[1] One can only extend a grateful hand and a word of
appreciation to the Task Force for Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America Studies on Sexuality. Its assignment was daunting,
not to say volatile, and its work exacted long hours. Yet
despite the most conscientious efforts, the Task Force did not
reach consensus on the issues. Nor will its recommendations
satisfy ELCA constituencies. If they satisfy at all, they
will satisfy only begrudgingly, attended by disquiet and
dissatisfaction on every hand.
[2] The Task Force's work has been inordinately difficult
precisely because it isn't about sexuality, at least not simply and
solely. How does our sexual behavior "heal and enlarge
the lives of others?" (Rowan Williams, Archbishop of
Canterbury) How does our sexuality reflect the image of God
in us by desiring the joy of the one we desire? How do we
fight the disordered sexuality rampant in our society-the billion
dollar pornography business, the sexualization of mainline
advertising and the media (sex sells!), voyeurism, spouse abuse,
clergy misconduct, adultery, pedophilia, promiscuity, "hooking up"
for casual sex? How do we honor the mystery and sacredness of
our nature as sexual beings in a society that nurtures
neither?
[3] These were not the Task Force's questions. Nor was
another set, around committed love and right relationship in sexual
partnerships. How do we foster the normative setting of
Christian marriage "as the creation of a monogamous community where
individuality and mutuality are linked together across time and
space with the intention of permanence?" (Jack Stotts) And
how do we defend this union against real threats to it: poverty;
partners who must work two fulltime jobs, with too little time for
one another and any children in the home; a consumerist culture
that prizes materialism over sanctity, solitude, and mystery, even
in close personal relationships; manipulative and non-mutual
patterns of relationships; and insufficient community, so that all
the charged electricity of human relationships runs on too few
circuits, erupting now and again in domestic violence, or quietly
settling into depression, or inching step-by-step into drug and
alcohol addiction? How, in short, do we reform social
realities that deeply affect intimate interpersonal well-being?
[4] None of these questions do what the Task Force was mandated
to do: abstract and isolate same-sex love from its reality as a
sub-set of human sexual expression. Nor were any of these
questions the questions of the Task Force this time, though they
may well belong to its comprehensive report scheduled for the 2007
Churchwide Assembly. Their work this time was to wade into
other deep waters, troubled waters that issues of church sex always
head into.
[5] Such troubling issues may not be immediately identified with
sexuality, however. So it may be helpful, even before
reading the Task Force Report, to recognize that since the 2nd
century after Jesus, church discussions of sexuality have always
been about two matters: church order and authority, and social
order and authority. Inevitably this makes a mysterious
subject-our sexuality-a highly contested one.
[6] It is certainly no different this time. Sexual
expression, whether "hetero" or "homo," is not about the privacy
and free choice of individuals, even in a culture that prizes
these. It is about social order and its moral
boundaries. What's in and what's out, as marked by what
behavior? Who belongs to the norm, and who is "other" in ways
that violate the norm? What do the culture's purity codes
deem acceptable and what do they deem "dirty" and beyond the
pale? Answers to such questions, whether the questions are as
open as day or carefully couched, lurk in the background and sit
deep in the psyche. We ought not be surprised, then, at the
irony of citizens who prize individual choice and responsibility,
and who complain about the intrusive role of the federal government
into their lives, campaigning for nothing less than a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as only and forever
heterosexual, by law. Profound concerns about social and
moral order are at work here. And they are unrelentingly,
unforgivingly, public.
[7] ELCA sexuality debates, too, are the culture-and-morality
wars in choir robes and clergy collars. That does not make
them insignificant, of course, and certainly not insincere!
Nor does it mean they don't have their own distinctive character
and importance as vital church issues. Contested social order
issues invariably become critical church authority issues as
well.
[8] Take questions of ordination, celebrating the sacraments,
performing marriages and blessing unions. Take even ascending
the pulpit and teaching confirmation. These sound
quintessentially churchy. But dare women do such
things? Not in most Lutheran Churches until recently, and not
in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod today. And-this is the
point-not apart from society's re-negotiation of long-standing
mores and mandates about men's and women's roles. Dare
priests break the centuries-old vow of celibacy and marry?
