally served to support patriarchy, because role and identity of a human being are not fixed, but are passed on in the process of raising the child.[64] While there is the pathological fixation on heterosexuality as an expression of the unconscious repression of one’s own bisexual and homosexual needs, homosexuality is not to be seen as a pathology, but as a “defense against what makes sick, a working through and a resolution of problems and, thus, as a sign of health.”[65] In the homosexual as well as in the heterosexual “camp” “the whole breadth of male and female possibilities of realization is present,” which pursue all the same drive-goal of satisfaction, only that what gives satisfaction is different.[66] The ways of sexual intercourse also are not significantly different, because anal intercourse is by no means typical for only the homosexuals.[67]
One cannot miss in Kentler’s exposition the attempt to show the complete equality of, or the denial of differences between, homosexuality and heterosexuality – with the one exception of the object that satisfies the drive. The denial of the pathology of homosexuality goes hand in hand with the assertion of “pathological traits” in the “normal heterosexual.”[68] These traits become apparent in that marriage and family are not good in and by themselves, but bring forth many diseases and abnormal developments.[69] Not the sexual by itself is therefore to be considered a psychological pathology, but “whatever hampers, disturbs, or makes the sexual impossible.”[70] To be sure, it is to be admitted that there is among homosexuals a tendency to promiscuity. But this is counterbalanced, on the part of the heterosexuals, by a tendency to adopting an ideology of possession.[71] The utter equality of both variants leads to the demand that neither ought to be privileged so that the manifold opportunities of expression can come to the fore.[72]
Based on these “new insights,” the biblical statements are thoroughly reevaluated within the context of church and theology. Hans-Georg Wiedemann has taken on this task in the volume edited by Kentler.[73] According to his essay, the assertion that homosexuality is excluded in the protological texts rests on “a dogmatic interpretation of Old Testament texts which manifests itself in the doctrines of divine orders of creation and institutions. Contrariwise, it is important to see what the texts really (only) are saying.”[74] Accordingly, homosexuality has to be seen as a gift of the Creator,[75] which can be derived from Gen. 2 just as much as heterosexuality, because the point in the text is that man needs a partner as a helper.[76] Gen. 1:28, for its part, is “not a command to beget children, but a word of blessing.”[77] The fact that the bible addresses homosexuality in the context of idolatry is explained by asserting that only homosexuality in the Pagan cult is rejected, that the point therefore is only cult prostitution.[78] A variation of the biblical reevaluation is the method of “queering,” that is, retroactively making important persons into homosexuals. E.g., the deep friendship between David and Jonathan can be interpreted as homoerotic relationship.[79] Contrariwise, Wiedemann at least maintains “that the explicit Old Testament judgment over homosexuality against the described background is negative;” but then he writes: “It is a totally different question whether we can simply adopt this judgment today. There are good theological reasons not to do so.”[80]
As far as the New Testament is concerned, it is pointed out that the topic of homosexuality is not mentioned in the gospels. Since Jesus was not a preacher of morals, one can conjecture with H. J. Schoeps: “According to everything we may assume, he … would have been less interested in the question of the relationship as such than in the quality of the individual loving relationship.”[81] As for Paul, whose “rejection of homosexual love” has “deeply inserted itself into the collective unconscious of man within our culture,” his rejection is based on taking over a customary moral judgment of late antiquity.[82] As for Rom. 1, Paul does not intend to give “an independent statement on homosexuality” here;[83] in addition, he does not at all advance moral arguments here, for the vices here are results of God’s wrath, not its causes.[84] “Immorality is not guilt, but punishment. This is why morality does not protect from God’s wrath – quite to the contrary.”[85] Paul, it is further said, does not talk about homosexuality in the context of a “sexual ethics;” it is therefore impossible to derive a sexual-ethical norm from Rom. 1:26f. as well as from “the other two New-Testament texts.”[86] To be sure, Paul considered homosexuality as a vice of the Gentiles. Yet it is important that he talks neither about heterosexual nor homosexual love. The “so-called proof texts for a biblical prohibition of homosexuality” have thus turned out to be “clearly marginal.”[87] In view of the questions that are new compared to the biblical tradition, seeking orientation today therefore has to begin with the “revelation and proclamation of the unconditional love of man in Jesus Christ.”[88] Homosexually loving people are not at all in view in the bible.[89] The rejection of homosexuality is therefore part of the “biblical view of world and man,” which “is unfounded today.”[90] This is why it appears as theologically legitimate “to include homosexuality in the diversity of the divine creation.”[91] Additionally, the exclusion of homosexuality leads to “its being misjudged as willful behavior of basically heterosexual people,” while today’s sexology teaches to understand homosexuality as “anthropological category,” as “a personality structure which cannot be eliminated without endangering an individual as a whole person. Adopting the biblical judgment on homosexuality is therefore, based on today’s insights into man, impossible – unless theology decides that it does not want to engage real people anymore.”[92] “A humane Christian sexual ethic can no longer pass by the insights of the human sciences, here of sexology. Accordingly, it has to take as its starting point a holistic concept of sexuality that is related to man (and not to functions and institutions, that is, to begetting children and to marriage), which integrates homosexuality as an equally important and equal area of sexuality. In their moral concepts, the biblical authors are clearly dependent on past knowledge about man as well as on societal conventions. The desire to cling to them without any change can imply to overhear the preaching of God’s love of man for our time – that love out of which we all try to live in our relationships.”[93]
The commandment of love thus equally applies to homosexual and heterosexual relationships: “It cannot be important with whom a person has a sexual relation, but how he treats the other in this relationship.”[94] A sinfulness of the homosexual intercourse as such is therefore rejected in principle. Not homosexuality as such is sin but only its irresponsible practice.[95] What remains to be done is to accept homosexuality as well as heterosexuality as variants of creation and to praise the Creator jointly in this way.[96] Homosexuals with their way of life have a specific gift of the Spirit to contribute to the Christian congregation.[97] Whoever, against this, insists on a negative evaluation of homosexuality has to be considered a homophobe, as a sinner who transfers being afraid of his own homosexual desires on the confessing homosexual and who, therefore, is himself in need of repentance.[98]
One cannot fail to notice that many of the arguments presented here, which originally could be found especially in publications of the [German] lobby group “Homosexualität und Kirche” [HuK, Homosexuality and Church], have meanwhile found their way into official ecclesial pronouncements on the question of how to deal with homosexual church members and officeholders.[99]
3.2 Truth and Lie in the controversy in society and church
Surveying the argumentation for the equivalence of homosexuality, one notices a collusion between so-called “new insights” and a hermeneutic which elevates the biblical commandment of love to a “canon in the canon.” The alleged insight of the human sciences in the equivalence of homosexuality and the prohibition of its rejection is reinforced on the part of the church by the commandment of love which, as it is said, obligates us to “accept” also those individuals who wish to live their homosexuality openly and who acknowledge this. Eibach is correct in writing: “The assertion that homosexuality is one of many expressions of a multiform human sexuality and, as such, equivalent (or, respectively, equal) to heterosexuality represents the ethical and theological core of the current controversies in the churches; for this hypothesis is interpreted theologically so as to mean that homosexuality is a ‘disposition’ or ‘gift’ willed and created by God just like heterosexuality.”[100]
Now, seriously engaging the thesis of an equivalence of homosexuality cannot avoid examining the underlying argumentation and the theological approach connected to it. It is, first of all, striking that the question, what is the object of the biblical command of love and acceptance, is not answered from the theological realities of the bible, but from selected “insights” of the human sciences. Especially the Kinsey-Reports gain almost the status of new revelations. They are held as normative and are deployed in the debate accordingly. As for the psycho-therapeutic insights, it is interesting that contrary approaches and insights are systematically ignored and suppressed or disqualified as expressions of sinful, that is, homophobic attitudes.[101] According to Eibach, a majority of those engaged in the human sciences still considers homosexuality to be a “symptom of a failed psycho-sexual development”[102] and no equivalent variant of human sexuality. However, theologians, ecclesial groups, and synodical majorities act as if science has proved the equivalence of homosexuality; and, after declaring the fact of homosexuality normative, they hallow it by means of the biblical commandment of love. One obviously cannot fail to see here that adopting sexual-personal fulfillment as a norm is by no means a neutral perspective, but results in a new norm, namely, the satisfaction of individual needs.[103] T. Rendtorff judges here with all desirable clarity: “The reduction of norms and ethical criteria to the acceptance of natural dispositions is a declaration of bankruptcy of ethics.”[104] It therefore needs to be asserted emphatically that in fallen creation the given cannot simply be the normative.[105] If this were so, where are the limits? Could not, based on such a line of argumentation, also pedophilia, incest, and sodomy be understood as legitimate measures of self-realization which stabilize one’s personality?[106]
Contrary to this view, one needs to assert based on the abovementioned findings from Holy Scripture: All arguments which are lined up against the abiding relevance of the biblical statements on homosexuality are null and void. Neither in the Old nor in the New Testament the rejection of homosexual intercourse aims merely at cult prostitution.[107] Additionally, the New Testament texts speak about homosexual intercourse as such, not just about the humiliation of one partner in this context.[108] Finally, Paul’s evaluation of homosexual intercourse in the context of the doctrines of sin, Spirit, and baptism goes far beyond every contemporary evaluation as seen in the example of Stoic philosophy.[109] The emphasis on marriage between man and woman as the place in life of a sexuality blessed by the Creator, however, is not expression of an erroneous theology of orders, but unanimous witness of Jesus and of his apostle based on Genesis.
Paul, finally, would be hardly surprised if he were to learn “that today one does not speak about homosexual inclination as something freely chosen but as a somehow fateful matter. He would only see this as a confirmation of his way of speaking in Rom. 1.”[110] Sin, seen biblically, is always fate as well as guilt for which God holds man accountable.[111] If there is therefore a potential homosexuality of all people, then this is so – not because of some constitutive bisexuality to be exalted as a gift of the Creator – but because of the universal sinfulness of man. Already for this reason, the “postulated dependence on inclination” can, “even if it exists, be no convincing point of departure for forming a theological-ethical judgment as well as for practical pastoral care.”[112] The gospel is “the judgment over what is merely given” not only, but also in the area of sexuality, “insofar it subjects everything that is merely given to the law,” while human “self-exculpation by means of externals and other things is an integrating part of the reality of sin.”[113] There is thus, coming from the New Testament, indeed “perverted love.”[114] This is why one needs to ask – when it comes to “today’s oft-heard argument, homosexual practices are legitimate and in agreement with the gospel where they are an expression of love” – “whether, contrary to a romanticizing notion, love in the Scriptures does not manifest itself in a concrete, specified acting: ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments’ (John 14:15).”[115]
Yet as to the “enhanced notion of sexuality,” one has to point out that in the New Testament not only homosexual intercourse, but every intercourse out of wedlock is seen as irreconcilable with a sanctified life with Christ. In this sense, homosexuality is indeed only one form of the biblically rejected porneia which violates the undivided devotion of a man and a woman to one another. The rejection of a distinction between “good” and “promiscuous” homosexuality propagated by the churchly lobby group Homosexualität und Kirche (HuK) speaks volumes in this context. And the claim of a universal bisexuality of all people, in connection with the demand – made for the sake of the psychic integrity of man – that this bisexuality also ought to be lived out, is nothing other than an invitation to general promiscuity.[116] The theological justification and the churchly acceptance of bisexuality thus lead to a sanctioning of permanent adultery.[117] The total disjoining of sexuality from procreation thus ultimately results in a detaching of sexuality from its biological and social functions.[118] The holistic fullness of living as partners in marriage in a mutually complementary way which is open for the passing on of life is replaced by a promiscuous lifestyle. The homosexual way of life, in distinction to the abstention from marriage and sexuality, thus proves to be not at all a real alternative, but it thus becomes an imitation[119] of marriage between members of the opposite sex willed by God.
This is confirmed by the fact that, just at a time when many heterosexuals abstain from a formal wedding, homosexuals demand to be admitted to civil recognition and ecclesial blessing[120] – they even demand the right of adoption. The debates in society and church are not at all about how to deal with individual homosexual people, but they are all about the general recognition of a specific lifestyle as equal to heterosexual marriage and family. In fact, it is not even only about the recognition of the homosexual way of life, but about the recognition of a “gay identity.”[121] Once the discussion has moved there, at stake is no longer a legitimate protection from harassment but civil rights of a recognized minority.[122] To be sure, as for the churchly and societal treatment of homosexual people, one must indeed observe that church and society have become guilty in the past.[123] However, one needs to maintain with Ulrich Eibach, that bringing about an equality of the homosexual lifestyle with marriage cannot be the only way of resisting the exclusion of, and discrimination against, homosexual people.[124] One also needs to ask whether at a time when politicians, who openly profess their “gay identity,” are widely applauded;[125] when homosexual eroticism is openly displayed and advertised in street demonstrations;[126] when homosexuals as evidently affluent societal group are targeted by marketing,[127] one can truly still speak of societal discrimination. Rather, one can indeed observe that the government’s support for homosexual partnerships takes place at the expense of marriage and family, which are constitutionally protected for good reasons, and additionally leads to new discriminations.[128] What is the justification for preferring certain, sexually defined partnerships – beyond heterosexual marriage and family protected by the constitution – to other partnerships which are not sexually defined?[129]
Counter to these developments, one has to maintain that the ethos of marriage is a superior given for the formal ethos of a society.[130] One needs to add that this preeminent place of marriage applies also to theology and church. This not only corresponds to the saying of Jesus: “but from the beginning of creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6), whereby he places the fundamental anthropological realities established by God from Genesis before and above human law and ecclesial finding of the truth. At the same time, at stake are also the future of a society and its responsibility to pass on life to coming generations,[131] therefore the protection of families and children. This also applies to the demand to grant homosexual couples the right to adoption as well as to the hopes and demands of some homosexuals to have offspring without heterosexual intercourse with the help from the techniques of reproductive medicine.[132] In both cases, an actionable right to children is claimed, which – also for heterosexual couples – must not and cannot exist, but which also does not take the affected children into consideration.[133] This is the peak of the claim to “self-realization” which obviously does not have anything to do with the self-giving love of the gospel.
The exchange of truth for lie in these questions, however, is by no means a societal phenomenon only; it also informs the debate in the churches. It begins with questions concerning the interpretation of Scripture and how theological as well as ethical judgments are established. It continues with ignoring, marginalizing, or defaming successful pastoral approaches leading to the liberation from homosexuality. According to some observers, a true battle of worldviews is raging.[134] By way of example, we will take a closer look at the critical analysis of discussion papers of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland by the Bonn ethicist, Martin Honecker, and at that of the decision of the convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Schleswig-Holstein by the journalist, Konrad Adam, since in both cases it becomes very clear what is at stake in church and society.
Honecker deals with two discussion papers of the standing theological commission of the Rhineland’s territorial church from 1996.[135] Since both papers have led to far-reaching synodical decisions,[136] taking a look at Honecker’s elaborations is worthwhile still today. Honecker, after a brief introduction to the argumentation and style of the papers, criticizes first of all the one-sided composition of the commission, which, additionally, “wanted to eliminate from the outset other positions as fundamentalist, Catholic, confessionalist, and bourgeois in order to declare its own – emancipationist – evaluation as the only possible ‘evangelical’ stance.”[137] Honecker, commenting on the program “Shaping sexuality in a way that does justice to community” which is advocated in the papers by taking recourse to the biblical term zedaqa [justice] and by rejecting “a legalistic narrowing of seemingly biblical propositions,” states: “It is the motto of sexual liberation, of emancipation from prejudices, of sexual revolution, which, delayed by one generation, is thus brought into the ‘evangelical-churchly realm’;” “sentiments of the Zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s” are thus “continued in the church” “without any break.”[138] On the other hand, the treatment of Scripture is marked by numerous omissions[139] as well as by the application “of a constructivist-emancipationist interpretation of the bible:” “the ‘foreign’ bible is … adapted to current needs. The text meets the needs of an ‘experience society’ [Erlebnisgesellschaft] (G. Schulze) halfway. It satisfies a craving for religious life, the wish for the oneness of sexuality and spirituality. A subjectivist self-service mentality can find itself in it without any problem. The normative vacuum which is created thereby cannot be compensated for, or filled, by this kind of theology.”[140]
Adam, addressing the resolution of the 1997 synodical assembly of the Schleswig-Holstein Church at Rendsburg not to deny committed marriage-like partnerships the church’s blessing, states: The synodical resolution “speaks about marriage and family, but does not mention the children with one word.” It is the journalist who reminds the church that “the contexts recorded in Genesis” cannot simply be forgotten, much less can they be denied. Adam sees in the synodical procedure a victory of the “debate culture,” “which advances progress at the expense of those who cannot participate in the debate and who therefore cannot defend themselves: today’s incompetents and tomorrow’s unborn.” By blessing all sorts of relationships, the Schleswig-Holstein Church fulfills “the greatest commandment of market society,” according to Adam: “Be flexible and mobile! To act upon this imperative is difficult with children, more difficult than without them.” And he adds to this the theologically most important thought: The church assembly serves “the same god who, for it, only has taken on the name of ‘individualization.’ This god does not like any long-term commitments and, already for this reason, does not know what to do about children who need such commitments.”[141]
4 “They have exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God into an image”
With Adam’s remarks we have also explicitly reached the thought, which Paul in Rom. 1:18-32 takes as his point of departure: the exchange of the true God for human images of God. This exchange can be discovered in the debate on homosexuality on different levels. It, first of all, concerns the basic question of the interpretation of Scripture. Honecker’s analysis shows that a justification of homosexual lifestyle is only possible by leaving out and falsifying numerous biblical passages. The role of the commandment of love as canon in the canon – that is, as a criterion by which seemingly conflicting biblical passages are criticized or simply eliminated – is played by the term zedaqa in the paper from the Rhineland. Yet Honecker’s elaborations show that here too – like the commandment of love in other cases – one biblical aspect is taken out of context and is used as a code word for foreign, external principles of interpretation.
At times the tensions, which arise between societal images and biblical mandates and which collide also within the church, are inserted into the biblical canon itself, when it is said, e.g., “that there is a tension within the biblical canon which, according to our insights, cannot be resolved and which therefore has to be lived with and has to be brought to bear on all churchly decisions.”[142] “In clear text this means, however, that in church the unequivocal nature of God’s word of Holy Scripture is to be brought in line with the equivocal nature of a pluralistic society.”[143] The inner-churchly argumentation with the apparent contradictory nature of Scripture in sexual-ethical questions is a prime example of “enunciating, in the guise of the scholarly thesis, a religious confessio against the texts,”[144] which “inevitably leads to polytheism and naturalism,” “in which Creator and creature are not distinguished anymore.”[145] If the church thus makes itself to be the “advocate of a postmodern anything goes,”[146] then the desires of man become criteria of biblical interpretation and ethical judgment; then the acting of the triune God in judgment and salvation is replaced by the images and ideals of society concerning a life that is successful and that is therefore well-pleasing to the god of one’s own wishes and desires. In doing so, however, the churches do justice neither to their pastoral responsibility in relation to the affected individuals nor to their shared responsibility for society.
4.1 The image of God and the societal responsibility of the church
The latest churchly statements on homosexuality show less of a critical commentary to societal developments than an uncritical blessing of the same. This too is about the conflict between God and the gods of man; for a society, which ignores the ethos of wedlock which the Creator placed before all human institutions, becomes itself a “creator of institutions which are supposed to represent and contain that which can only come from outside of society.”[147] The demand to help homosexuals to have offspring by means of medical methods all the way to cloning is an extreme but logical consequence. A church which, for its part – in eager willingness to make up for the sexual revolution in its own realm – “blesses” such newly created institutions, in the final analysis cooperates in the societal destruction of marriage and family. This is, also within the church, no “progress” but an uncritical return to an “antinomian pattern of behavior which revives traditions of the Christian Gnosticism of late antiquity:” “Successive polygamy, even of the academic and pastoral personnel; statements favoring a ‘holistic’ sexuality liberated from the yoke of marriage; near-total abstinence from pre-marital asceticism among theologians and non-theologians alike; the practice and demanding propagation of homosexual behavior represent … a clear break with what, so far, has been self-evident for the ethos of the New Testament but also for that of the Reformation.”[148]
It must be permitted to ask, who is actually shaping whom or, respectively, who is rather shaped by whom. Paul, at any rate, writes in Rom. 12:2 – in a way that clearly agrees with Rom. 1:18-32: “And do not conform to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind so that you may be able to prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” To be sure, such a return of the church to God’s will does not have by any means the promise that society will follow it unquestioningly. But, at any rate, then everybody who has ears could hear what the salutary things are which the church has to announce, also to the world, from God’s word. Honecker’s elaborations show in an exemplary manner, how this salutary ministry to an idolatrous world could look like. According to him, it would be necessary in our situation – in which the “synergy between, on the one hand, scientific-technological insight and innovation and, on the other hand, societal change and a transvaluation of values” is evident – “to analyze critically the claim of emancipation and self-realization, of rationality and ‘enlightenment.’ For all earthly experience is temporal, subject to time. ‘Eternal’ blessedness, ‘eternal’ satisfaction of desires is impossible on earth. Christian faith was and is conscious of this. This is why Christians and churches have become advocates for personal integration, for tying sexuality to what is humane, and for cultural sociability. This aspect is not brought to bear anymore, when the critique of traditional churchly statements merely promotes the emancipation from the good reasons of tradition, with the result that, ‘even in evangelical ethics, marriage cannot be the only form of life in which sexuality can be lived.’”[149]
4.2 The image of God and the pastoral responsibility of the church
The exchange of God for human images of God necessarily continues on all levels of churchly activity, beginning in the divine service, continuing in pastoral care and the content of proclamation and instruction, to questions of church government.
If one arrives at the conclusion that homosexuality is to be regarded as gift of the divine Creator, it is only consistent for the church to bless couples who so desire. Also the exclusion of practicing and confessing homosexuals from church work, especially from the pastoral office, then is simply impossible, especially when one holds to a mere functional understanding of the office.[150] In this sense, the demands of Homosexualität und Kirche and of those who demand a seemingly loving opening of the church for practicing homosexuals are only consistent. Yet this makes it all the more important to see that this cannot anymore be legitimized with Holy Scripture or the love of the gospel. A churchly blessing of a homosexual couple is therefore also no blessing bestowed by the triune God. Rather, here humans act on their own authority and in the name of their images of God. “As the church cannot invent sacraments which Christ has not instituted, so it also cannot bless what God has not blessed.”[151] Such an act is open rebellion against the First Commandment,[152] and it necessarily must have the effect of splitting the church.[153]
Directly connected to what takes place in the divine service is, also in this instance, the pastoral practice of the church. For it is evident that “a churchly recognition of homosexuality as an equally valid way of life weakens the will to change.”[154] “When the churches say: ‘gay is good,’ they take away much of the incentive necessary to begin the long and painful way of change. It is significantly easier to change churches than one’s own life. In many cases, the church deprives the homosexual person of the motivation to change. It may be that the Christian battling his homosexuality is surrounded by people who tell him that he should celebrate his homosexuality as a gift from God.”[155] In this context, the common practice in churchly counseling agencies or in the church’s youth work of confirming youth and those seeking advice in their homosexual orientation is a terrible thing.[156] Equally terrible is the “coming out” which is praised as the conclusion of self-realization. For this is nothing else than a public confession which, like every other confession, implies a condemnation of the opposite way. Where intimacy is abandoned in such an aggressive way,[157] a salutary pastoral practice is made extremely difficult. In view of the tragic nature of the life of many homosexual people, Christian pastoral care must try to assist them to lead a life beyond the forced public self-exposing and a retreat into hiding.[158] The intimacy or, respectively, confidentiality in pastoral care is absolutely necessary for this.[159] Such confidentiality is indeed the opposite of proud coming outs. Equally, offering a seemingly permanent – thus marriage-like – homosexual partnership as a way out is no solution.[160] Likewise, the general defamation of homosexuals in the open of the congregation is totally wrong. Instead, the important ethical distinction between person and work, also of homosexual inclination and practice, helps to bring about a pastoral encounter beyond rejection of the person and indifference toward their acts.[161] Here church and theology would gain spiritual authority, if they found again the courage to speak also in other areas about continence in various areas of life and about suffering for the sake of the gospel. Based on the New Testament, at any rate, Christians ethics know “also in other areas of life about the possibility of abstaining from sexual activity (e.g., in single life, in celibacy, etc.).”[162] Pastoral care here needs to distinguish between, on the one hand, therapies that are necessary and helpful in achieving a salutary use of one’s sexuality and, on the other hand, confession and absolution which also the person who is therapeutically “healed” continues to need.[163] The near-complete loss of confession and absolution in the realm of the churches has the necessary effect that church and theology have no spiritual authority anymore when it comes to dealing with serious disruptions of the relationship between God and man. This, in turn, has to do with the total elimination of the horizon of the final judgment. The responsibility before God and the standard of the external divine word, which judges and pardons the sinner, is replaced by an ultimately merely immanent self-mediation in relation to one’s own image of God, which, in turn, serves to confirm one’s own self-realization – man as sinner remains with himself, unable to open and give himself to his Creator and creature which is different from himself. In this way, it is subtly denied that also pastoral care is about the (necessary) conflict between God and the images of God, for man reaches the freedom of faith only when the lies of his feelings give way to the truth of faith.[164] Many reports of those affected show that such processes of healing and hallowing are possible as miracles of the Holy Spirit.[165] It is nothing but a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit active in the word and in the holy sacraments, beginning with baptism, when such healings are denied or explained away.
This is why basic decisions in churchly instruction and in proclamation are highly necessary either way. This is why the advocates for the equality of homosexuals try to start here.[166] This is why it is absolutely necessary for the church to proclaim the biblical view of man in an unadulterated manner as the foundation for a life that is blessed by God, and, where this is needed, to call sinners to repentance. It would be irreconcilable with the biblical view of man to admit practicing homosexuals to church work, especially to the pastoral office.[167] “Churchly teaching and instruction have to state clearly that homosexuality and even more so bisexuality … are by no means forms of sexuality that are equal to heterosexuality; and that it is therefore not a matter of indifference which shape sexuality takes on. Heterosexuality therefore has to be the unequivocal guiding ideal of all sexual education; and people who are still wavering in their sexual orientation should unequivocally be encouraged (e.g., by means of pastoral care and psychotherapy) toward heterosexuality. Thus, all possibilities should be exhausted, especially by way of prevention and therapy, to protect people from homosexual influences and lifestyles.”[168] One only needs to add here that it is primarily not about education against something, but, positively, about education for marriage and family, in the context of which also the charisma of celibacy should be addressed by the church more clearly as a genuine alternative. Honecker, referring to Luther’s explanation of the Sixth Commandment, reminds us what is, in this area of life, the most important duty of every Christian and his greatest joy in the faith, namely, to help preserve “somebody else’s chastity” “with word and deed.”[169]
Translated by Dr. Holger Sonntag, Trinity Lutheran Church, Carver, MN USA
Questions for Study and Discussion
Wenz notes both the societal and churchly changes of attitudes toward homosexuality in Germany. Do you see parallel developments in North America?
The key biblical text that Wenz deals with is Romans 1:18-32. Read this passage carefully. What are the foundational issues laid out by the Apostle in this text? How does the overall context set in Romans 1:18-3:20 help us understand what Paul is doing here?
“It is therefore not our time which sheds light on the Scripture which is seemingly dark and in need of interpretation; but it is the Scripture which sheds light on our time” (p.2). How does this statement of the Reformation principle of the clarity of Scripture help us in the current debate over homosexuality?
What is the fundamental point that Paul makes in Romans 1:19-23?
In verses 24, 26, 28 the Apostle speaks of God “giving them” (sinners) up or over to their sins. What is entailed in each of these incidents of God giving sinners up to their sin?
Wenz writes “The threefold giving up of man by God corresponds to a threefold exchanging on the part of man” (p.4). What are these exchanges? What is the ultimate outcome of these exchanges?
Paul condemns homosexual intercourse as an exchange of the natural for the unnatural. How does Wenz argue that this apostolic judgment cannot be dismissed by an appeal to Paul’s “ignorance of human sciences” (p.5)?
How does Wenz answer the objection that Jesus never condemned homosexual behavior?
According to Wenz, why is it that sexuality is not addressed in an isolated manner in the Scriptures?
How is marriage given Christological focus in the New Testament? What does this mean for the New Testament’s interpretation of sexual sin?
Wenz points out that both the Old and New Testaments see homosexuality as an expression and symptom of a fallen world. How is Leviticus 18:22 echoed in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10?
How does Baptism contradict homosexuality? See I Corinthians 6:9-11.
After survey a number of New Testament passages (p.9-10) Wenz what are the two things that Wenz concludes that these passages show (p.9-10)?
How does Wenz answer the objection of those theologians like Helmut Kentler that biblical statements on homosexuality are not relevant anymore because it is par of man’s nature, not subject to human decision (p.12ff)?
Wenz argues that attempts to defend homosexual behavior have “the effect of destroying culture” (p.13). What are the evidences of this?
How do the proponents of homosexuality misuse the biblical commandment to love making it a “canon within a canon” (p.17-18)
How does Paul’s evaluation of homosexuality involve the doctrines of creation, sin, the Holy Spirit, and baptism?
Wenz writes that societal and churchly acceptance of homosexuality challenges “fundamental anthropological realities established by God from Genesis before and above human law and ecclesial finding of the truth. At the same time, at stake are also the future of a society and its responsibility to pass on life to coming generations, therefore the protection of families and children. This also applies to the demand to grant homosexual couples the right of adoption as well as to the hopes and demands of some homosexuals to have offspring without heterosexual intercourse with the help of reproductive medicine” (p.21). How does this truth guide the policies of church-related adoption agencies?
Wenz quotes Martin Honecker’s description of “a constructivist-emancipation interpretation of the Bible” (p 22) How is this approach to Scripture demonstrated by those who call for the acceptance of same-sex unions by the church? What does such an approach to the Holy Scriptures finally do to the Scriptures?
Knorad Adam notes that in a recent resolution of a territorial church in Germany regarding church blessing for homosexual partnerships “speaks about marriage and family, but does not mention children with one word” (p 23). How does this omission fail to show genuine justice?
Why are “naturalism and polytheism” inevitable outcomes if the church gives in to societal pressures to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of life?
If church agencies make provisions for the adoption of children, how does the church itself then cooperate “in the societal destruction of marriage and family” (24)?
Wenz writes “A churchly blessing of a homosexual couple is therefore also no blessing of the triune God. Rather, here humans act on their own authority and in the name of their images of God” (25). In light of the first commandment, what does this mean? How does this connect with Romans 1:18-32?
What suggestions does Wenz make for appropriate, evangelical pastoral care of homosexual persons?
For Further Reading and Study
Banner, Michael. “Five Churches in Search of a Sexual Ethic” in Christian Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 252-268
Benne, Robert. “Sexual Ethics” in Reasonable Ethics. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005. 259-279.
Benne, Robert. “Why the ELCA Should Uphold Traditional Christian Sexual Ethics” Lutheran Forum (Winter 2003), 28-32
Dunnham, Maxie D and Malony, H. Newton. Staying the Course: Supporting the Church’s Position on Homozexuality. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003
Forde, Gerhard. “Law and Sexual Behavior” Lutheran Quarterly (Spring 1995), 3-22
Forde, Gerhard. “The Normative Character of Scripture for Matters of Faith and Life: Human Sexuality in Light of Romans 1:16-32” Word & World (Summer 1994), 305-314
Forell, George. “The Importance of Law for Christian Sexual Ethics” in Martin Luther: Theologian of the Church (Word & World Supplement #2, 1994), 253-255
Gagnon, Robert A.J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001
Hays, Richard. “Homosexuality” in The Moral Vision of the New Testament. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996. 379-406
Jones, Stanton and Yarhouse, Mark. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate. Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000
Kleinig, John W. Concordia Commentary: Leviticus. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2003
Koester, Craig. “The Bible and Sexual Boundaries” Lutheran Quarterly (Winter 1993), 375-390
Lazareth, William. “ELCA Lutherans and Luther on Heterosexual Marriage” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1994), 235-268
Lockwood, Gregory. “Excursus: Homosexuality” in Concordia Commentary: I Corinthians. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000. 204-209
Meilaender, Gilbert. “Homosexuality in Christian Perspective” in Things That Count. Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2000
Nestingen, James Arne. “The Lutheran Reformation and Homosexual Practice” in Faithful Conversations: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality edited by James Childs. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003
Niebanck, Richard J. “What’s at Stake” Lutheran Forum (Winter 2003), 12-16
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Revelation and Homosexual Experience” Christianity Today (November 11, 1996), 37
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “You Shall Not Lie with a Male: Standards for Churchly Decision-Making on Homosexuality” Lutheran Forum (February 1996), 28-29
Pless, John T. “Using and Misusing Luther on Homosexuality” Lutheran Forum (Winter 2004), 24-30
Popcak, George K. “Misplacing Children” First Things (June/July 2006), 12-13
Saltzman, Russell (editor). Christian Sexuality: Normative & Pastoral Principles. Minneapolis: Kirk House Publishers, 2003
Smith, Louis. “Leviticus 18:22 – A Law in Search of a Rationale” Lutheran Forum (Pentecost 2002), 37-38
Strommen, Merton P. “Homosexual Revision: Seven Practical Consequences” Lutheran Forum (Winter 2003), 21-27
Strommen, Merton P. The Church & Homosexuality: Searching for a Middle Ground. Minneapolis: Kirk House Publishers, 2001
Wannenwetsch, Bernd. “Old Docetism-New Moralism? A New Direction in the Homosexuality Debate” Modern Theology (July 2000), 353-364
-John T. Pless
[1] Paul Jersild. Spirit Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 139
[2] Martha Ellen Stortz, “Rethinking Christian Sexuality: Baptized into the Body of Christ” in Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 59-79
[3] Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Revelation and Homosexual Experience” Christianity Today (November 11, 1996), 37
[4] Cf. Uta Rasche, “Gottesdienst nach Verpartnerung? Die evangelische Kirche streitet weiter über Segnungen für homosexuelle Paare,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (hereafter: FAZ), 10 December 2001, 12: “The Domestic Partnership Law, which was passed by the votes of the coalition government of Social-Democrats and Greens and took effect in August [2001], gave new momentum to the discussion in the church.” – The article reports attempts by “leading theologians of the territorial church in Hesse-Nassau,” who “take the new Domestic Partnership Law as an opportunity to offer a churchly rite of blessing after a public partnering at the town hall.”
[5] The Passau jurist, Johann Braun, has offered an excellent analysis of this law: Ehe und Familie am Scheideweg: Eine Kritik des sogenannten Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetzes, Regensburg 2002.
[6] Cf. Ernst Volk, “Gleichgeschlechtliche Liebe? Ein Plädoyer wider die Maßlosigkeit,” M. Aust, H.-Ch. Gensichen, Th. S. Hoffmann (ed.s), Christlicher Glaube und Homosexualität: Argumente aus Bibel, Theologie und Seelsorge, Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1994, 21-37, here 21: “In the territorial church of the Rhineland there was already held a virtual marriage ceremony – of two fathers, by the way – without there having been a basis in the bylaws of that church …”
[7] Cf. Lutherisches Kirchenamt der VELKD (ed.), Gedanken und Maßstäbe zum Dienst von Homophilen in der Kirche: Eine Orientierungshilfe; and: “Vorläufige Stellungnahme des Theologischen Ausschusses der VELKD zum Problem der Homosexualität von Pfarrern,” Kentler (see n. 44), 62-79.
[8] Cf. G. Kelter, “Der moderne Ökumenismus als Hindernis auf dem Weg zur Einheit der Christen?” Lutherische Beiträge 5 (2000): 268-276.
[9] Cf. G. Besier, Konzern Kirche: Das Evangelium und die Macht des Geldes, Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1997, 168.
[10] Cf. H. Hempelmann, “Kirche und Homosexualität: Sieben Perspektiven,” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 181-191, here 191.
[11] Cf. U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1-5), Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar, vol. VI.1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978, 93: “Paul unfolds the sentence 1:18 first in basically the same way Judaism commonly denounced the godlessness of the Gentiles;” furthermore, with examples, 96-99.
[12] Cf. ibid., 96: “VAse,beia and avdiki,a in v. 18 are unfolded chiastically in vv. 19ff. and vv. 22ff.; they are treated again in the order of v. 18 in vv. 25ff and vv. 28ff.”
[13] Ibid., 107.
[14] Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen. 1, 26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen, Göttingen 1960, 321, quoted in Wilckens (see n. 8), 108 n. 188.
[15] Cf. A. Schlatter, Romans: Righteounsness of God (1935), tr. S. S. Schatzmann, Peabody, MA 1995, 42: “Paredōken is the common term used for the judge’s verdict whereby he orders the execution of the punishment.”
[16] Wilckens (see n. 8), 108.
[17] Ibid. 109.