Absolutely not, at least not until the Reformation. And not
then, either, in the majority church. And even when
Luther's protest against celibacy and his case for the goodness of
God's gift of sexuality took hold in some quarters, it was not
because these electric arguments turned solely on the free,
conscientious practice of committed Christian individuals in
love. They were about society's mores, expectations, and laws
and church mores, expectations, and laws. Dare baptized
Christians who were slaves sit in the same pews with baptized
Christians who were slaveholders? No, not until long,
sometimes deadly, struggles over slavery and the social order had
taken place-and taken lives. Thus are social order issues and
their negotiation-slavery, the place and role of women and men, and
sexual conduct-church order issues as well, with visceral responses
and unsettling consequences part of the public
exchange. Not least, re-readings of Scripture, critical
reassessment of traditions, and renewed examination of conscience
were also part of the charged exchange.
[9] Now the Task Force has entered these thickets. One can
only be grateful that they have taken on with integrity, care, and
transparency what we all must deliberate as the body politic of
Christ.
[10] Their basic recommendation is "keep talking, and do so in
the spirit and manner we have as a Task Force." The
overriding concern here is clear. It is church unity, and its
translation is the following. Wherever you stand and whomever
you stand with, find a way to keep the passionately contested
issues of same-sex unions and the ordination of "practicing"
homosexual persons from becoming church-dividing issues. Find
a way for ELCA members to minister together despite deep
disagreements over church order. Find a way for a church of
divided mind to remain intact, even though conscience-bound
convictions will be compromised. Keep talking, and stay
together as the ELCA.
[11] "For the sake of peace" is the phrase that captures all
this best. It is only used once in the report, by my count,
bringing to a close the sentence about both meting out and
receiving church disciplinary actions against those who, in good
conscience, cannot accept present ELCA restrictions. "If
discipline results in the face of conscience-bound disobedience, it
should be carried out graciously and with humility and accepted in
the same spirit for the sake of peace." While that sentence
is from a dissenting opinion, and not the Task Force's
recommendations, "For the Sake of Peace" nonetheless might have
titled the whole document, and titled it well. It is the goal
of "the pastoral approach" and "pastoral care" the Task Force
commends repeatedly as the heart and soul of its advice.
[12] But there are problems. If peace is attained, it, and
not only consciences, will be seriously compromised.
[13] Not least, a serious contradiction rests at the center of
the report. See, for example, one of the bolded lines:
"We are and remain a welcoming church in which all are
invited to participate fully in the life of our
congregations."
[14] Because it listened with great respect and care to all
persons and points of view, the Task Force is clear that "a
welcoming church" means many things, some incompatible one others.
"Some congregations and pastors accept gay and lesbian people
without judgment, entrust them with leadership roles, and will
bless their relationships with congregational support. Other
congregations and pastors are accepting in the spirit of the gospel
but not with total approval. Still others are welcoming in
terms of pastoral care for these sinners who are encouraged to
repent, mend their ways, and urged, in some cases, to seek
reparative therapy."
[15] The key term in that bolded sentence is not "welcoming,"
however. It is "to participate fully." ELCA identity
and ministry centers in "the life-giving and healing power of Word
and Sacrament," as the report says. Word and Sacrament in
turn mean the presence of an ordained ministry set-apart in acts of
high liturgical drama that come only at the end of a long education
and considerable scrutiny. Only clergy may consecrate
the bread and wine, and baptize, under normal circumstances.
They also mount the pulpit to proclaim the Word and stand
front-and-center before the altar to perform marriages. The
full "life of our congregations" does not, and indeed cannot, exist
without this ordained leadership.
[16] The point is that when baptized Christians answering the
call of God to ministry of Word and Sacrament are
categorically excluded (on the basis of gender, for
example), it cannot be said that members of this category (women)
are being graciously invited to "participate fully in the life of
our congregations." "To participate fully" must of needs
include the possibility of answering the Holy Spirit's call to Word
and Sacrament ministry.
[17] Let's put it in the form of a question: if baptized
Christians in good standing and answering the call of God are
categorically prohibited from Word and Sacrament ministries because
they are gay or lesbian Lutherans, what can it possibly mean to say
that they "are invited to participate fully in the life of our
congregations"? They are not, and the Task Force should say
so. Full participation not in the picture here, given a
church identity centered in Word and Sacrament. What is more,
the exclusion is somewhere near that Word and Sacrament center, as
women who fought for ordination in Lutheran churches know.