[18] Cf. Schlatter (see n. 12), 44 regarding the two possible interpretations of “error” here: “With reference to planē Paul probably thought of the absurdity of [the Gentiles’] religion. This wantonness could not remain unpunished, and the recompense consists of the devastating power of their craving that lusts for the unnatural and disgraceful. Following the other interpretation Paul called planē that which was erotically unnatural and, in the case of antimisthia, had in mind the effects that destroy both body and conscience.”
[19] Wilckens (see n. 8), 96.
[20] Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, tr. K. Grobel, New York 1951, 250: “To be sure, God did give them up to sin (1:24ff.), but only as a punishment for the proto-sin of apostasy from the Creator – and this, of course, does not take away the guilt-character from sinning, but only means that apostasy, the sin of sins, necessarily draws the vices after it.”
[21] Wilckens (see n. 8), 95.
[22] Cf. ibid., 116: “The approval which is commonly given to actual sin (by taking recourse to the rational-educated ability to judge), as if the rebel against God first finds himself; true freedom of independent living – this approval is in reality, that is, under the eschatologically relevant aspect of God’s wrath, deep foolishness and deception; this is why the diakai,wma tou/ qeou/, which is rejected by man, turns especially against those who legitimize sin by their approval.”
[23] Regarding the argument that “many are unaffected by these charges,” Schlatter writes (see n. 12, 45): “Paul nevertheless directed each of these expression, including that of the unnatural eroticism, to everyone, for the individual is not to be so foolish that he becomes alarmed over sin only after succumbing to it himself. Observing sin in others indicates to him both his need for the saving message and knowledge about what it will save him from.”
[24] Wilckens (see n. 8), 102.
[25] Ibid., 103.
[26] Cf. ibid., 112: “In contradistinction to Judaism, primitive Christianity viewed the vices as characteristic for the time ante fidem (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11); as ‘works of the flesh’ to which the ‘virtues’ as ‘fruit of the Spirit’ are radically opposed (Gal. 5:19ff, 22ff); for Christians, the vices are the past that has been done away with, and Christians are warned against returning to them (2 Cor. 12:20f., cf. 1 Cor. 5:10f.).”
[27] Ibid., 109f.
[28] This is done by Wilckens (see n. 8), 110 n. 205 and Schrage (see n. 35), 436.
[29] Hempelmann (see n. 7), 184.
[30] “Das Nein des Alten Testaments: Die spezifische Aussage des AT zur Homosexualität zwischen Sippenweisung und altorientalischer Praxis,” Aust, Gensichen, Hoffmann (see n. 3), 65-72, here 71.
[31] G. Meilaender, “Homosexuality in Christian Perspective,” Meilaender, Things that Count: Essays Moral and Theological, Wilmington 2000, 59-76, here 66.
[32] On the gift of continence cf. the reflections of J. Roloff, “Auf der Suche nach biblischen Kriterien für eine heutige Sexualethik,” Lutherische Kirche in der Welt: Jahrbuch des Martin-Luther Bundes, vol. 46, Erlangen 1999, 31-54, here 44-50.
[33] Cf. W. Pannenberg, “Die Liebe und ihr Maß – Maßstab für das Kirchesein der Kirche,” Aust, Gensichen, Hoffmann (see n. 3), 14-20, here 17. Meilaender (see n. 28), 59: “In whatever way those who are not Christians may approach this topic, for Christians there should be no discussion of homosexuality that is not also a discussion of marriage and its purposes.”
[34] Cf. W. Zimmerli, Die Weltlichkeit des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 1971, 41: “The account of the sin of the Sodomites in Gen. 19 puts Israel’s attitude vis-à-vis the perversions of Canaan into sharp relief.”
[35] Anthropology of the Old Testament, tr. M. Kohl, Philadelphia 1974, 176. E. S. Gerstenberger (Leviticus: A Commentary, tr. D. W. Stott, Louisville 1996, 299) arrives at a totally contrary conclusion: “In reality, the Old Testament condemnation derives from fears and taboos that for centuries have been considered obsolete, and are finally being replaced even in the church itself by uncramped, humane attitudes. Something similar applies to ‘abomination with animals.’ … The people of antiquity entertained all sorts of demonic fears (cf. the discussion of Lev. 18:23) …” Cf. on Gerstenberger the appropriate criticism raised by W. Führer against him, “‘Irregeleitete Kirche:’ Eine exegetisch-theologische Überprüfung der Synodalbeschlüsse zur Segnung homosexueller Partnerschaften in Gliedkirchen der EKD,” idea-Dokumentation 3/2003, 9.
[36] Cf. K. Haacker, “Exegetische Gesichtspunkte zum Thema Homosexualität: Stellungnahme zum Arbeitspapier ‘Homosexuelle Liebe’ für rheinische Gemeinden und Kirchenkreise,” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 173-180, here 175: “The word to’ebah expresses an absolute taboo and wants to create disgust.” When one reads through the New Testament, with the Greek word for abomination (bde,lugma) in mind, one cannot say anymore that the human acts marked biblically as abomination represent marginal issues of little relevance, cf. also Rev. 17:5: Babulw.n h` mega,lh( h` mh,thr tw/n pornw/n kai. tw/n bdelugma,twn th/j gh/j (on this cf. F. Hauck / S. Schulz, po,rnh ktl., TDNT VI:594).
[37] “In antiquity, the word ‘corinthizing’ was used as a synonym for sexual licentiousness, laxness, and immorality” (Führer, see n. 32, 12).
[38] Cf. W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1Kor 1,1-6,11), Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar, vol. VII.1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 429: “The danger to be misled is particularly great in Corinth, especially by means of the self-deception that the issues raised are mere adiaphora, or that one could be sure of the eschatological ‘inheritance’ under all circumstances.”
[39] Cf. ibid., 432: “VArsenokoi,thj is the one who has sexual intercourse with men, not only the male prostitute. The [Luther Bible’s] translation ‘Knabenschänder’ [abuser of boys], however, gives the impression, as if Paul dealt only with sexual intercourse with boys or male adolescents, not with adult men.”
[40] Cf. ibid., 427f.
[41] Ibid., 433.
[42] Ibid., 433.
[43] Cf. Hauck/Schulz (see n. 33), 593: “As compared with the different judgment of the Greek world and ancient syncretism, the concrete directions of Paul bring to the attention of Gentile Christians the incompatibility of pornei,a and the kingdom of God. No po,rnoj has any part in this kingdom, 1 C. 6:9; Eph. 5:5.”
[44] Cf. Roloff (see n. 29), 53: The “partnership of man and woman” “is more than a mere institutionalized possibility of fulfilled sexuality; it is, in fact, the only place where sexuality is placed under sanctification.”
[45] Cf. Hauck/Schulz (see n. 33), 590: “The NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse.”
[46] Th. S. Hoffmann, “METALLAGH: Gleichgeschlechtliche Ersatzhandlungen und Eheimitate als theologisch-ethisches Sprach- und Sachproblem,” Kerygma und Dogma 41 (1995): 176-195, here 181f.
[47] Die Menschlichkeit der Sexualität: Berichte – Analysen – Kommentare – ausgelöst durch die Frage: Wie homosexuell dürften Pfarrer sein? Munich 1983.
[48] Cf. Kentler, “Die Menschlichkeit der Sexualität,” Kentler (see n. 44), 15-59, here 37f. On Kentler’s earlier work Sexualerziehung (Hamburg 1970) cf. the critical comments in Ch. Meves, Manipulierte Maßlosigkeit: Psychische Gefahren im technisierten Leben, Freiburg 1971, 83-114.
[49] Ibid., 55; cf. also G. J. M. van den Aardweg, Das Drama des gewöhnlichen Homosexuellen: Analyse und Therapie, tr. I. Elgert, 2nd ed., Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1992.
[50] Kentler (see n. 45), 15.
[51] Cf. ibid., 18: “Christianity today … is in danger of becoming the servant of the bourgeois state and of degenerating into a family religion. The convenient marriage between church and state, however, has one problem: It can no longer rely on the results of scientific research.”
[52] Cf. ibid., 20ff.
[53] Cf. ibid., 22.
[54] Cf. on this paragraph H.-G. Wiedemann, “Die Beurteilung homosexueller Beziehungen in Stellungnahmen der evangelischen Kirchen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” Kentler (see n. 44), 81-88, here 86-88.
[55] Kentler (see n. 45), 22f.
[56] Cf. ibid., 23f.
[57] Ibid., 25.
[58] Cf. ibid., 26-28.
[59] Cf. ibid., 28.
[60] Cf. ibid., 28-33.
[61] Cf. ibid., 33.
[62] Cf. ibid., 33f.
[63] Cf. ibid., 36.
[64] Cf. ibid., 39-41.
[65] Cf. ibid., 47.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Cf. ibid., 48.
[68] Ibid., 50.
[69] Cf. ibid., 50-52.
[70] Ibid., 52.
[71] Cf. ibid., 55f.; cf. on this U. Eibach, “Homosexualität und Kirche,” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 192-211, here 200: “The impression is therefore given that what is actually ‘pathological’ – namely, the sexual life lived in less than its fullness – is the monogamous life of heterosexual people.”
[72] Cf. Kentler (see n. 45), 56f.
[73] H.-G. Wiedemann, “Homosexualität und Bibel,” Kentler (see n. 44), 89-106.
[74] Ibid., 95.
[75] Cf. the programmatic work by M. Steinhäuser, Homosexualität als Schöpfungserfahrung: Ein Beitrag zur theologischen Urteilsbegründung, Stuttgart 1998.
[76] Cf. Wiedemann (see n. 70), 96: “The declaration of the Territorial Church of the Rhineland thus states correctly that, just as man in woman, so the homosexual person can find help for their life in their same-sex partner.”
[77] Ibid., 96.
[78] Cf. ibid., 98: “It is a fact that we encounter homosexual practice in the OT only in connection with the suspicion of apostasy to foreign gods and that, beyond this, there is no interest in describing and explaining homosexual relations.”
[79] Thus Gerstenberger (see n. 32), 297f.: “And yet homosexuality does not seem always to have been condemned this radically in Israel … It … may be that in addition to his intensive relationships with eight primary women, David also cultivated a relationship with another man during his life. Tradition [would have] acknowledged this, and it [would have] left its ineradicable traces in the narratives. In that case, however, the total disdain and proscription of male homosexuality would represent a late phenomenon, that is, a characteristic feature of the early Jewish community.” [The text in square brackets is in the German original, but omitted in Stott’s English translation, which makes Gerstenberger’s hypothetical “tradition” seem a bit more real.] One has to question this interpretation with E. Volk (see n. 3), 30: “How deeply degenerated does the imagination have to be, if friendship between men can only be seen in erotic terms!”
[80] Wiedemann (see n. 70), 98.
[81] Quoted in Wiedemann, ibid.
[82] Ibid., 99.
[83] Ibid.
[84] Cf. ibid., 100f.
[85] Ibid., 101.
[86] Ibid.
[87] Ibid., 102.
[88] Ibid.
[89] Cf. ibid., 103.
[90] Ibid.
[91] Ibid.
[92] Ibid.
[93] Ibid., 104.
[94] Ibid.
[95] Cf. ibid., 82.
[96] Thus C. Bäumler, “Selbstverständigung des Heterosexuellen beim Homosexuellen: Ein theologisches Gutachten,” Kentler (see n. 44), 145-193, here 182f., approvingly quoting comments by H. Frör: “I also want to be united with the homosexual next to me in this, that we both together can join in the praise of God: ‘I thank you that I am wonderfully made; wonderful are your works!’ (Ps. 139:13) … We sin against the creatures of God, when we suggest to homosexuals not to respond to their creatureliness or to ‘keep it at least hidden.’ …”
[97] Cf. ibid., 175, referring to H. Thielicke, Theological Ethics, vol. 3: Sex, tr. J. W. Doberstein, Grand Rapids, MI 1979, 287: “When one adds to this Thielicke’s remarks on a possible special charisma of homosexually oriented people, then the church ought to value having homosexually oriented persons among its officeholders. They would bring positive qualifications for the pastoral ministry to homosexuals.”
[98] Cf. R. Pringel, “Plädoyer für eine Christianisierung der Kirche im Umgang mit den Homosexuellen,” Kentler (see n. 44), 194-225, here 199, 211; also Kentler (see n. 44, preface), 9f. – N. Mosen (“Homosexualität, Gesellschaft und Politik: Bericht eines Insiders,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge, see n. 98, 185f.) writes, after having studied truly problematic examples of irrational fear of homosexuality (or rather: homosexuals): “In the context of the self-image of homosexual groups as a socially disadvantaged social minority, homophobia is placed on the same level as racism and sexism. The image of the poor underprivileged person emerges, who is unable to fight the brutality of the power-establishment. Homophobia thereby becomes a political question. Homophobia thus becomes, in the words of a commentator, ‘a disease that needs to be healed; a discrimination that needs to be eradicated; and, in the religious context, a sin that needs to be forgiven.’”
[99] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 197.
[100] U. Eibach, “Homosexualität und die christliche Bestimmung für die Lebensformen der Geschlechter,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 197-226, here 202, cf. ibid. n. 12: “some district conventions of the Church in the Rhineland assert this also for bisexuality.”
[101] Cf. on this issue the contributions assembled in the volume Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge: Dokumentation eines ökumenischen Symposiums, organized by the Deutsches Institut für Jugend und Gesellschaft (OJC) Reichelsheim, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995; furthermore H. Brand, “Konflikt und Gemeinschaft in der Ökumene: Ein Erfahrungsbericht aus Harare,” Lutherische Kirche in der Welt: Jahrbuch des Martin-Luther-Bundes, vol. 47, Erlangen 2000, 159-182, here 173.
[102] Eibach (see n. 68), 200. Cf. also J. Nicolosi, “Eine andere Sicht von männlicher Homosexualität,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 151-159, here 151-153. Nicolosi also sheds light on the reasons which, in 1973, led the American Psychological Association (APA) to strike homosexuality from its “list of pathological disorders” (ibid. 152).
[103] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 197-199.
[104] Quoted according to W. Schlichting, “Dem Wort aus dem Weg gehen,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 227-237, here 237. Cf. Meilaender (see n. 28), 73: “If the ‘natural’ denotes simply the desire some people consistently have, the whole bewildering variety of such desires that exits in our world, we will lose our grip on norm entirely.”
[105] Cf. Hempelmann (see n. 7), 188: “Where the factual becomes the norm, there the dignity of man is given up as a being which can interact with himself but also with his wishes and urges. … In fallen creation which is under the power of sin is the ‘naturally given’ not simply identical with what God created and willed.”
[106] Cf. ibid., 187; furthermore R. Werner, “Homosexualität und die Vollmacht in der christlichen Gemeinde,” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 223-240, here 228: “Some representatives of groups advocating emancipation (also in the church) aim even further: They demand the legalization of pedophilia and the total sexualization of life.” Cf. the report “Leitung der Reformierten Kirche tritt aus Protest zurück,” FAZ, January 16, 1999, 2, according to which the president of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands defended a pastor and assistant professor who “had called for tolerance of pedophiles and had claimed that a pedophile relationship ‘evidently harms children very little or not at all.’ President Vissinga said that the pastor speaks ‘in a very respectful way about the kind of love that does not harm one’s neighbor.’” Furthermore, Meilaender (see n. 28), 73: “Then we very quickly find ourselves without the conceptual resources needed to speak ethically about incest, bestiality, and adultery.”
[107] Cf. Haacker (see n. 33), 176.
[108] Cf. ibid., 178.
[109] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 203.
[110] Haacker (see n. 33), 177, cf. n. 17 above!
[111] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 203f.
[112] Ibid., 95, cf. ibid., 204.
[113] Hoffmann (see n. 43), 181, 183.
[114] Cf. Pannenberg (see n. 30).
[115] Hempelmann (see n. 7), 187. Cf. R. Slenczka, “Völlige Desorientierung? Zur Orientierungshilfe des Rates der EKD über ‘Homosexualität und Kirche,’” Id., Neues und Altes, vol. 3: Dogmatische Gutachten und aktuelle Stellungnahmen, Neuendettelsau 2000, 219-221, here 220: “According to Scripture, however, love is, not the abrogation, but the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:10).”
[116] The sexologist M. Dannecker admits “that talking about permanent partnerships belongs to the first phase of the struggle for emancipation; promiscuity is part of the homosexual person’s nature. This is why it is understandable that representatives of HuK feel that it is discriminating to distinguish ‘between good, socially adapted, inconspicuous, monogamous homosexuals on the one hand and … non-conformist and promiscuous homosexuals on the other hand’ and demand the full acceptance of a promiscuous and bisexual lifestyle also in the church” (Eibach, see n. 68, 200).
[117] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 210f. n. 54: “It is surprising that, according to the pertinent demands of groups pushing for emancipation, in many opinions of theologians and synodical assemblies (…) it is already presupposed as something self-evident that also a bisexual inclination can be lived out of Christian responsibility. The argument that this sanctions permanent adultery is swept aside by pointing out that marriage and marital faithfulness have been passed by reality and are an expression of a double moral standard anyway (…). One here overlooks completely the many tragedies which take place in many bisexual relationships.”
[118] Cf. ibid., 198f., 205f.
[119] Cf. Hoffmann (see n. 43), passim.
[120] Cf. G. R. Schmidt, “Maßnehmen an der Ehe: Zehn Thesen zu Homosexualität und Kirche,” Aust, Gensichen, Hoffmann (see n. 3), 38-55, here 40.
[121] Cf. J. Nicolosi, “Identität und Sexualität: Ursachenforschung und Therapieerfahrung bei homosexuellen Männern,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 31-42, here 31: “‘Homosexual’ describes a sexual orientation … On the other hand, ‘gay’ is a socio-political identity. A person chooses a gay identity as one possibility of dealing with homosexuality.” [Cf. J. Nicolosi, “The Gay Deception,” C. Wolfe, ed., Homosexuality and American Public Life, intr. by W. Kristol, Dallas 1999, 98-105, esp. 98f.]
[122] Cf. N. Mosen (see n. 95), 164f.; furthermore, ibid., 176: “Homosexual historian David Altman has put it this way: ‘The single biggest victory of the gay movement … has been moving the debate away from behavior to identity. This has pushed the opposing side into a position in which they appear to be attacking the rights of homosexual citizens and no longer combating a certain behavior which is, in their opinion, anti-social.’”
[123] Cf. the sensitive remarks by Hempelmann (see n. 7), 181.
[124] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 192f.
[125] Cf. K. Schuller, “Ein Juchzen und Jauchzen: Die Berliner SPD ist gekommen, sich zu freuen,” FAZ, 11 June 2001, 2; the article “Be-Coming In” (FAZ, 12 June 2001, 51) shows that the situation in so-called “Christian” parties is no different.
[126] Cf., e.g., M. Küpper, “‘… und das ist gut so:’ ‘Wowi,’ Gysi und das Verhältnis zwischen Homsexuellen und Politik auf dem Christopher Street Day in Berlin,” FAZ, 25 June 2001, 11: Homosexuals “are now welcomed in such an enthusiastic way that the perceived new arrivals marvel at being praised for their sexual orientation as if it were a progress of civilization.” K. Adam wonders “why people who can bring their sexual obsession into the light of public without restraint are still considered a discriminated group” (“Kinderlandsverräter: Wie die Gleichstellungspolitik Ungerechtigkeiten schafft,” FAZ, 29 June 2001, 55).
[127] Cf. Mosen (see n. 95), 177: “A marketing poll of the Wall Street Journal showed that homosexuals in reality belong to the most affluent societal groups in America.” For the very similar situation in Germany cf. F. Böge, “Kochen mit Max und Holger: Homosexuelle im Werbefernsehen,” FAZ, 10 May 2001, 14.
[128] B. Rüthers, “Ehe und Familie im Wandel des Zeitgeistes: Die Gestaltungsfreiheit des Grundgesetzes hat verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen,” FAZ, 18 May 2000, 15: “The family offers protection, comfort, and trust. In the family sympathy, solidarity, circumspection, reliability, and discipline are experienced and passed on. The aimed-for making legally equal non-marital and homosexual partnerships misses these basic functions and differences. It would severely damage the common good.” Cf. also Adam (see n. 123). This is why I cannot understand Führer’s evaluation of the law who, in his otherwise good essay, writes: “The new legal status of homosexual partnerships brought about by the 2001 Domestic Partnership Law makes it possible to meet homosexuals in a legally protected space, against which there are no churchly objections …” (see n. 32, 18). This does not properly characterize the law, since it aims at making homosexual partnerships widely equal with marriage. Cf. on this the critical remarks by the jurist Braun (see n. 2), who shows in a detailed analysis how the law in many ways creates new discriminations and additionally contributes to the destruction of the foundations of society, a fact which also the church cannot ignore. Cf. my review in Lutherische Beiträge 8 (2003): 64-66.
[129] Cf. R. Müller, “Bedenken gegen Lebenspartnerschaft: ‘Bitburger Gespräche’ zur Rechtspolitik,” FAZ, 15 January 2001, 4 and R. Spaemann, “Was nicht des Staates ist: Die Homosexuellenehe wäre ungerecht,” FAZ, 14 March 2000, 49.
[130] Cf. Hoffmann (see n. 43), 188; furthermore, emphatically, Braun (see n. 2) passim.
[131] Cf. Th. S. Hoffmann, “Haus ohne Verhüter: Nicht gleichmachen, was ungleich ist. Die ‘Ehe der Homosexuellen’ im Lichte des Naturrechts,” FAZ, 28 February 2000, 54.
[132] Cf. R. Flöhl, “Klonieren bald gesellschaftsfähing?” FAZ, 18 February 1998, N 2: “Homosexuals and lesbians have put high hopes in cloning, since it makes one’s own reproduction possible without foreign genes.” Cf. furthermore the report: “Baby von zwei Müttern: Fortpflanzungstechnik für lesbische Paare,” FAZ, 22 January 2002, 42 and Mosen (see n. 95), 193: “An Auckland in-vitro fertilization clinic was told that artificial insemination can no longer be denied to unmarried or lesbian women.”
[133] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 201 n. 29: “Questioning of heterosexuality as the normative guiding ideal of raising children is also at the bottom of demanding a right to adoption for homosexual couples; for, without a doubt, a homosexual formation takes places in this way which appears justified on this basis.” Also cf. J. Cardinal Meisner, “Die Sinnlichkeit des Glaubens: Warum die Katholische Kirche dagegen ist, dass homosexuelle Menschen heiraten,” FAZ, 19 January 2000, 13: “The demand for the adoption of children by homosexual couples once more clearly shows that not the well-being of the child, but the need of the homosexual couple for children is most important here.”
[134] Thus, e.g., H. Hempelmann, “Die Autorität der Heiligen Schrift und die Quelle theologischer Grundentscheidungen,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 238-261, here 242.
[135] M. Honecker, “Ehe und ‘andere Lebensformen:’ Theologische Bricolage in zwei Diskussionspapieren der Evangelischen Kirche im Rheinland,” Zeitwende 68 (1997): 1-11.
[136] Cf. U. Rasche, “Segnungen für homosexuelle Paare: Die hessen-nassauische Kirche berät – Mehrheit der Gemeinden dagegen,” FAZ, 7 December 2001, 4: “In January 2000 the synodical assembly of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland endorsed the blessing of homosexuals against the will of its President, the President of the Council of the EKD, Kock.” The status quo on these issues in this and other churches in the EKD is documented by Führer (see n. 32), 18f.
[137] Honecker (see n. 132), 2.
[138] Ibid., 6. Hoffmann (see n. 43), 177 talks about the “making up for, or even blessing of, the secular ‘sexual revolution’ on the levels of theology, church law, and pastoral practice.”
[139] Cf. Honecker (see n. 132), 7f. Honecker mentions ibid. the omission of the Sixth Commandment; of the interpretation of marriage as a covenant and as a likeness of the faithful covenant of God with Israel; of the biblical warning against faithlessness; of the words of Jesus regarding divorce and marriage. Equally absent is any reference to the “basic human phenomenon of shame (Gen. 2:25).” He furthermore criticizes the truncating falsification of the Pauline statements etc. Equally important is his comment on the documents’ view of history: “The positive things are mostly omitted: the missionary importance of the ‘Christian’ home and of marriage and family lived in a Christian way at the beginning of Christianity are missing as well as the Reformation’s refocusing on the duties of family and marriage as source of the evangelical congregation …”
[140] Ibid., 9.
[141] K. Adam, “Evangelische Erleuchtung: Die Nordelbische Kirche modernisiert sich,” FAZ, 26 February 1997, 35.
[142] Mit Spannungen leben: Eine Orientierungshilfe des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland zum Thema “Homosexualitaet und Kirche” (EKD-Texte, no. 57), as quoted in Slenczka (see n. 112), 221.
[143] Slenczka, ibid. Cf. Hempelmann (see n. 131), 240f.: “Yet where everything, including opposites, are equally valid [gleich gültig]; where, in the name of a pluralism willing to integrate everything, contradictions are left standing without any resolution, there the truth itself no longer matters [gleichgültig] because of all the equally valid [gleich gültig] truths; … There the ‘subtle survival strategy of the people’s church [Volkskirche]’ leads to a situation in which clarity and identity of biblical contents are not fought for anymore; there not only one’s own foundation – the Reformation’s Scripture principle – is given up out of fear of excluding others or of losing members; there, in the end , also those members are lost which one wanted to retain at all cost, because they more and more get the impression: Everything can be proved with the bible without anyone objecting.”
[144] J. Baur, “Sola Scriptura – historisches Erbe und bleibende Bedeutung,” H.-H. Schmid, J. Mehlhausen (ed.s), Sola Scriptura: Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, Gütersloh 1991, 19-43, here 40 [for an extended version of Baur’s essay, see J. Baur, Luther und seine klassischen Erben: Theologische Aufsätze und Forschungen, Tübingen 1993, 46-113, here 106].
[145] R. Slenczka, “Die Auflösung der Schriftgrundlage und was daraus folgt,” Id., Neues und Altes, vol. 3: Dogmatische Gutachten und aktuelle Stellungnahmen, Neuendettlesau 2000, 249-261, here 252.
[146] Hempelmann (see n. 131), 240.
[147] Hoffmann (see n. 43), 188.
[148] J. Baur, Das reformatorische Christentum in der Krise: Überlegungen zur christlichen Identität an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert, Tübingen 1997, 52; cf. also Führer (see n. 32), 22 and passim.
[149] Honecker (see n. 132), 10.
[150] Cf. Bäumler (see n. 93), 149.
[151] G. Hennig, “Stellungnahme zu sogenannten ‘neuen Lebensformen’,” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 241f., here 242.
[152] Cf. Hempelmann (see n. 7), 190: “With the argument that one must not withhold God’s blessing from anyone, the blessing of the living and holy God is blasphemously placed on something which is an abomination to God;” cf. also Schlichting (see n. 101), 237.
[153] Cf. Volk (see n. 3), 35f.
[154] Hempelmann (see n. 7), 191.
[155] F. Worthen, “Schritte aus der Homosexualität,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 71-84, here 74.
[156] Cf. J. van der Sluis, “‘Ich bin nicht mehr so’ – ein Lebensbericht,” Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98), 15-24, here 15; Eibach (see n. 97), 222.
[157] Cf. Schmidt (see n. 117), 52.
[158] Cf. Nicolosi (see n. 118), 42.
[159] Cf. Volk (see n. 3), 35.
[160] Thus Roloff (see n. 29), 54, who thinks that this “would by no means be the only ethical compromise, which the Christian congregation has learned to practice.” Similarly also the EKD-document Mit Spannungen leben (see n. 139), cf. with critical remarks Slenczka (see n. 112), 220.
[161] Cf. Hempelmann (see n. 7), 190; Eibach (see n. 68), 209f.
[162] Hempelmann (see n. 7), 190.
[163] Cf. Hoffmann (see n. 43), 194: “Even simply ‘successful’ therapeutic ‘techniques’ fail in view of the guilt to which the conscience bears witness and which is revealed in the presence of the Holy Spirit. Only in his presence also forgiveness takes place” – obviously, one needs to add, in the presence of the Holy Spirit that is sacramentally – by baptism and absolution – mediated. On the significance of confession cf. also Werner (see n. 103), 239.
[164] Cf. van der Sluis (see n. 153), 20: “Rom. 1 says that homosexuality means to be exposed to false thinking. Truth is suppressed by the lie; and the lie is that homosexual feelings make happy. What does living out of faith mean? It means that we can complement, even replace, the lies of our feelings, of our senses, by the truth of faith.”
[165] Cf. van der Sluis who, as one personally affected by homosexuality, reports about his therapeutic work (ibid., 18): “For us, homosexuality is not a ‘being thus’ but a ‘being directed’ into a certain direction. Change is possible to lead a liberated life in celibacy or in a heterosexual relationship.” Cf. furthermore all the essays gathered in the collection Homosexualität und christliche Seelsorge (see n. 98).
[166] Cf. on the effects of sexual education Mosen (see n. 95), 171-173.
[167] Cf. Eibach (see n. 68), 208; Schmidt (see n. 117), 40f.
[168] Eibach (see n.68), 208.
[169] Honecker (see n. 132), 1f.; cf. also Meilaender (see n. 28), 66f.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Open Letter to Bp Hanson
July 27, 2008
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson,
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Chicago, Illinois
Dear Bishop Hanson,
Bishop Margaret Payne of the New England Synod has anounced that she intends to preside at a celebration of the Holy Communion at a special service during the Chicago churchwide assembly. This service - not a part of the regular agenda for the assembly - is to be sponsored by Lutherans Concerned/North America and others, and the preacher for this service is to be Mr. Bradley E. Schmeling, a former pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Bishop Payne's participation in this service raises many questions by us in Lutheran CORE.Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession affirms that "nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call." Mr. Schmeling is no longer an ordained minister of our church and no longer has a regular call to ministry in our church. How can Bishop Payne defend her participation in a service at which Mr. Schmeling is to deliver the sermon?
The ELCA is currently in the midst of a process toward developing a possible social statement on sexuality, for action at the 2009 churchwide assembly. A specific process has been developed for preparing this social statement. How does Bishop Payne's participation in this service affect the credibility of this process? How does her participation in the service lead toward peace, unity, and prayerful deliberation throughout our church on these matters?Our church understands itself to be one church, with congregational, synodical, and churchwide expressions. Each expression of the church is to be an interdependent partner with the other expressions. How does Bishop Payne's leading this service reflect the polity of the ELCA? Are individual bishops and synods somehow exempt from the interdependence that we expect from all expressions of the church?
We object strenuously to Bishop Payne's serving as presiding minister at a Eucharist, for which Mr. Schmeling is the indcated preacher. We look to you to redress this matter. You are the only one who can do so! We ask that you address our concerns to Bishop Payne, in your role as chief pastor of our church. We also ask that you publicly express your disapproval for her decision to preside at the service.
When The Rev. Paul Egertson was called as a synodical bishop, he indicated that he would resign from the office, should his personal convictions prove to be in conflict with the official policies of our church. With great integrity, he resigned as a synodical bishop when faced with this situation. Is it not appropriate for Bishop Payne to do the same thing now?We respectfully ask whether Bishop Payne's anticipated action is a matter of discipline.
Regards,
Paull E. Spring
Chair,
Lutheran CORE Steering Committee
CC: Bishop E. Roy Riley
Bishop Margaret G. Payne
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson,
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Chicago, Illinois
Dear Bishop Hanson,
Bishop Margaret Payne of the New England Synod has anounced that she intends to preside at a celebration of the Holy Communion at a special service during the Chicago churchwide assembly. This service - not a part of the regular agenda for the assembly - is to be sponsored by Lutherans Concerned/North America and others, and the preacher for this service is to be Mr. Bradley E. Schmeling, a former pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Bishop Payne's participation in this service raises many questions by us in Lutheran CORE.Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession affirms that "nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call." Mr. Schmeling is no longer an ordained minister of our church and no longer has a regular call to ministry in our church. How can Bishop Payne defend her participation in a service at which Mr. Schmeling is to deliver the sermon?
The ELCA is currently in the midst of a process toward developing a possible social statement on sexuality, for action at the 2009 churchwide assembly. A specific process has been developed for preparing this social statement. How does Bishop Payne's participation in this service affect the credibility of this process? How does her participation in the service lead toward peace, unity, and prayerful deliberation throughout our church on these matters?Our church understands itself to be one church, with congregational, synodical, and churchwide expressions. Each expression of the church is to be an interdependent partner with the other expressions. How does Bishop Payne's leading this service reflect the polity of the ELCA? Are individual bishops and synods somehow exempt from the interdependence that we expect from all expressions of the church?
We object strenuously to Bishop Payne's serving as presiding minister at a Eucharist, for which Mr. Schmeling is the indcated preacher. We look to you to redress this matter. You are the only one who can do so! We ask that you address our concerns to Bishop Payne, in your role as chief pastor of our church. We also ask that you publicly express your disapproval for her decision to preside at the service.
When The Rev. Paul Egertson was called as a synodical bishop, he indicated that he would resign from the office, should his personal convictions prove to be in conflict with the official policies of our church. With great integrity, he resigned as a synodical bishop when faced with this situation. Is it not appropriate for Bishop Payne to do the same thing now?We respectfully ask whether Bishop Payne's anticipated action is a matter of discipline.
Regards,
Paull E. Spring
Chair,
Lutheran CORE Steering Committee
CC: Bishop E. Roy Riley
Bishop Margaret G. Payne
Letter to her synod
In the past few months, our church has been involved in conversations and decisions that continue to reveal the differing viewpoints among us about the role of gay and lesbian persons in the ELCA. However, we still seek to live together faithfully despite our disagreements and to work prayerfully to discern God's will for our church.
We are called to obey the policies of the ELCA, yet we are also called to consider possibilities for change. Within this difficult tension, we are committed to respect one another's faith-bound beliefs while we disagree about policy related to the ways in which our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are included in the life of our church.
Over the last few months, I have spent time in prayer and discernment that have led me to choose to be more openly supportive of gay and lesbian persons who seek fuller inclusion in the life of the ELCA. I have accepted an invitation from the worship planners of Lutherans Concerned/North America to preside at a Eucharist that will take place on Wednesday, August 8, 2007, during the Churchwide Assembly. To me, this liturgy represents the commitment to continue support for consideration of change in the policy of the ELCA in a way that depends not on political maneuvering but on the flow of gifts that comes to all of us in the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When I sought ordination as a woman in the Lutheran Church, and encountered hateful resistance, I was profoundly appreciative of men who were allies and stood openly by my side with support and encouragement. I want to provide that same kind of support and encouragement for gay and lesbian people who are deeply faithful brothers and sisters already sharing their gifts among us.
The time may or may not be right in God's plan for change in our church, but I pray and continue to trust that there will be open and ongoing dialogue that moves us beyond our present stalemate. As together we depend on Word and Sacrament to be our center of faith and decision-making, I am certain that we will be drawn more and more deeply into the profound unity that we share in the New Covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bishop Margaret G. Payne
New England Synod of the ELCA
We are called to obey the policies of the ELCA, yet we are also called to consider possibilities for change. Within this difficult tension, we are committed to respect one another's faith-bound beliefs while we disagree about policy related to the ways in which our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are included in the life of our church.
Over the last few months, I have spent time in prayer and discernment that have led me to choose to be more openly supportive of gay and lesbian persons who seek fuller inclusion in the life of the ELCA. I have accepted an invitation from the worship planners of Lutherans Concerned/North America to preside at a Eucharist that will take place on Wednesday, August 8, 2007, during the Churchwide Assembly. To me, this liturgy represents the commitment to continue support for consideration of change in the policy of the ELCA in a way that depends not on political maneuvering but on the flow of gifts that comes to all of us in the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When I sought ordination as a woman in the Lutheran Church, and encountered hateful resistance, I was profoundly appreciative of men who were allies and stood openly by my side with support and encouragement. I want to provide that same kind of support and encouragement for gay and lesbian people who are deeply faithful brothers and sisters already sharing their gifts among us.
The time may or may not be right in God's plan for change in our church, but I pray and continue to trust that there will be open and ongoing dialogue that moves us beyond our present stalemate. As together we depend on Word and Sacrament to be our center of faith and decision-making, I am certain that we will be drawn more and more deeply into the profound unity that we share in the New Covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bishop Margaret G. Payne
New England Synod of the ELCA
Sex, war on ELCA agenda
One topic for delegates at next month's conference is sexuality. An earlier assembly - they meet every two years - asked a task force to present a social statement in 2009.The ELCA now excludes people in homosexual relationships from official leadership roles. Twenty-one resolutions came from synod assemblies earlier this year, asking for gays and lesbians in relationships to be able to serve as ordained and professional lay leaders.Hanson said he expects "very lively discussions" on whether to bring up those issues in Chicago or to wait until 2009.
The ELCA Study on Sexuality does not focus exclusively on homosexuals but also looks at heterosexuality."It is easier for us who are heterosexuals to talk about how gays and lesbians live out their lives and establish standards than ... to talk about our own," the bishop said.