Indeed, until full participation includes the possibility of
answering God's call to ordained ministry, is ours even "a
welcoming church?" Is it truly a welcoming church if it only
begrudgingly makes space for baptized gay and lesbian Christian
leadership, as exceptions to the "real" (heterosexual) norm?
Not least, is ours "a welcoming church" if the exception provided
for ordination is a requirement that gay and lesbian Lutherans
commit to celibacy, with no provision allowed them for a committed
partnership in marriage (the only acceptable context for healthy
sexuality and family life, according to ELCA standards
themselves)? The Task Force should be God-honest about all
this. It should say that regretfully, and for the sake of
peace, it must stand by the official policy of discrimination of
the ELCA. It should say that, at least for the time being,
"for the sake of peace" trumps "for the sake of justice" and they
do not kiss.
[18] The most serious compromise in the efforts "for the sake of
peace," however, is the absence of the spirit and courage of a
church of the Reformation. Ecclesia reformata semper
reformanda - "the reformed church ever in need of reformation"
- is not the strong sense of this ELCA effort, at least not in any
apparent way. The report is cautious rather than emboldened
in the manner of Luther, who was utterly expectant that the living,
active Word of God that suffuses all creation can and might bring
us all to a new place as a church ever in need of reform.
[19] The great theme of the Reformation is the bold, serving
freedom of forgiven and forgiving sinners. The key line from
Galatians, Luther's favorite letter, is: "for freedom Christ has
set us free." (5:1; 5:13) This Pauline summation of the
gospel of Christ and the Christian life itself stands behind
Luther's own famous line that we quote so often as a matter of
humor only: "Sin boldly, but believe in Christ-and rejoice-more
boldly still!" Every phrase of that sentence can be parsed as
quintessential reforming-church-in-need-of-reform. Yet the
daring, the venturesomeness, and the creativity that mark this
joyful dynamic of Reformation freedom seem hedged about on every
side in the Task Force report. Where is the spirit of the
"protest-ants" who urged believers to reread the Scriptures and
tradition through different lenses and write new confessions that
protesting Christians would stake their lives on? Where is
the spirit that encouraged clergy to leave behind some of the vows
of their ordination (celibacy, in this case), scholars to render
the Scriptures such that the simplest reader might discover the
renewing power of the Word, and the laity to take responsibility
for their lives, rituals, neighbors, theology, and
conscience? Where is Luther's free, even playful, rendering
of biblical texts or the radical revisioning of his favorite
theologian, Paul? Where is Paul's transgression of cherished
traditions in the name of a God who, in Jesus Christ, is doing a
new thing? "Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is
nothing; the only thing that counts is new creation!" (Gal.
6:15)
[20] Surely some of this spirit is present in the Task Force's
basic recommendation: "keep talking, together." Yet, it is
"keep talking" in the service of church unity above all. ELCA
unity is the controlling value, perhaps even the absolute value, in
that all considerations on all sides must be subordinate to this
one. It is this, rather than "keep talking" as the way the
Holy Spirit might lead us to a place we've never been before, via
metanoia (knowing and seeing differently, that we might
live differently. Ro. 12:2). It is "keep talking" as
the way to respect and understand one another better, in a common
communion. But it is not "keep talking," and it is not
pastoral care," as the great venture of striving together, under
bold leadership, for a church "as just and generous as God's
grace." (Covenant Network)
[21] A reforming church in need of reform will not have the same
tasks in its time and place as Luther did, to be sure.
(Luther said exactly that about his own time and place, in contrast
with others.) Nor will it face the same issues and
contemplate the same answers. Luther did not have to ask, as
we do, whether gay and lesbian sexual orientation is creation that
is not inherently good but instead inherently sinful. Science
today, and many conventional assumptions, don't tally in the same
way Luther's assumptions and science did, or Paul's.
Yet Reformation was and is a dynamic more than a
deposit, though it is both. Its manner of
theology was in keeping with Joseph Sittler's: "By
theology we mean not only a having but a doing - not only an
accumulated tradition, but a present task which must be done on the
playing field of each generation in actual life." (Sittler,
65) Thus the lead question for a Reformation church is this
one: what is the Gospel and the Law for this present
age? Or, in Bonhoeffer's version, "who is Jesus Christ
for us today?" Our specific questions thus become
these. What recommendations before the Assemblies of 2005 and
2007 push Jesus Christ to the fore among us, in ways that make his
radical challenges clear to us? What helps create, in and for
this time and place, an ELCA as just and generous as God's
grace? Where do justification by grace and justice intersect,
to reform a Reformation church?