Gary Steuck, a retired state official and campground operator, hopes issues other than sexuality receive attention."I wonder why we spend so much time on things like this," the Mobridge man said."We spend an awful lot of time on things that aren't so important to the ordinary Lutheran layman."
Because the ELCA continues to experience a slow decline in baptized membership and remains 97 percent white, the very culture of the church must be changed, Hanson said.
Read about the sex war.
The ELCA Study on Sexuality does not focus exclusively on homosexuals but also looks at heterosexuality."It is easier for us who are heterosexuals to talk about how gays and lesbians live out their lives and establish standards than ... to talk about our own," the bishop said.
Gary Steuck, a retired state official and campground operator, hopes issues other than sexuality receive attention."I wonder why we spend so much time on things like this," the Mobridge man said."We spend an awful lot of time on things that aren't so important to the ordinary Lutheran layman."
Because the ELCA continues to experience a slow decline in baptized membership and remains 97 percent white, the very culture of the church must be changed, Hanson said.
Read about the sex war.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
ELCA Membership Drops 1.6 Percent to 4.8 Million in 2006
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) had 4,774,203 baptized members in 10,470 congregations atthe end of 2006, according to the Rev. Lowell G. Almen, ELCA secretary. Those figures represent decreases of 76,573 baptized members and 79 congregations since 2005.
In the past 16 years the ELCA lost approximately 466,000baptized members from the 5,240,739 members reported in 1990,Almen said. More than two-thirds of the decline occurred between 2002 and 2006, with a combined decrease of 325,674 baptizedmembers
Nineteen congregations with a combined baptized membership of 7,196 withdrew from the ELCA in 2006.
Anyone think there is a coincidence that 2/3 of the loss happened since 2002. What happened in 2002? Mark Hanson began his role as Presiding Bishop and we began to the Journey Together Faithfully process.
In the past 16 years the ELCA lost approximately 466,000baptized members from the 5,240,739 members reported in 1990,Almen said. More than two-thirds of the decline occurred between 2002 and 2006, with a combined decrease of 325,674 baptizedmembers
Nineteen congregations with a combined baptized membership of 7,196 withdrew from the ELCA in 2006.
Anyone think there is a coincidence that 2/3 of the loss happened since 2002. What happened in 2002? Mark Hanson began his role as Presiding Bishop and we began to the Journey Together Faithfully process.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Waxman-Davis Bill Opens Door to Requiring Protections
July 11, 2007 - Undefined “Sexual Orientation” Protections Could Cover Criminal ActsWashington, DC – A bill introduced by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Tom Davis (R-VA) includes coverage for undefined “sexual orientation” and effectively endorses criminal activity such as pedophilia and necrophilia. According to a new report from the Traditional Values Coalition, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act (HR 2232) “clarifies nothing while it opens the door to licensing all types of aberrant behavior.”
“Sexual orientation is a wild card term which will allow all sorts of mischief to occur in the federal workforce as a precursor to expanding these misguided and ill-conceived policies to the rest of America’s workforce,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.
“The only thing which could use some clarification is the murky thinking of Waxman and Davis who want to throw open the doors of federal employment to all sorts of smarmy characters. They may be confused but the American people are not. They don’t want somebody who spends all their romantic evenings at a morgue or funeral home holding responsible government positions.
“The push is on to use the vagueness of the term ‘sexual orientation’ to advance the homosexual and other, even more bizarre, agendas. This same undefined language is included in the so called “Hate Crimes” bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
“I can see that this sort of thing getting an approving nod from Waxman’s constituents in California, but Virginians will have a lot of questions for Representative Davis. The first being is Mr. Davis a leader in this assault on traditional values or just a dupe who is willing to trade principles for votes?”
The TVC report concludes: “Congress’ refusal to define ‘sexual orientation’ creates the prospect of legal protection for every form of sexual perversion recognized by the psychiatric profession. By its silence, Congress is effectively endorsing such deviant and criminal behaviors as bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia as “sexual orientations” protected by federal law.”
Visit www.traditionalvalues.org for more information.
“Sexual orientation is a wild card term which will allow all sorts of mischief to occur in the federal workforce as a precursor to expanding these misguided and ill-conceived policies to the rest of America’s workforce,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.
“The only thing which could use some clarification is the murky thinking of Waxman and Davis who want to throw open the doors of federal employment to all sorts of smarmy characters. They may be confused but the American people are not. They don’t want somebody who spends all their romantic evenings at a morgue or funeral home holding responsible government positions.
“The push is on to use the vagueness of the term ‘sexual orientation’ to advance the homosexual and other, even more bizarre, agendas. This same undefined language is included in the so called “Hate Crimes” bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
“I can see that this sort of thing getting an approving nod from Waxman’s constituents in California, but Virginians will have a lot of questions for Representative Davis. The first being is Mr. Davis a leader in this assault on traditional values or just a dupe who is willing to trade principles for votes?”
The TVC report concludes: “Congress’ refusal to define ‘sexual orientation’ creates the prospect of legal protection for every form of sexual perversion recognized by the psychiatric profession. By its silence, Congress is effectively endorsing such deviant and criminal behaviors as bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia as “sexual orientations” protected by federal law.”
Visit www.traditionalvalues.org for more information.
To Stand in a Crucified Place
A good example of where homosexual hermeneutics takes people: denial of traditional interpretation of Scripture, of the atoning death of Jesus and much more...
To Stand in a Crucified Place The Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, RectorAll Saints Church, PasadenaRector’s Forum: June 24, 2007
We have a responsibility in our words, our worship, and our actions to articulate a theology that does not glorify violence, does not perpetuate poverty, disease, occupation, and genocide, and that does not exclude, denigrate, or sacrifice those who are less powerful in society or in the church.
This means a return to Jesus’ understanding of the nature of God, forgiveness, the Reign of God, salvation, the cross, the community we now call the Church, and the resurrection. [It is] an understanding of God that is much more vast that the old man in a beard. That God usually is depicted in art and in our imagination as so angry at the human race for its sin that the only way forgiveness can come our way is to have the perfect sacrifice of Jesus crucified paid as our penalty. No to all that misunderstanding of how we are made at one with God. God’s grace and power to forgive is in the very nature of God, Godself as Jesus illustrated in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
There is no gulf between God’s creation and God that has to be spanned. We are not in the need of that kind of salvation -- salvation from the wrath and punishment of God. We do not need that kind of salvation or savior. What we need is someone to embody revealingly God’s compassion to us whose life says, “This really is NOT too good to be true.” And lest we calcify God as a father -- even a compassionate, forgiving, love and grace-based father -- Carroll challenges us to understand God as Meaning. It is meaning -- to live a life of meaning -- that saves us from hell on earth. Heaven after death is already taken care of in the love and forgiveness and compassion of God.
We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned. And that God’s way is to crucify Jesus and us. That is not what it means to claim that the way of the cross is the way of life. The way of the cross is the way of life means that when we offer ourselves in love for the sake of the life of another -- like loving parents do and loving friends do and compassionate neighbors like Good Samaritans do. That is the way of life.
This theology is deeply needed by the church as an antidote for making denigrating sacrifices of other people. Just two weeks ago, Bill Moyers interviewed our beloved and brilliant Presiding Bishop, but listen to her response to the practices of denigrating LGBT Christians:
BILL MOYERS: You've even been criticized by some of your liberal colleagues in the American fellowship because you have called for a moratorium for a season on ordaining more gay Bishops. Why did you do that?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It was a very painful thing to do. My sense was that there might be hope of some kind of broader understanding if we were able to pause. Not go backwards, but pause.
BILL MOYERS: Is it fair to ask some aspiring gay or lesbian person who wants to become a Bishop, like Gene Robinson did in 2003, to wait?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Is it fair? No. It's not fair.
BILL MOYERS: But it's necessary?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's a crucified place to stand.
--From the Transcript of Bill Moyers Journal, broadcast June 8, 2007
There is no doubt that we all from time to time must stand in a crucified place. Jesus certainly did. Any follower of Jesus certainly will from time to time have a crucified place in which we must stand. But that place in order for us to take the place Jesus stood in that crucified place as opposed to the place the Roman empire stood in that crucified place is the place of self-offering as opposed to sacrificing someone else. When we sacrifice someone else, we are standing in the role of the Empire. When we offer ourselves, we are standing in Jesus’ place. That is why bishops cannot sacrifice someone else and call that act “Christian.”
All of this will call on us to claim with joy, peace, and power our intellectual and historical identities as children of Galileo. To use the story James Carroll used here last week, Galileo’s scientific observations led him to believe that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the opposite. The church said that Galileo had to be wrong because the Bible said the earth was the center of the cosmos. Galileo said, “No, that doctrine is wrong. Observation and scientific experience trumps doctrine.”
This means that we must tell the truth about biblical research. The Bible is not a stenographic record of God’s speaking to 66 different authors. The Bible contains the truth as well as a great deal of destructive, violent, and fear-based bigotry. We must sift through the wheat and the chaff and join the critics of religion coming from the “new atheists” now writing in the service of ending sadistic and masochistic religion and promoting religion that saves lives, promotes resistance of every dehumanizing force and idea, and turns the human race into the human family.
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/to-stand-in-crucified-place.html
To Stand in a Crucified Place The Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, RectorAll Saints Church, PasadenaRector’s Forum: June 24, 2007
We have a responsibility in our words, our worship, and our actions to articulate a theology that does not glorify violence, does not perpetuate poverty, disease, occupation, and genocide, and that does not exclude, denigrate, or sacrifice those who are less powerful in society or in the church.
This means a return to Jesus’ understanding of the nature of God, forgiveness, the Reign of God, salvation, the cross, the community we now call the Church, and the resurrection. [It is] an understanding of God that is much more vast that the old man in a beard. That God usually is depicted in art and in our imagination as so angry at the human race for its sin that the only way forgiveness can come our way is to have the perfect sacrifice of Jesus crucified paid as our penalty. No to all that misunderstanding of how we are made at one with God. God’s grace and power to forgive is in the very nature of God, Godself as Jesus illustrated in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
There is no gulf between God’s creation and God that has to be spanned. We are not in the need of that kind of salvation -- salvation from the wrath and punishment of God. We do not need that kind of salvation or savior. What we need is someone to embody revealingly God’s compassion to us whose life says, “This really is NOT too good to be true.” And lest we calcify God as a father -- even a compassionate, forgiving, love and grace-based father -- Carroll challenges us to understand God as Meaning. It is meaning -- to live a life of meaning -- that saves us from hell on earth. Heaven after death is already taken care of in the love and forgiveness and compassion of God.
We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned. And that God’s way is to crucify Jesus and us. That is not what it means to claim that the way of the cross is the way of life. The way of the cross is the way of life means that when we offer ourselves in love for the sake of the life of another -- like loving parents do and loving friends do and compassionate neighbors like Good Samaritans do. That is the way of life.
This theology is deeply needed by the church as an antidote for making denigrating sacrifices of other people. Just two weeks ago, Bill Moyers interviewed our beloved and brilliant Presiding Bishop, but listen to her response to the practices of denigrating LGBT Christians:
BILL MOYERS: You've even been criticized by some of your liberal colleagues in the American fellowship because you have called for a moratorium for a season on ordaining more gay Bishops. Why did you do that?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It was a very painful thing to do. My sense was that there might be hope of some kind of broader understanding if we were able to pause. Not go backwards, but pause.
BILL MOYERS: Is it fair to ask some aspiring gay or lesbian person who wants to become a Bishop, like Gene Robinson did in 2003, to wait?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Is it fair? No. It's not fair.
BILL MOYERS: But it's necessary?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's a crucified place to stand.
--From the Transcript of Bill Moyers Journal, broadcast June 8, 2007
There is no doubt that we all from time to time must stand in a crucified place. Jesus certainly did. Any follower of Jesus certainly will from time to time have a crucified place in which we must stand. But that place in order for us to take the place Jesus stood in that crucified place as opposed to the place the Roman empire stood in that crucified place is the place of self-offering as opposed to sacrificing someone else. When we sacrifice someone else, we are standing in the role of the Empire. When we offer ourselves, we are standing in Jesus’ place. That is why bishops cannot sacrifice someone else and call that act “Christian.”
All of this will call on us to claim with joy, peace, and power our intellectual and historical identities as children of Galileo. To use the story James Carroll used here last week, Galileo’s scientific observations led him to believe that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the opposite. The church said that Galileo had to be wrong because the Bible said the earth was the center of the cosmos. Galileo said, “No, that doctrine is wrong. Observation and scientific experience trumps doctrine.”
This means that we must tell the truth about biblical research. The Bible is not a stenographic record of God’s speaking to 66 different authors. The Bible contains the truth as well as a great deal of destructive, violent, and fear-based bigotry. We must sift through the wheat and the chaff and join the critics of religion coming from the “new atheists” now writing in the service of ending sadistic and masochistic religion and promoting religion that saves lives, promotes resistance of every dehumanizing force and idea, and turns the human race into the human family.
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/to-stand-in-crucified-place.html
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Gay Shibboleth
Opposition to homosexual behavior may now be a bar to high office.
A Christianity Today editorial
As a member of the United Methodist Judicial Council, physician James Holsinger voted with the majority to affirm Methodist teaching that bans practicing homosexuals from ordination. Holsinger also wrote a white paper for the denomination 16 years ago on the health hazards of gay sex and on the biological complementarity of the human sexes.
Should that bar him from serving (as President Bush desires) as U.S. surgeon general? It's not surprising that homosexual-activist groups like Human Rights Campaign think so. But most of the major Democratic presidential candidates agree. John Edwards was particularly harsh: "In a profession dedicated to healing and compassion, it cannot be hard to find a qualified candidate for surgeon general who sees all human beings as equals. … Holsinger's anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care."
The Boston Globe called for Bush to withdraw his nomination, since "no one should go into the job with a record of discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation." A Washington Post editorial called Holsinger's white paper "bigotry masquerad[ing] as science" and mocked him for this sentence: "In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other."
"Is he a doctor or the Ace Hardware man?" asked the Post. Satirist Stephen Colbert went further: "For years, we have tolerated smoking just like we currently tolerate homosexuality. But the surgeon general alerted us to the dangers of smoking with warning labels. With Holsinger at the helm, we can use the same approach for homosexuality. Every gay man and woman should come with a label: 'Warning! Plumbers have found homosexual behavior to be dangerous and unnatural.'" The Bush administration didn't exactly rush to Holsinger's defense. "That was not his belief. It was not his opinion. It was a compilation of studies that were available at that time," a spokeswoman said. "Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved." The spokeswoman added, "It should be noted that in 1991, homosexuals were banned from the military, and several years before that, homosexuality and Haitian nationality were considered risk factors for HIV/AIDS."
Contrast this with, say, 2007, when the military still bans "persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" and gays and Haitians are still at high risk for HIV infection.
So some things don't change. But tolerance for dissent on homosexuality apparently has. The Holsinger denouncements and the White House's assertion that Holsinger couldn't possibly have meant what he wrote suggest that opposition to homosexual behavior is becoming a disqualification from serving in high public office.
That's a remarkable change from even a few years ago, and we're not alone in seeing it. "On no issue is history moving faster than on 'gay rights'—an already antiquated term for full and equal participation and acceptance of gay men and women in American life," Michael Kinsley wrote in Time.
On the other hand, as of press time, Holsinger hadn't been rejected yet, and other newspaper editorials, along with Holsinger's medical colleagues (including some homosexuals) are defending him as fair, professional, and compassionate. Still, affirmation of homosexual behavior seems to be shifting from an in-group shibboleth to an unwritten requirement for American leadership.
Where does that leave biblical Christians? We may soon come to the point where supporting a sexual ethic based on an orthodox reading of Scripture becomes part of our cross to bear.
The rest here.
A Christianity Today editorial
As a member of the United Methodist Judicial Council, physician James Holsinger voted with the majority to affirm Methodist teaching that bans practicing homosexuals from ordination. Holsinger also wrote a white paper for the denomination 16 years ago on the health hazards of gay sex and on the biological complementarity of the human sexes.
Should that bar him from serving (as President Bush desires) as U.S. surgeon general? It's not surprising that homosexual-activist groups like Human Rights Campaign think so. But most of the major Democratic presidential candidates agree. John Edwards was particularly harsh: "In a profession dedicated to healing and compassion, it cannot be hard to find a qualified candidate for surgeon general who sees all human beings as equals. … Holsinger's anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care."
The Boston Globe called for Bush to withdraw his nomination, since "no one should go into the job with a record of discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation." A Washington Post editorial called Holsinger's white paper "bigotry masquerad[ing] as science" and mocked him for this sentence: "In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other."
"Is he a doctor or the Ace Hardware man?" asked the Post. Satirist Stephen Colbert went further: "For years, we have tolerated smoking just like we currently tolerate homosexuality. But the surgeon general alerted us to the dangers of smoking with warning labels. With Holsinger at the helm, we can use the same approach for homosexuality. Every gay man and woman should come with a label: 'Warning! Plumbers have found homosexual behavior to be dangerous and unnatural.'" The Bush administration didn't exactly rush to Holsinger's defense. "That was not his belief. It was not his opinion. It was a compilation of studies that were available at that time," a spokeswoman said. "Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved." The spokeswoman added, "It should be noted that in 1991, homosexuals were banned from the military, and several years before that, homosexuality and Haitian nationality were considered risk factors for HIV/AIDS."
Contrast this with, say, 2007, when the military still bans "persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" and gays and Haitians are still at high risk for HIV infection.
So some things don't change. But tolerance for dissent on homosexuality apparently has. The Holsinger denouncements and the White House's assertion that Holsinger couldn't possibly have meant what he wrote suggest that opposition to homosexual behavior is becoming a disqualification from serving in high public office.
That's a remarkable change from even a few years ago, and we're not alone in seeing it. "On no issue is history moving faster than on 'gay rights'—an already antiquated term for full and equal participation and acceptance of gay men and women in American life," Michael Kinsley wrote in Time.
On the other hand, as of press time, Holsinger hadn't been rejected yet, and other newspaper editorials, along with Holsinger's medical colleagues (including some homosexuals) are defending him as fair, professional, and compassionate. Still, affirmation of homosexual behavior seems to be shifting from an in-group shibboleth to an unwritten requirement for American leadership.
Where does that leave biblical Christians? We may soon come to the point where supporting a sexual ethic based on an orthodox reading of Scripture becomes part of our cross to bear.
The rest here.
An Open Letter to Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson
Dear Mark;
All my life I have been proud to call myself a Lutheran. Given my Hussite roots, I have quipped that I was a Lutheran a hundred years before Luther. That pride is not what it was, as I feel it breaking down before feelings of betrayal and alienation. This is happening as I watch my church, like a juggernaut follow the path of the ECUSA in the matters of the ordination of those openly living in homosexual relationships and the blessing and marrying of those in such relationships.
We ignore what this is doing to the ECUSA: it faces schism; it has become a pariah in Africa; the welcome mats from Rome and Constantinople have been pulled back; membership and income losses were recently described in "The Christian Century" as "precipitous." But undeterred, we push forward; apparently ready to accept the same sort of results.
Why? Is it because some new exegetical revelation has burst upon us? No. All attempts to claim that come up against the wall that every reference to homosexual practice in our scripture gives a clear negative judgment. Yet we would pronounce it blessed.
So next we launch into a study on the authority of Scripture, which excuse me, early signs are, that it will tell us that we can continue to claim that Scripture is the "source and norm of our faith and life", as we clearly brush aside Scripture and turn to other sources and norms. We are preparing to sell our birthright as the foremost biblical theologians of the West for the pottage of this culture's approval, as we accommodate to its desires and demands in its extraordinary and overwhelming obsession with and worship of sex. What hubris possesses this generation to think it is qualified to rewrite the teaching of what has been the faith for two thousand years, and a thousand before that?
If we succeed in doing this, we will sacrifice the credibility of all our teaching. The very thing that has made our teaching notable has been its solid rootage in Scripture. Make that optional; take it away and who cares what we say about anything?
I read with deep appreciation the paper on the authority of Scripture produced by bishop Paull Spring, and Lutheran CORE. I hope there may still be hope for us.
In Christ,
George Paul Mocko,
Bishop Emeritus,
De, Md. Synod, ELCA
All my life I have been proud to call myself a Lutheran. Given my Hussite roots, I have quipped that I was a Lutheran a hundred years before Luther. That pride is not what it was, as I feel it breaking down before feelings of betrayal and alienation. This is happening as I watch my church, like a juggernaut follow the path of the ECUSA in the matters of the ordination of those openly living in homosexual relationships and the blessing and marrying of those in such relationships.
We ignore what this is doing to the ECUSA: it faces schism; it has become a pariah in Africa; the welcome mats from Rome and Constantinople have been pulled back; membership and income losses were recently described in "The Christian Century" as "precipitous." But undeterred, we push forward; apparently ready to accept the same sort of results.
Why? Is it because some new exegetical revelation has burst upon us? No. All attempts to claim that come up against the wall that every reference to homosexual practice in our scripture gives a clear negative judgment. Yet we would pronounce it blessed.
So next we launch into a study on the authority of Scripture, which excuse me, early signs are, that it will tell us that we can continue to claim that Scripture is the "source and norm of our faith and life", as we clearly brush aside Scripture and turn to other sources and norms. We are preparing to sell our birthright as the foremost biblical theologians of the West for the pottage of this culture's approval, as we accommodate to its desires and demands in its extraordinary and overwhelming obsession with and worship of sex. What hubris possesses this generation to think it is qualified to rewrite the teaching of what has been the faith for two thousand years, and a thousand before that?
If we succeed in doing this, we will sacrifice the credibility of all our teaching. The very thing that has made our teaching notable has been its solid rootage in Scripture. Make that optional; take it away and who cares what we say about anything?
I read with deep appreciation the paper on the authority of Scripture produced by bishop Paull Spring, and Lutheran CORE. I hope there may still be hope for us.
In Christ,
George Paul Mocko,
Bishop Emeritus,
De, Md. Synod, ELCA
"The issue" for mainline churches? Let me give you a hint, it ain't sexuality.
Shrimp here: I hope the human people who go to Navy Pier for the Church Wide Assembly are prepared for the assault on their emotions being prepared by those who will tearfully insist that the ELCA must stop being so awfully unfair as to deny homosexuals their right to be active sexually and be a pastor of one of our congregations.
What are we talking about here? Sex? Individual rights? No. as it says in this blog's banner, it's about the authority of Scripture. Here's a sermon preached in one of the congregations that left The Episcopal Church. Listen good. You will hear that "only" 100 or so congregations are leaving TEC over the issue. Well, it's not about numbers is it? It's about leaving the faith, isn't it? Don't bring the ELCA to the same place as TEC. Lawsuits, civil war, deciding to leave the church one grew up in....
We live in a time where the air the young people breathe is filled with the spirit of autonomy. There’s a great hesitation among young adults today to say that such and such behavior is wrong for someone else if the someone else doesn’t think it’s wrong. Our culture is becoming more and more hesitant to draw moral boundaries. Even young people who follow Christ are hesitant to draw moral conclusions about others because they’ve grown up in a society that says do you own thing, find your own way, question authority. And so the college student who challenged his mom, the college students who challenge their parents’ interpretation of biblical teaching about sexual morality now, it’s not unusual. And, Christians who just quote the Bible in support of this or that moral position are often accused of either insensitivity or backwardness or of selecting out those passages that fit their own predilections and ignoring others. That’s the setting that we’re living in today.Now, the question is, how do we know what’s right and what’s wrong? And another question is how do we make wise moral decisions? Well, we’re here because we follow Christ. We believe he’s the Son of God who came among us to reveal God, to teach God to us, to teach us the way of God. And so we follow Christ to know right and wrong. We believe he’s entrusted to us the scriptures as a reliable, true, authoritative guide in right thinking and right living. He told us to trust and to heed the Old Testament, and he established the New Testament through the apostles who he promised to guide into the truth as they proclaimed the word. And so the church has always believed what the apostles wrote in 2 Timothy 3. You know the words:All scripture is inspired or breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God [or the woman] may be competent, equipped for every good work.The fundamental reason why the Anglican Communion and other communions as well are being pulled apart is that there’s no longer agreement as to what scriptural authority means. Church people are now accepting and approving ideas and behaviors that the church has consistently seen over the centuries as contrary to biblical teaching: the deity of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, the historical reliability of the resurrection, our responsibility to proclaim Christ to all people, and of course certain standards of moral behavior. All this and more is being questioned and even discouraged by many church people, and so we’re divided over these things, painfully divided. How do we read our Bible to discern what is right and what is wrong? We’re about to enter into a series of talks on Sundays in the summer on the Ten Commandments—God’s moral foundation for all civilization—because we forget how basic and how helpful the Ten Commandments are and what they teach us. They never go out of date. We’ll try to pitch this in a way that the kids will appreciate it as well as adults. But before we get to that today, I want to help you think clearly about how we view the Bible as a whole in its moral teaching. It’s true—as some people accuse us—it’s true. We do accept some passages of Leviticus, for instance, as still binding, and others we reject. Why do we do that? Are we just subjective—that’s what we’re accused of—or is there more to it?
Read the full sermon.
What are we talking about here? Sex? Individual rights? No. as it says in this blog's banner, it's about the authority of Scripture. Here's a sermon preached in one of the congregations that left The Episcopal Church. Listen good. You will hear that "only" 100 or so congregations are leaving TEC over the issue. Well, it's not about numbers is it? It's about leaving the faith, isn't it? Don't bring the ELCA to the same place as TEC. Lawsuits, civil war, deciding to leave the church one grew up in....
We live in a time where the air the young people breathe is filled with the spirit of autonomy. There’s a great hesitation among young adults today to say that such and such behavior is wrong for someone else if the someone else doesn’t think it’s wrong. Our culture is becoming more and more hesitant to draw moral boundaries. Even young people who follow Christ are hesitant to draw moral conclusions about others because they’ve grown up in a society that says do you own thing, find your own way, question authority. And so the college student who challenged his mom, the college students who challenge their parents’ interpretation of biblical teaching about sexual morality now, it’s not unusual. And, Christians who just quote the Bible in support of this or that moral position are often accused of either insensitivity or backwardness or of selecting out those passages that fit their own predilections and ignoring others. That’s the setting that we’re living in today.Now, the question is, how do we know what’s right and what’s wrong? And another question is how do we make wise moral decisions? Well, we’re here because we follow Christ. We believe he’s the Son of God who came among us to reveal God, to teach God to us, to teach us the way of God. And so we follow Christ to know right and wrong. We believe he’s entrusted to us the scriptures as a reliable, true, authoritative guide in right thinking and right living. He told us to trust and to heed the Old Testament, and he established the New Testament through the apostles who he promised to guide into the truth as they proclaimed the word. And so the church has always believed what the apostles wrote in 2 Timothy 3. You know the words:All scripture is inspired or breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God [or the woman] may be competent, equipped for every good work.The fundamental reason why the Anglican Communion and other communions as well are being pulled apart is that there’s no longer agreement as to what scriptural authority means. Church people are now accepting and approving ideas and behaviors that the church has consistently seen over the centuries as contrary to biblical teaching: the deity of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, the historical reliability of the resurrection, our responsibility to proclaim Christ to all people, and of course certain standards of moral behavior. All this and more is being questioned and even discouraged by many church people, and so we’re divided over these things, painfully divided. How do we read our Bible to discern what is right and what is wrong? We’re about to enter into a series of talks on Sundays in the summer on the Ten Commandments—God’s moral foundation for all civilization—because we forget how basic and how helpful the Ten Commandments are and what they teach us. They never go out of date. We’ll try to pitch this in a way that the kids will appreciate it as well as adults. But before we get to that today, I want to help you think clearly about how we view the Bible as a whole in its moral teaching. It’s true—as some people accuse us—it’s true. We do accept some passages of Leviticus, for instance, as still binding, and others we reject. Why do we do that? Are we just subjective—that’s what we’re accused of—or is there more to it?
Read the full sermon.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
And Good Soil sent this to Church Wide Assembly goers:
Good Soil sent me CWA voting folks an 8 page newsletter. One of the pages is called Questions and Answers.
Why not delay any more conversation about the ordination of partnered gay clergy until after the social statement on sexuality has been approved?
The guide Journey Together Faithfully Part 3: Free to Serve the Neighbor, is not intended to offer study resources or guidance to the church regarding homosexuality, blessings of relationship or partnered gay clergy.At CWA 2005 the assembly considered numberous resolutions regarding the recommendations of the Sexuality Task Force. The upshot was a collection of votes which confirmed our desire to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements, stayed the course with intentional ambiguity concerning blessings of same-gender relationships, and said what we don't want relative to ordination but not what we do want. The critical vote of the day was the defeat of a motion to enforce the current policy of exclusion. The recommendation of the Church Council on an exception policy for partnered gay pastors failed to reach a majority by only seven votes.
You should know that many gay, lesbian, and allied voting members were not in favor of the exception policy and voted against it since it would have established extra rules for the qualification of partnered gay clergy as well as a second class of rostered clergy. If we don't change the policy in 2007, the issues will stand before us again at Churchwide 2009 and beyond until the policy is changed. If we do not come to terms with out disagreements regarding homosexuality, we will not be able to pass a social statement of human sexuality which will require a two-thirds majority vote. Meanwhile pastors, like Bradley, stand trial or are pressured to resign their calls. How many gifted pastors must we lose, until the church says enough is enough and the policy fails?
Why all the fuss about the story of just one person?
We are concerned about Bradley--but also about many others. Because of the policies currently in place, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the ELCA have been denied their calling to the ordained ministry. Pastor Schmeling's story is just one of many similar situations occuring since the beginning of the ELCA. See the timeline beginning on page 6 listing the 4 trials the ELCA has conducted, the 12 otherwise qualified seminarians which the ELCA wouldn't approve for ordinations, 7 ELCA rostered leaders that have been defrocked or forced to resign, 3 congregations removed from the ELCA, 7 ELCA congregations which have been disciplined, and 15 Extraordinary Candidacy Project pastors currently serving ELCA and Independent Lutheran Congregations. Ultimately, the current policies impoverish the whole church--all laypersons, all ordained clergy, all servants, all leaders of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Are the policies precluding homosexuals from the ordained ministry of this church part of the ELCA constitution?
No, they are not. In Chapter 7, the constitution gives the standards for ordained ministers which include commitment to Christ; soundness of faith; aptness to preach, teach and witness; educational qualifications; examination; proper call and ordaination; acceptance and adherance to the Confession of Faith; diligence and faithfulness in the exercise of the ministry; and life and conduct above reproach. An ordianed minister shall comply with the constitution of this church. the constitution does not mention homosexuality.
Why aren't the policies included in the constitution?
Those on the first ELCA church Council detemined that policies like Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline for rostered leaders and Vision and Expectations for ministerial candidates should be separated from the constitution, allowing for the use of discretion in their application. The constitution sets the firm boundaries for the denomination. Amendments to the constitution require a two-thirds majority of voting members of the Churchwide Assembly over two consecutive assemblies. the constitution is not easily changed. The first Church Council saw that, over time, situations might occur requiring change in the policy documents; therefore these policies should not rise the authoritative level of the constitution.
Who put the policy in place?
There is a constitutionally prescribed process for the creation of Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectations, the Committee on Appeals presented a draft to the ELCA Church Council which edited it to include the current language precluding practicing homosexuals for the ordained ministry. The Council passed the policy in November 1989. The policiy was never approved by the CWA.For Vision and Expectations, the Division for Ministry in consultation with the Conference of Bishops presented a draft to the ELCA Church Council which was edited to include the phrase, "persons who are homosexual in their self understanding are expected to abstain from Homosexual sexual relationships." The Church Council passed Vision and Expectations in October 1990. The policy was never approved by the CWA.
Must the policies in Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectations comport with the ELCA Constitution?
Yes, they must. Until the Schmeling trial, no one has challenged the constitutionality of the policies excluding partnered gay pastors.
Which entity holds the highest legislative authority in the ELCA?
The Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative authority in the ELCA. The ELCA Church Council has interim authority between CW assemblies.
Can the ELCA CWA change the policies excluding partnered gay clergy?
While the CWA may not change the policies outright, according to Secretary Almen, the assembly may direct the appropriate units of the church to change the policies. Consequently, memorials regarding policy change must be worded carefully to direct the responsible entities within the ELCA structure to make the changes as instructed. Such memorials directing change will require a simple majority pass.
Why not delay any more conversation about the ordination of partnered gay clergy until after the social statement on sexuality has been approved?
The guide Journey Together Faithfully Part 3: Free to Serve the Neighbor, is not intended to offer study resources or guidance to the church regarding homosexuality, blessings of relationship or partnered gay clergy.At CWA 2005 the assembly considered numberous resolutions regarding the recommendations of the Sexuality Task Force. The upshot was a collection of votes which confirmed our desire to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements, stayed the course with intentional ambiguity concerning blessings of same-gender relationships, and said what we don't want relative to ordination but not what we do want. The critical vote of the day was the defeat of a motion to enforce the current policy of exclusion. The recommendation of the Church Council on an exception policy for partnered gay pastors failed to reach a majority by only seven votes.
You should know that many gay, lesbian, and allied voting members were not in favor of the exception policy and voted against it since it would have established extra rules for the qualification of partnered gay clergy as well as a second class of rostered clergy. If we don't change the policy in 2007, the issues will stand before us again at Churchwide 2009 and beyond until the policy is changed. If we do not come to terms with out disagreements regarding homosexuality, we will not be able to pass a social statement of human sexuality which will require a two-thirds majority vote. Meanwhile pastors, like Bradley, stand trial or are pressured to resign their calls. How many gifted pastors must we lose, until the church says enough is enough and the policy fails?
Why all the fuss about the story of just one person?
We are concerned about Bradley--but also about many others. Because of the policies currently in place, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the ELCA have been denied their calling to the ordained ministry. Pastor Schmeling's story is just one of many similar situations occuring since the beginning of the ELCA. See the timeline beginning on page 6 listing the 4 trials the ELCA has conducted, the 12 otherwise qualified seminarians which the ELCA wouldn't approve for ordinations, 7 ELCA rostered leaders that have been defrocked or forced to resign, 3 congregations removed from the ELCA, 7 ELCA congregations which have been disciplined, and 15 Extraordinary Candidacy Project pastors currently serving ELCA and Independent Lutheran Congregations. Ultimately, the current policies impoverish the whole church--all laypersons, all ordained clergy, all servants, all leaders of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Are the policies precluding homosexuals from the ordained ministry of this church part of the ELCA constitution?
No, they are not. In Chapter 7, the constitution gives the standards for ordained ministers which include commitment to Christ; soundness of faith; aptness to preach, teach and witness; educational qualifications; examination; proper call and ordaination; acceptance and adherance to the Confession of Faith; diligence and faithfulness in the exercise of the ministry; and life and conduct above reproach. An ordianed minister shall comply with the constitution of this church. the constitution does not mention homosexuality.
Why aren't the policies included in the constitution?
Those on the first ELCA church Council detemined that policies like Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline for rostered leaders and Vision and Expectations for ministerial candidates should be separated from the constitution, allowing for the use of discretion in their application. The constitution sets the firm boundaries for the denomination. Amendments to the constitution require a two-thirds majority of voting members of the Churchwide Assembly over two consecutive assemblies. the constitution is not easily changed. The first Church Council saw that, over time, situations might occur requiring change in the policy documents; therefore these policies should not rise the authoritative level of the constitution.
Who put the policy in place?
There is a constitutionally prescribed process for the creation of Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectations, the Committee on Appeals presented a draft to the ELCA Church Council which edited it to include the current language precluding practicing homosexuals for the ordained ministry. The Council passed the policy in November 1989. The policiy was never approved by the CWA.For Vision and Expectations, the Division for Ministry in consultation with the Conference of Bishops presented a draft to the ELCA Church Council which was edited to include the phrase, "persons who are homosexual in their self understanding are expected to abstain from Homosexual sexual relationships." The Church Council passed Vision and Expectations in October 1990. The policy was never approved by the CWA.
Must the policies in Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectations comport with the ELCA Constitution?
Yes, they must. Until the Schmeling trial, no one has challenged the constitutionality of the policies excluding partnered gay pastors.
Which entity holds the highest legislative authority in the ELCA?
The Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative authority in the ELCA. The ELCA Church Council has interim authority between CW assemblies.
Can the ELCA CWA change the policies excluding partnered gay clergy?
While the CWA may not change the policies outright, according to Secretary Almen, the assembly may direct the appropriate units of the church to change the policies. Consequently, memorials regarding policy change must be worded carefully to direct the responsible entities within the ELCA structure to make the changes as instructed. Such memorials directing change will require a simple majority pass.