[22] The Reformers were bold in their reading of
Scripture. They were confident that the ancient texts might
give yet more light when a receptive community reads them afresh in
light of a changed and changing world. Scripture as the Word
of God might be read and re-read so that the ways past Christian
practice and past interpretation of Scripture obscured, distorted
or undermined the good news of God's love for all might themselves
be exposed and another way made available. (Moe-Lobeda,
167.) The new power, even a new Word, was the faithful
community's experience. (This sometimes came by reading the
Bible against itself, including Paul against Paul, in light of the
spirit, the way, and the continuing presence of Jesus
Christ.)
[23] Not that this has been Reformation experience and
confidence alone. Believers at other times have also heard a
new Word and experienced new power. Recall the social
order/church order issues above. Here, too, a new
interpretation of Scripture and tradition, even a newly-formed
conscience, was needed and discovered.
[24] When slavery, for example, was no longer securely a part of
the social, moral and legal order, an interpretation of Scripture
and tradition different from the Bible's steady support of slavery
and eighteen centuries of practice of it among Christians had to be
confronted and wrestled to the ground. A non-slaving
Gospel had to work its way in church and society, and
did.
[25] If women, to cite a second example, are no longer legally,
morally, and socially the property of male-headed households, but
are co-equal with men, and if they, too, might be called as clergy
in full standing in a welcoming church, an interpretation of
Scripture and tradition different from the Bible's assumptions
about women (and family), together with Christian tradition's
dominant practices in most every land, had to be wrested from these
same, solid sources. A non-discriminating
Gospel respectful of gender equality had find its way among
people of faith and be proclaimed.
[26] So, too, cases of divorce, or cases of same-sex unions and
the ordination of "practicing" gay and lesbian Christians as clergy
in good standing, fully participating in the life of their
congregations. Neither the Bible nor tradition in its
dominant streams of interpretation and practice support any of
these. Some other rendering of the Good News message of both
Scripture and dominant practice must be grappled with "for us
today," if baptized Christians who are divorced, or who are gay or
lesbian, are to celebrate the sacraments. Or be blessed in
their own marriages (even sometimes, remarriages). Or have
their own consciences released from tragic conflicts (Do I, as a
person in a committed love relationship, answer the Holy Spirit's
call to ministry or do I abide by ELCA Visions and
Expectations? Do I seek out a truly welcoming church
elsewhere or do I remain as "other" and "exception" in this
one?).
[27] In sum, the Task Force recognizes full well that ELCA
divisions go very deep. This church embodies and expresses the deep
divisions in society. At the same time, the Task Force
recognizes that, because we are church, we must deliberate same-sex
unions and the ordination of baptized gay and lesbian Christians
biblically, theologically, and with a view to Christian conscience,
just as other church forums at other times had to deliberate
slavery, the ordination of women, and divorce with a view to these
same moral authorities. (Incidentally, it bears remembering
that the first two of these-slavery and women's ordination-were
literally church-dividing. So was apartheid. And so was
the Reformation itself; that's the reason we're here as
Lutherans.) In the end the Task Force delivered a careful,
good faith set of recommendations "for the sake of peace."
And that may even turn out to be the next right step,
assuming church unity and current church order as the
proper controlling value.
[28] But the Task Force missed yet another chance to be
Lutheran. Not Lutheran as ELCA culture-the Task Force has
faithfully reflected ELCA Lutheranism as a culture, and treated it
respectfully and judiciously; but Lutheran as a Spirit-braced
reform movement in and for the church catholic, a movement taking
on the hard issues with the joy, humility, and bold freedom of
forgiven and forgiving sinners. A reforming church in need of
reform thus remains missing in action, and we are once again
saddled with Bonhoeffer's despondent question: "Must it be that
Christendom, which began so revolutionary, is now conservative for
all time? That every new movement must break ground without
the Church, that the Church always comprehends twenty years later
what has actually happened?" (Bonhoeffer, 446.) Regrettably,
another chance to be Lutheran must wait upon another time.
2007?
Sources
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works,
Volume 11: 446.
Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia D. Healing in a Broken World:
Globalization and God, 167.
Sittler, Joseph. Gravity and Grace: Reflections and
Provocations, 65.
Stotts, Jack, in The Covenant Connection: A Newsletter of the
Covenant Network of Presbyterians.