Lesbian Bigamist Lived with Husband and Wife
From This is London:
A mother is facing jail after it was discovered she was married to a man and a woman at the same time. Suzanne Mitchell has appeared in court accused of being the country's first lesbian 'bigamist'. The mother of five admitted making a false statement to the registrar at her civil partnership ceremony by failing to mention she was already married.
Read it all.
A mother is facing jail after it was discovered she was married to a man and a woman at the same time. Suzanne Mitchell has appeared in court accused of being the country's first lesbian 'bigamist'. The mother of five admitted making a false statement to the registrar at her civil partnership ceremony by failing to mention she was already married.
Read it all.
If you are going to the CWA,, you already got this. What do you think?
July 7, 2007
Greetings from Atlanta. My name is Jill Henning and, like you, I am a voting member at the 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August. My husband, Matt, and I are both pastors in the Southeastern Synod. Between being pastors and parenting two children, ages nine and five, we know first hand how busy all of our lives can be. Still, I'm writing to you about a matter of real concern for my family, my synod, and the ELCA.
Before we leave for Chicago, I'd like to tell you about my good friends, the people of St. John Lutheran Church in Atlanta and their pastor, Bradley Schmeling. If you read The Lutheran, you may have seen something about them. St. John's is the oldest Lutheran Church in Atlanta. Pastor Brad is a dear man, an excellent preacher, teacher, evangelist, and spiritual advisor. I would love to have Bradley as my pastor. With the leadership of Prastor Bradley, St. John has grown in its membership and service to the community. The pews are filled--well, except in the summer, just like everywhere else--and the members are learning to park down the street so there's room for their many visitors. What a wonderful problem to have!
Pastor Bradley has been open with the congregation and Bishop Ron Warren about this sexual orientation since before he was called in 2000. The Bishop approved his call and has affirmed his outstanding ministry. Pastor Bradley ever served as my conference dean. The congregation, Matt and I were all thrilled when Bradley announced, in March of last year, that he had found a life-partner in Pastor Daren Easler. However, on August 11th, 2006, the Bishop filed charges against Pastor Bradley for "conduct incompatible with the office of ministry." After nearly a year of legal briefs, a trial, a decision and an appeal, the ELCA Committee on Appeals decided on July 2, 2007, to remove Pastor Bradley from the ELCA clergy roster. The congregation recieved the news with tears and resolve to tell their story.
At the Churchwide Assembly St. John's will be joined by 22 synods of the ELCA, representing 40% of the ELCA's members. They have asked the Churchwide Assembly to eliminate the ELCA's policy of discrimination against ministers in committed same-gender relationships and the congregations that call them. Because the Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative authority in the ELCA, you and I will have some important decisions to make.
To help you prepare for Chicago, enclosed you will find a brief summary of the trial. It includes words from Pastor Bradley himself, his partner, his mom, and the first Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, the Rev. Dr. Herbert Chilstrom. You will also see a timeline that the many congregations and pastors affected by the church's policies of exclusion. It only takes 10 minutes to read, but it carefully asks us to consider, "are we really living together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements?" This is precisely the question that we must answer in August.Thanks for giving me a chance to tell you about these friends of mine. I look forward to seeing you in Chicago!
In Christ,
Jill J. Henning
Pastor,
Trinity Lutheran Church
Lilburn, Georgia
Greetings from Atlanta. My name is Jill Henning and, like you, I am a voting member at the 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August. My husband, Matt, and I are both pastors in the Southeastern Synod. Between being pastors and parenting two children, ages nine and five, we know first hand how busy all of our lives can be. Still, I'm writing to you about a matter of real concern for my family, my synod, and the ELCA.
Before we leave for Chicago, I'd like to tell you about my good friends, the people of St. John Lutheran Church in Atlanta and their pastor, Bradley Schmeling. If you read The Lutheran, you may have seen something about them. St. John's is the oldest Lutheran Church in Atlanta. Pastor Brad is a dear man, an excellent preacher, teacher, evangelist, and spiritual advisor. I would love to have Bradley as my pastor. With the leadership of Prastor Bradley, St. John has grown in its membership and service to the community. The pews are filled--well, except in the summer, just like everywhere else--and the members are learning to park down the street so there's room for their many visitors. What a wonderful problem to have!
Pastor Bradley has been open with the congregation and Bishop Ron Warren about this sexual orientation since before he was called in 2000. The Bishop approved his call and has affirmed his outstanding ministry. Pastor Bradley ever served as my conference dean. The congregation, Matt and I were all thrilled when Bradley announced, in March of last year, that he had found a life-partner in Pastor Daren Easler. However, on August 11th, 2006, the Bishop filed charges against Pastor Bradley for "conduct incompatible with the office of ministry." After nearly a year of legal briefs, a trial, a decision and an appeal, the ELCA Committee on Appeals decided on July 2, 2007, to remove Pastor Bradley from the ELCA clergy roster. The congregation recieved the news with tears and resolve to tell their story.
At the Churchwide Assembly St. John's will be joined by 22 synods of the ELCA, representing 40% of the ELCA's members. They have asked the Churchwide Assembly to eliminate the ELCA's policy of discrimination against ministers in committed same-gender relationships and the congregations that call them. Because the Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative authority in the ELCA, you and I will have some important decisions to make.
To help you prepare for Chicago, enclosed you will find a brief summary of the trial. It includes words from Pastor Bradley himself, his partner, his mom, and the first Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, the Rev. Dr. Herbert Chilstrom. You will also see a timeline that the many congregations and pastors affected by the church's policies of exclusion. It only takes 10 minutes to read, but it carefully asks us to consider, "are we really living together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements?" This is precisely the question that we must answer in August.Thanks for giving me a chance to tell you about these friends of mine. I look forward to seeing you in Chicago!
In Christ,
Jill J. Henning
Pastor,
Trinity Lutheran Church
Lilburn, Georgia
Monday, July 09, 2007
When it comes to gays, 'What would Luther do?'
When it comes to gays, 'What would Luther do?'
Given the way he dealt with issues of his day, the father of the Protestant Reformation very well may have seen the same-sex arguments in a more accepting light.
By Mary Zeiss Stange
In Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female," the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians nearly 2,000 years ago. Upon further reflection, might he have added, "neither straight nor gay?"
The question is nonsensical, of course, because in his time the concept of "sexual orientation" had yet to be invented. And yet modern-day anti-gay church activists love to quote the handful of his statements about "unnatural" sexual acts as definitive — indeed, divinely inspired — condemnations of same-sex love.
The same goes for Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation. Lutheran anti-gay activists routinely, and correctly, point out that Luther had plenty of bad things to say about the scourge of "Sodomites" in 16th century Germany. Like his role model Paul, Luther was a product of the social prejudices of his time and culture: a time when the concepts of homosexuality as an "orientation" or a "lifestyle" were still unheard of. But would the man whose break from Roman Catholicism involved a revolutionary rethinking of the role of sexuality in human relationships take such a negative view of homosexuality today? Most probably, given the way his theological mind worked, he would not.
it continues...
The movement Luther himself spawned presents a more mixed picture. Among the "mainstream" — that is, non-fundamentalist — Protestant churches, only the United Church of Christ maintains an unambiguously pro-gay stance. In most other denominations, the questions of how to deal with gay marriage, as well as with the ordination of non-celibate gays to the ministry, are bubbling more or less continually on ecclesiastical back burners. In at least two churches — the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church USA — those pots have lately threatened to boil over.
In these cases, the issue is not the mere membership of gays in the church, or indeed in the ministry, as long as they remain sexually inactive. But what happens when a gay minister openly enters into a committed relationship, as did the Rev. Bradley Schmeling of St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta and Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire?
In February, Schmeling was notified that a disciplinary committee had voted to expel him from the clergy. (On Thursday, he was removed from the denomination's list of approved ministers.) Also in February, the worldwide Anglican Communion issued what amounted to an ultimatum to the Episcopal Church, threatening negative "consequences" should it consecrate another openly gay bishop. At stake in both cases is the question not simply of the ordination of gays and lesbians, but also of same-sex marriage: In effect, because these clergy cannot marry in their respective denominations, their openly committed same-sex relationships amount, for their critics, to "living in sin." Writing for the online magazine Blogcritics in December, Richard Rothstein likened the struggle between pro- and anti-gay factions in the churches to "a Second Protestant Reformation."
He was onto something important.
The New Testament trump card
In the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (a conciliatory statement of faith intended to unite Lutherans with other Protestants), Luther publicly agreed with other reformers of his day that biblical references that depart from New Testament inclusiveness — abstaining from eating pork, for example, or requiring male circumcision — not only can but should be set aside. A 21st century Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against "sodomy" — shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own — should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the "priesthood of all believers."
The American church that bears his name will have an opportunity to revisit the question when its Churchwide Assembly (the ELCA's highest legislative body) convenes Aug. 6-12. Schmeling may yet get a reprieve, should the church revisit what the disciplinary board itself called "bad policy" regarding sexually active gay pastors. The ELCA has until Aug. 15 to act on his case.
Meanwhile, The Episcopal Church USA has until the end of September to respond to the Anglican Communion's ultimatum. The American bishops have, so far, roundly repudiated the pressure coming from Canterbury. The extent of the potential rift remains to be seen.
One thing seems clear, however. In working through these issues in the months to come, Protestants in both American denominations would best begin by asking, "What would Luther do?"
Mary Zeiss Stange is a professor of women's studies and religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
More at: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/when-it-comes-t.html
Given the way he dealt with issues of his day, the father of the Protestant Reformation very well may have seen the same-sex arguments in a more accepting light.
By Mary Zeiss Stange
In Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female," the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians nearly 2,000 years ago. Upon further reflection, might he have added, "neither straight nor gay?"
The question is nonsensical, of course, because in his time the concept of "sexual orientation" had yet to be invented. And yet modern-day anti-gay church activists love to quote the handful of his statements about "unnatural" sexual acts as definitive — indeed, divinely inspired — condemnations of same-sex love.
The same goes for Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation. Lutheran anti-gay activists routinely, and correctly, point out that Luther had plenty of bad things to say about the scourge of "Sodomites" in 16th century Germany. Like his role model Paul, Luther was a product of the social prejudices of his time and culture: a time when the concepts of homosexuality as an "orientation" or a "lifestyle" were still unheard of. But would the man whose break from Roman Catholicism involved a revolutionary rethinking of the role of sexuality in human relationships take such a negative view of homosexuality today? Most probably, given the way his theological mind worked, he would not.
it continues...
The movement Luther himself spawned presents a more mixed picture. Among the "mainstream" — that is, non-fundamentalist — Protestant churches, only the United Church of Christ maintains an unambiguously pro-gay stance. In most other denominations, the questions of how to deal with gay marriage, as well as with the ordination of non-celibate gays to the ministry, are bubbling more or less continually on ecclesiastical back burners. In at least two churches — the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church USA — those pots have lately threatened to boil over.
In these cases, the issue is not the mere membership of gays in the church, or indeed in the ministry, as long as they remain sexually inactive. But what happens when a gay minister openly enters into a committed relationship, as did the Rev. Bradley Schmeling of St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta and Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire?
In February, Schmeling was notified that a disciplinary committee had voted to expel him from the clergy. (On Thursday, he was removed from the denomination's list of approved ministers.) Also in February, the worldwide Anglican Communion issued what amounted to an ultimatum to the Episcopal Church, threatening negative "consequences" should it consecrate another openly gay bishop. At stake in both cases is the question not simply of the ordination of gays and lesbians, but also of same-sex marriage: In effect, because these clergy cannot marry in their respective denominations, their openly committed same-sex relationships amount, for their critics, to "living in sin." Writing for the online magazine Blogcritics in December, Richard Rothstein likened the struggle between pro- and anti-gay factions in the churches to "a Second Protestant Reformation."
He was onto something important.
The New Testament trump card
In the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (a conciliatory statement of faith intended to unite Lutherans with other Protestants), Luther publicly agreed with other reformers of his day that biblical references that depart from New Testament inclusiveness — abstaining from eating pork, for example, or requiring male circumcision — not only can but should be set aside. A 21st century Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against "sodomy" — shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own — should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the "priesthood of all believers."
The American church that bears his name will have an opportunity to revisit the question when its Churchwide Assembly (the ELCA's highest legislative body) convenes Aug. 6-12. Schmeling may yet get a reprieve, should the church revisit what the disciplinary board itself called "bad policy" regarding sexually active gay pastors. The ELCA has until Aug. 15 to act on his case.
Meanwhile, The Episcopal Church USA has until the end of September to respond to the Anglican Communion's ultimatum. The American bishops have, so far, roundly repudiated the pressure coming from Canterbury. The extent of the potential rift remains to be seen.
One thing seems clear, however. In working through these issues in the months to come, Protestants in both American denominations would best begin by asking, "What would Luther do?"
Mary Zeiss Stange is a professor of women's studies and religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
More at: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/when-it-comes-t.html
Sunday, July 08, 2007
"The Network"
We all know what an "Aha" moment is. Well, what would you call it when you have one of those but it is more like a "Oh...oh...so that's why that is the way that is" type of moment. I just had one. I went to the www.goodsoil.org site to see what's going on and clicked on the links of their partners. Probably everyone in the ELCA besides me knew that there was an organization whose sole goal was to bring the ELCA into full inclusion of gays. Looking at the list of members (a rather long list) there are quite a few leaders there. There are professors who wrote for the sexuality study. A former PB of course. The group has 1089 names, many of them clergy.
Actually, I've probably heard of this group but forgot: Lutheran Network for Inclusive Vision. It is no conspiracy. It's a free country and so it seems a free church. Take a look at their mission statement. It's very interesting:
Affirmations
Below are three "Affirmations" of those who have publicly placed themselves on The Network Roster.
- We affirm the authority of God's Word for our faith and life. We acknowledge that our church has, on the basis of scriptural interpretation, condemned all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. However, we believe recent and respected scholarship requires other interpretations of certain biblical passages, particularly as they apply to committed and faithful same-gender relationships.
- We believe it is time for ELCA clergy, AIMS and church members to challenge the policies and practices which continue to bring so much pain to the gay and lesbian members of our church and their families, and deprives the church of gifted professionals.
- We further affirm the vision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in which the Gospel of God's grace in Christ is central. It is that Gospel which empowers us to move beyond estrangement to mutual trust, consolation, and cooperation in the life and ministry of the church. We are deeply concerned when the only choice given to our gay and lesbian pastors, AIMS, diaconal ministers, deaconesses and seminarians is to be silent or to leave the church. The continued expulsion of gay and lesbian professionals who are in stable, committed relationships deprives the church of positive role models for its gay and lesbian members, drives them out of the church and leaves them bereft of sacraments, pastoral care and Christian community.
From their latest newsletter (on the Schmeling decision and the resolutions):
So then, where do we go from here? In addition to working toward changing the policy by passing memorials to the Churchwide Assembly and working for Synod Councils to pass requeststo the Church Council to make the changes, there is oneother avenue. When you look at the templates referenced earlier,you will see a third suggestion, “Endorsing Restraint.” Passage of this would send a message that, while a synod mightnot be ready for total change in this policy, it might be willing togive space and discretion to Bishops to deal with situations such as Pastor Schmeling’s in ways other than removal from the roster. One thing is clear; we cannot sit back and catch our breath. We need to press for change at every turn. We must also support those who are in a position to effect change and give congregations such as St. John’s, Atlanta, and Pastor Schmeling, space to do the ministry to which they have been called.
http://www.inclusivenet.com/newsletter/2007-lent.pdf
You might want to bookmark them and go back to see if they come out with a pre-assembly newsletter.
Here is an article written by the person responsible for the area of the New Testament and what it says about "the issue" back in Journey Together Faithfully:
Texts and Meanings: Why Do Scholars Differ about the Meaning of Texts on Sexuality? Arland J. Hultgren of Luther Seminary writes an outstanding piece on the bible and homosexuality. Arland J. Hultgren is the Asher O. and Carrie Nasby Professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. His article below was written for the Lent, 2007 issue of the newsletter of The Network.
Biblical scholars differ widely in the interpretation of texts having to do with sexuality issues, and that is particularly the case in regard to those that are brought into discussions concerning homosexuality. To be sure, there is no end to the list of texts that can be brought into the discussion. The list could include the creation narratives in Genesis and still other texts that have to do with males and females, sexual expression, marriage, and so on. But there are a select few that are almost always brought to the table, including Genesis 19:1-11; Judges 19:16-30; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10. Scholars who share the same confessional or denominational heritage and use virtually the same methods of interpretation can come up with quite different conclusions concerning the meaning of the texts and their applicability to issues facing the church and society.It is sometimes suggested that the line of demarcation between scholars is any one of the following (or a combination of them): (1) the one group has a high view of Scripture and its authority; the other does not; (2) the one group is conservative; the other is liberal; (3) the one group is counter-cultural; the other has capitulated to the culture; (4) the one group is open to hearing what the texts actually say; the other consists of people who have their minds made up before dealing with the texts; (5) the one is committed to traditional theological norms (Scripture, creeds, and confessions); the other is not; and (6) the one group honors the integrity of theological work; the other has been affected by experiences that override theology, such as having been moved emotionally by hearing the testimony of gays or lesbians, or perhaps having gay or lesbian relatives and/or friends.In actual fact, however, the lines of demarcation listed here can be set aside. The polarizations that they cause are often inaccurate caricatures; they are unfortunate, unnecessary, and not conducive to discourse or mutual understanding. In their place I have found that there are other, more basic factors that enter into the discussion among scholars concerning the issues around homosexuality and the Scriptures. Four are of particular importance.
The rest is here.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
St. John's Lutheran Church Press Release
Pastor Bradley Schmeling Removed from Clergy Roster Immediately by Action of Appeals Committee
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Committee on Appeals has denied the appeal of Pastor Bradley Schmeling and removed him from the clergy roster, effective July 2, 2007.
The Committee on Appeals said that Bradley’s removal was effective immediately with this decision, since the Discipline Hearing Committee (DHC) had no authority to delay the implementation of its February decision further than the end of the appeals process. The DHC had delayed the removal from the clergy roster until August 15. And, the Committee on Appeals said that the DHC had exceeded its authority by suggesting that the policy might violate the ELCA constitution, and further by suggesting ways to change the policy.
This decision by the Committee on Appeals will be reported to the 2007 Churchwide Assembly, which will, as they said, provide “the opportunity for revision of the Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions by the Churchwide Assembly or of the other documents governing the discipline process by the Church Council, if such be the will of this church.”
Pastor Bradley said, “I’m deeply disappointed by the decision, although I’m not surprised. Change has always proven difficult for the church. I continue to hope that the church will be centered in God’s message of love, compassion, and justice, rather than in the enforcement of discriminatory policies. The church can only resist the Holy Spirit for so long. In the meantime, I plan to continue to follow my call in ministry at St. John’s and to pray for the day when all God’s children are equally welcomed into the Lutheran church.”
John Ballew, president of St. John’s congregation, said, “St. John’s is going to stay St. John’s. Church service this and every Sunday is at 10:30 am. We are going to go to Churchwide Assembly in August, to witness to our ELCA the costs of this decision, based on an absurd policy. This is not just about us and our wonderful pastor; this is about all those called to minister to God’s people, who lead exemplary lives, who provide a model for faithful, loving companionship with each other and with Christ.”
Bradley Schmeling is pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church, Atlanta, Georgia. He was charged in 2006 with a violation of the ELCA policy for living in a committed, loving same-gender relationship with his life-partner, Pastor Darin Easler. The current policy of the ELCA prohibits the service of so-named “practicing homosexuals” from the ministry of the church. An ecclesiastical trial was held in January 2007 – the result of which was the decision of the DHC to remove him from the clergy roster effective August 15.
The DHC also said that its nearly unanimous view was that the policy may violate the constitution of the ELCA, and suggested two paths to remove the policy: through the Committee on Appeals as a judicial matter and through legislation to change the policy at a churchwide assembly, the highest legislative body of the church.
The Hearing Committee also said that, based on its examination of Pastor Bradley and his ministry at St. John’s Lutheran, there was no basis in the ELCA constitution for punishing Pastor Bradley and that his ministry was excellent.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Committee on Appeals has denied the appeal of Pastor Bradley Schmeling and removed him from the clergy roster, effective July 2, 2007.
The Committee on Appeals said that Bradley’s removal was effective immediately with this decision, since the Discipline Hearing Committee (DHC) had no authority to delay the implementation of its February decision further than the end of the appeals process. The DHC had delayed the removal from the clergy roster until August 15. And, the Committee on Appeals said that the DHC had exceeded its authority by suggesting that the policy might violate the ELCA constitution, and further by suggesting ways to change the policy.
This decision by the Committee on Appeals will be reported to the 2007 Churchwide Assembly, which will, as they said, provide “the opportunity for revision of the Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions by the Churchwide Assembly or of the other documents governing the discipline process by the Church Council, if such be the will of this church.”
Pastor Bradley said, “I’m deeply disappointed by the decision, although I’m not surprised. Change has always proven difficult for the church. I continue to hope that the church will be centered in God’s message of love, compassion, and justice, rather than in the enforcement of discriminatory policies. The church can only resist the Holy Spirit for so long. In the meantime, I plan to continue to follow my call in ministry at St. John’s and to pray for the day when all God’s children are equally welcomed into the Lutheran church.”
John Ballew, president of St. John’s congregation, said, “St. John’s is going to stay St. John’s. Church service this and every Sunday is at 10:30 am. We are going to go to Churchwide Assembly in August, to witness to our ELCA the costs of this decision, based on an absurd policy. This is not just about us and our wonderful pastor; this is about all those called to minister to God’s people, who lead exemplary lives, who provide a model for faithful, loving companionship with each other and with Christ.”
Bradley Schmeling is pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church, Atlanta, Georgia. He was charged in 2006 with a violation of the ELCA policy for living in a committed, loving same-gender relationship with his life-partner, Pastor Darin Easler. The current policy of the ELCA prohibits the service of so-named “practicing homosexuals” from the ministry of the church. An ecclesiastical trial was held in January 2007 – the result of which was the decision of the DHC to remove him from the clergy roster effective August 15.
The DHC also said that its nearly unanimous view was that the policy may violate the constitution of the ELCA, and suggested two paths to remove the policy: through the Committee on Appeals as a judicial matter and through legislation to change the policy at a churchwide assembly, the highest legislative body of the church.
The Hearing Committee also said that, based on its examination of Pastor Bradley and his ministry at St. John’s Lutheran, there was no basis in the ELCA constitution for punishing Pastor Bradley and that his ministry was excellent.
Lutherans Concerned Angry and Determined Following the Removal of Pastor Bradley Schmeling from the ELCA Clergy roster on July 2, 2007
from Lutherans Concerned:
On July 2, 2007, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Committee on Appeals (COA) denied his appeal and removed Pastor Bradley Schmeling from the clergy roster of the ELCA.
Pastor Schmeling had been charged in August 2006 for violating the ELCA policy that forbids LGBT rostered leaders from living in committed same gender relationships of mutuality, fidelity and respect. In January 2007, an ELCA Discipline Hearing Committee (DHC) conducted an ecclesiastical trial that concluded nearly unanimously that there was no reason under the constitution of the ELCA for Pastor Schmeling to be punished. In fact, they commended his ministry at St. John’s Lutheran, Atlanta, Georgia. However, feeling bound by the ELCA policy, the DHC removed him from the clergy roster with an effective date of August 15th this year. The COA action changed the effective date to July 2nd.
The DHC also had said the ELCA policy of discrimination might be in violation of the constitution of the ELCA, and suggested two avenues to change the policy: a judicial appeal to the Committee on Appeals, and a legislative remedy through action by regional judicatories called synods, and by the ELCA churchwide assembly, which is the highest legislative body of the church.
Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, Lutherans Concerned/North America, said of the action by the Committee on Appeals, “We are deeply saddened, angry, and more determined following the artless and callous treatment of Pastor Bradley at the hands of the Committee on Appeals. The decision was delivered by email, no pastoral call was made or human contact given. The Committee actually noted as positive that they limited themselves to the transcripts of the hearing. They never met Pastor Schmeling or the members of St. John’s.
“There are no scriptural precedents for such behavior in Christ’s life. Jesus was moved with compassion and broke the religious laws of his age, time and again meeting and embracing outcasts in their contexts. There are others in the Gospels, the Scribes and the Pharisees who, according to Jesus, kept the letter of the law but neglected the weightier matters of justice and mercy. Jesus goes on to say to the Pharisees, “you blind guides, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Matthew: 23. Pastor Schmeling has been treated by the church like a gnat to be swatted away and forgotten. Christ would not recognize the behavior of the Committee on Appeals, and by default the ELCA in this case, as his own.
“This is what happens when human law becomes an end to itself. The judicial process has proven to be an ecclesiastical dry hole. It started with an unjust, discriminatory policy and decided that it had been rightly and justly executed.
“We now turn to the ELCA churchwide assembly in August seeking the legislative remedy offered by the DHC and confirmed as the only alternative by the COA. The Spirit has moved 22 synods of the ELCA to state in no uncertain terms that the policy of discrimination must be changed. These synods represent a full 40% of the membership of the ELCA. They believe that this matter must come to the floor of the assembly, be debated, and the current policy eliminated leaving a single standard for pastors more fitting to those who follow Christ and Martin Luther.
“The struggle is not over, LGBT Lutherans and their allies both clergy and lay will not relent until justice and mercy prevail.”
About Lutherans Concerned:Lutherans Concerned / North America works for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church and congregations. Lutherans Concerned provides a place of comfort and safety. Lutherans Concerned reaches out and teaches that Christ's message, the Gospel, is for everyone equally. Lutherans Concerned calls for the blessing of committed and covenanted same-gender relationships, and for the ordination of those called to minister.
For further information
Phil Soucy,
Director Communications
703-980-2038
communications@lcna.org
www.lcna.org
On July 2, 2007, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Committee on Appeals (COA) denied his appeal and removed Pastor Bradley Schmeling from the clergy roster of the ELCA.
Pastor Schmeling had been charged in August 2006 for violating the ELCA policy that forbids LGBT rostered leaders from living in committed same gender relationships of mutuality, fidelity and respect. In January 2007, an ELCA Discipline Hearing Committee (DHC) conducted an ecclesiastical trial that concluded nearly unanimously that there was no reason under the constitution of the ELCA for Pastor Schmeling to be punished. In fact, they commended his ministry at St. John’s Lutheran, Atlanta, Georgia. However, feeling bound by the ELCA policy, the DHC removed him from the clergy roster with an effective date of August 15th this year. The COA action changed the effective date to July 2nd.
The DHC also had said the ELCA policy of discrimination might be in violation of the constitution of the ELCA, and suggested two avenues to change the policy: a judicial appeal to the Committee on Appeals, and a legislative remedy through action by regional judicatories called synods, and by the ELCA churchwide assembly, which is the highest legislative body of the church.
Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, Lutherans Concerned/North America, said of the action by the Committee on Appeals, “We are deeply saddened, angry, and more determined following the artless and callous treatment of Pastor Bradley at the hands of the Committee on Appeals. The decision was delivered by email, no pastoral call was made or human contact given. The Committee actually noted as positive that they limited themselves to the transcripts of the hearing. They never met Pastor Schmeling or the members of St. John’s.
“There are no scriptural precedents for such behavior in Christ’s life. Jesus was moved with compassion and broke the religious laws of his age, time and again meeting and embracing outcasts in their contexts. There are others in the Gospels, the Scribes and the Pharisees who, according to Jesus, kept the letter of the law but neglected the weightier matters of justice and mercy. Jesus goes on to say to the Pharisees, “you blind guides, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Matthew: 23. Pastor Schmeling has been treated by the church like a gnat to be swatted away and forgotten. Christ would not recognize the behavior of the Committee on Appeals, and by default the ELCA in this case, as his own.
“This is what happens when human law becomes an end to itself. The judicial process has proven to be an ecclesiastical dry hole. It started with an unjust, discriminatory policy and decided that it had been rightly and justly executed.
“We now turn to the ELCA churchwide assembly in August seeking the legislative remedy offered by the DHC and confirmed as the only alternative by the COA. The Spirit has moved 22 synods of the ELCA to state in no uncertain terms that the policy of discrimination must be changed. These synods represent a full 40% of the membership of the ELCA. They believe that this matter must come to the floor of the assembly, be debated, and the current policy eliminated leaving a single standard for pastors more fitting to those who follow Christ and Martin Luther.
“The struggle is not over, LGBT Lutherans and their allies both clergy and lay will not relent until justice and mercy prevail.”
About Lutherans Concerned:Lutherans Concerned / North America works for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church and congregations. Lutherans Concerned provides a place of comfort and safety. Lutherans Concerned reaches out and teaches that Christ's message, the Gospel, is for everyone equally. Lutherans Concerned calls for the blessing of committed and covenanted same-gender relationships, and for the ordination of those called to minister.
For further information
Phil Soucy,
Director Communications
703-980-2038
communications@lcna.org
www.lcna.org
Strong medicine
You read about it in The Lutheran (rather their misquotes and false mischaracterization of Dr Karl Donfried and his motives). Here is part of his talk, and a link to the rest:
PART 3. The Empowerment of Alien Hermeneutics in the ELCA
What drives the non-Trinitarian, alien hermeneutic that empowers much of the ELCA’s secularist tendencies? Here we need to have a brief but honest conversation about “feminism” and how this secular ideology has infiltrated churches, academic institutions as well as others in the cultural elite.
Precisely because the term “feminism” is so ambiguous and malleable, it is fraught with enormous danger since it may signify one thing to certain audiences (e.g., advocating the just cause of women) yet have a far more sweeping and intentional agenda to others (i.e. the transformation of traditional sexuality). Having devoted 37 of my teaching years to the education of women and having had a hand in educating the first wave of women to go to seminary (one of whom is currently an ELCA bishop and another a seminary president) I stand firmly behind the substantial advances that allow women to contribute their God-given gifts to the benefit of both particular societies as well as to the larger world community. I have been deeply privileged to participate in these dramatic and positive steps forward for women, resulting in an enormous benefit for all in the human family.
Having taught almost four decades at Smith College, the largest women’s college in the US, I have become sensitized to the broader implications of the term “feminism,” both through our graduates (eg., Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, etc.), through my colleagues - particularly in women’s studies, queer studies, philosophy - and by my students. As a result of this intense exposure to feminist thought and practice I have come to realize that, at its core, one must view feminism as an atheistic ideology. Many of its advocates argue that gender roles and identity as well as sexuality, especially heteronormativity, are social constructs that must be questioned and critiqued. Such feminism is often closely aligned with gay, lesbian and transgender studies and many feminists support the transgender movement since it defies the traditional distinction between ‘man’ and ‘woman.’
Further, many feminists argue that justice involves the elimination of diverse structures of authority and power that legitimate male prerogatives; androcentric bias must be eliminated. This frequently results in the encouragement of “egalitarian lifestyles” such as cohabitation, open marriage and other forms of what is referred to as “responsible non-monogamy.” The goal for some is the replacement of the traditional family since marriage is perceived as a form of slavery for women. It is often insisted that every women must be willing to be identified as a lesbian in order to be completely feminist.
The practitioners of feminist ideology frequently use their newly found power within religious establishments to develop new structures of belief that more appropriately cohere with their non-Christian philosophical orientation, including neo-pagan and goddess spirituality. When this feminist ideology attempts to merge with remnants of classical Christian theology, heterodoxy, also known as a theology of inclusion or acceptance, emerge. This very theology of acceptance and inclusion, however, is neither inclusive nor tolerant of those with whom it disagrees.
As a Lutheran Christian I continue to unequivocally support the right of women to use their God-given talents to the fullest and in overcoming all cultural barriers hindering such advancement while simultaneously rejecting the non-Christian philosophical presuppositions that permeate much of the “feminist” movement.
If we had more time at our disposal I would be eager to exchange ideas with you concerning the theological crisis in our seminaries. But for the moment it will suffice to say that since most of our current seminary professors received their graduate training at secular institutions like Harvard or Union, my own alma maters, these alien and feminist ideologies quickly make their way into the life of the church via many of our seminary faculty. With incredible speed Trinitarian hermeneutics are being replaced by an alien hermeneutic that touts secular justice as the new canon within the canon - whatever that ambiguous and slippery term “justice” may mean – a canon that advocates above all the rightness of gay marriage as a key dimension of a theology of acceptance.
I would argue that whether it is part 3 of the Sexuality Study, “Free in Christ to Serve the Neighbor: Lutherans Talk about Human Sexuality”, or Nessan’s 2006 lecture to the Conference of Bishops, “The Authority of Scripture,” both represent an anti-Trinitarian hermeneutic in which a theology of acceptance has been substituted for a theology of redemption. The starting point for both is a vague and secularized view of “justice” which assumes that sexual activity between gay partners is permissible and should be not only acceptable within the Christian Church but also that such partnerships should be officially blessed by the community in Christ. Once these documents are read through the hermeneutical lens of a theology of acceptance and inclusion, driven heavily by atheistic feminism, one begins to understand the unusual selection of Galatians as well as the rationale for what is emphasized, distorted and omitted.
PART 3. The Empowerment of Alien Hermeneutics in the ELCA
What drives the non-Trinitarian, alien hermeneutic that empowers much of the ELCA’s secularist tendencies? Here we need to have a brief but honest conversation about “feminism” and how this secular ideology has infiltrated churches, academic institutions as well as others in the cultural elite.
Precisely because the term “feminism” is so ambiguous and malleable, it is fraught with enormous danger since it may signify one thing to certain audiences (e.g., advocating the just cause of women) yet have a far more sweeping and intentional agenda to others (i.e. the transformation of traditional sexuality). Having devoted 37 of my teaching years to the education of women and having had a hand in educating the first wave of women to go to seminary (one of whom is currently an ELCA bishop and another a seminary president) I stand firmly behind the substantial advances that allow women to contribute their God-given gifts to the benefit of both particular societies as well as to the larger world community. I have been deeply privileged to participate in these dramatic and positive steps forward for women, resulting in an enormous benefit for all in the human family.
Having taught almost four decades at Smith College, the largest women’s college in the US, I have become sensitized to the broader implications of the term “feminism,” both through our graduates (eg., Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, etc.), through my colleagues - particularly in women’s studies, queer studies, philosophy - and by my students. As a result of this intense exposure to feminist thought and practice I have come to realize that, at its core, one must view feminism as an atheistic ideology. Many of its advocates argue that gender roles and identity as well as sexuality, especially heteronormativity, are social constructs that must be questioned and critiqued. Such feminism is often closely aligned with gay, lesbian and transgender studies and many feminists support the transgender movement since it defies the traditional distinction between ‘man’ and ‘woman.’
Further, many feminists argue that justice involves the elimination of diverse structures of authority and power that legitimate male prerogatives; androcentric bias must be eliminated. This frequently results in the encouragement of “egalitarian lifestyles” such as cohabitation, open marriage and other forms of what is referred to as “responsible non-monogamy.” The goal for some is the replacement of the traditional family since marriage is perceived as a form of slavery for women. It is often insisted that every women must be willing to be identified as a lesbian in order to be completely feminist.
The practitioners of feminist ideology frequently use their newly found power within religious establishments to develop new structures of belief that more appropriately cohere with their non-Christian philosophical orientation, including neo-pagan and goddess spirituality. When this feminist ideology attempts to merge with remnants of classical Christian theology, heterodoxy, also known as a theology of inclusion or acceptance, emerge. This very theology of acceptance and inclusion, however, is neither inclusive nor tolerant of those with whom it disagrees.
As a Lutheran Christian I continue to unequivocally support the right of women to use their God-given talents to the fullest and in overcoming all cultural barriers hindering such advancement while simultaneously rejecting the non-Christian philosophical presuppositions that permeate much of the “feminist” movement.
If we had more time at our disposal I would be eager to exchange ideas with you concerning the theological crisis in our seminaries. But for the moment it will suffice to say that since most of our current seminary professors received their graduate training at secular institutions like Harvard or Union, my own alma maters, these alien and feminist ideologies quickly make their way into the life of the church via many of our seminary faculty. With incredible speed Trinitarian hermeneutics are being replaced by an alien hermeneutic that touts secular justice as the new canon within the canon - whatever that ambiguous and slippery term “justice” may mean – a canon that advocates above all the rightness of gay marriage as a key dimension of a theology of acceptance.
I would argue that whether it is part 3 of the Sexuality Study, “Free in Christ to Serve the Neighbor: Lutherans Talk about Human Sexuality”, or Nessan’s 2006 lecture to the Conference of Bishops, “The Authority of Scripture,” both represent an anti-Trinitarian hermeneutic in which a theology of acceptance has been substituted for a theology of redemption. The starting point for both is a vague and secularized view of “justice” which assumes that sexual activity between gay partners is permissible and should be not only acceptable within the Christian Church but also that such partnerships should be officially blessed by the community in Christ. Once these documents are read through the hermeneutical lens of a theology of acceptance and inclusion, driven heavily by atheistic feminism, one begins to understand the unusual selection of Galatians as well as the rationale for what is emphasized, distorted and omitted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...