[1] "What
benefits and drawbacks do you see to the theological moves made in
the draft?" I was asked to respond to this question in this
brief article, and I do so with enthusiasm for the powerful-if
still imperfect-theological framing found in the recent ELCA draft
social statement on human sexuality.
Some Methodological
Reflections: Four Bases for Christian Theological
Ethics
[2] In his classic article, "Context versus Principles:
A Misplaced Debate in Christian Ethics," James M. Gustafson
carefully argues three related points in a masterful survey of
(then) current work in theology.[1]
First, Gustafson points out, the debate between those who begin
from principles and those who begin with context is no longer
fruitful. This is true, secondly, not only because of
significant differences across the divide between the two sides,
but also internal diversity on each side. What each means by
principles or context, and how they go about making their cases,
are different enough to beg the question of how the two sides hold
together. Third, according to Gustafson, any complete
Christian ethics regardless of its starting point will have to
cover (or at least imply a position on) each of the four bases for
Christian moral argument. The four are (1) contextual or
situational analysis, (2) theological affirmations, (3) moral
principles and (4) the nature of the self in Christian
life.
[3] On the side of principles, take for example Paul Ramsey's
work on just war.[2] Paul
Ramsey begins with the principle (3) of noncombatant
immunity. But in thinking through the contemporary usefulness
of this principle (3), he necessarily has to engage the particular
context of contemporary warfare (1). He also moves towards
theological justification (2) for the principle, including natural
law and reason (proportionality) and Scripture (love's defense of
the neighbor in need). He also uses an understanding of love
in Christian life (4) to keep open one's allegiance to principle
(3) since God's love in Christ is a living reality for
Christians. So while Ramsey makes clear that traditional
Christian moral principles ought to guide right conduct of
Christians, he moves through all four bases, explicitly or
implicitly, in making his case.[3]
[4] On the side of context, Joseph Sittler, in a contemporary
restatement of Martin Luther's ethics, begins with the theological
affirmation (2) that the Christian life actualizes our
justification in Christ.[4] We
are, in a sense, shaped by the shape of God's action in the world
in Christ. Sittler then moves to describe the nature of the
Christian life (4) lived out in the concrete circumstances (1) of
the neighbor's everyday life. Sittler indeed argues for something
like principles or commands (3) but claims that because of the
relational connection to Christ and to neighbor, the divine
commands do not generally take propositional form.[5]
[5] By engaging in this methodological exercise, Gustafson
intends to invite those making Christian ethical arguments, and
especially those critical of other sorts of arguments, to leave
their polemics aside.[6] If
one wishes to argue against those who lead with a contextual
approach, one also must take up a critique of their theological and
ethical reasons for the stress on context. Sittler, for
instance, tends to the context of the neighbor exactly for
theological, or one could even say Christological, reasons.
If one wishes to argue against those who lead with a
principle-based approach, one again must ask from what source(s)
are these principles derived, how are they used, and how the moral
agent moves from principle to action. Ramsey, for instance,
begins with principles because of a theological interpretation of
the relation between love and law, and behind these, how God works
in the world.
Considering Early Critiques of
the DSSHS
[6] Such careful reflection helps me to set up some
initial comments regarding the theological moves evident in the
ELCA "Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality" (DSSHS).[7] One
of the first major critiques of the draft claims that the "fatal
flaw" of the statement is its reluctance to "affirm definite
forms," and its posture towards "commandments and law, guiding
principles, and especially towards rules."[8] Lutheran
theologian Robert Benne, author of the critique, suggests that
while the statement's theological and ethical foundations (section
two of DSSHS) affirm the law, "no commandments are mentioned.
No covenantal structures-such as God's gift of marriage to Adam and
Eve-are affirmed."[9] This, in
Gustafson's parlance, would be an attempt to argue from a
"principled approach" against a "contextual" approach.
[7] Another critique of the
DSSHS, admittedly of a different genre than Benne's, comes in the
form of a press release from Lutherans Concerned/North America
(LCNA). While not using Benne's terms regarding a
"fatal flaw," the statement from LCNA claims "considerable
agreement and substantial disagreement" with DSSHS noting it
"continues to discriminate against same-gender
couples." LCNA states that if the church wishes to hold
same-gender relationships to the "same ethical standards as
heterosexual married couples" it ought also to "offer the same
standards of support and benefit." While the LCNA argument is
the same kind of critique as Benne offers, that is, an argument
from a "principled approach" against a "contextual approach", LCNA
and Benne seem to have strong differences on the sort of principle
most relevant to the case. LCNA clearly makes an appeal to
equality and justice for all, a principle embedded in American
jurisprudence, whereas Benne appeals to principles-"such as
commandments and covenantal structures"-derived from
Scripture.
[8] In order to follow
Gustafson's admonition against polemic, we ought to do more than
simply say that DSSHS not starting with a certain sort of
"principled" base is a "fatal flaw" or worthy of "substantial
disagreement." Both Benne and LCNA do say more. Yet in
order to get a bit closer to the inner logic of this document,
rather than complain about its failure to properly lead with a
particular sort of "principle," we ought to ask, says Gustafson,
about how principles are used, and about the theological and
ethical reasons that DSSHS deals with context and principles as it
does, along with the other bases for a sound theological
ethics. Were we to look at the four bases Gustafson outlines
as they are dealt with in DSSHS, we could then see the full
richness of its theological portrayal of a particular approach to
principles, theological affirmations, and the nature of the self in
Christian life. I can now turn briefly to such a four-fold
analysis.
Comments on Theological Moves
in the ELCA Draft Social Statement
[9] Benne worries that DSSHS offers a vacuous notion of
law and discounts commandments. LCNA worries that it deals in
doublespeak, discounting claims for just and equitable
treatment. Yet the document opens with a first sentence
dealing with both: "Invited to answer the question, "Teacher, which
commandment in the law is the greatest?" Jesus answered, "You shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest
commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your
neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the
law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:36-40).[10]
Here we have a very central scripturally derived principle that
gives profound content to the notion of law in Christian life as
well as offering a conception of care for others that runs deeper
than legal conceptions of justice as fairness. There are more
than fifty references to law and an additional 10 to commandment in
DSSHS, much more than I can take account of here. However, it
is striking to see that the drive here is not to the sorts of
natural law principles Benne would like to see nor to the liberal
political principles LCNA would like to see, but to Jesus Christ
and the command of love we only hope to fulfill by God's
grace.[11]
[10] Theological affirmations, then, are what help us make sense
of DSSHS' use of the category "law" and of the category of
'principle' within Christian ethics generally. That the
document begins with Jesus' double command to love God and love the
neighbor signals the larger theological intention of DSSHS to
unfold a Lutheran theological ethic from an understanding of what
God has done in Christ for the sake of the world. In short,
it is an ethic that proposes beginning with God's incarnation in
Christ, who justifies the sinner by grace through faith, calling us
to a life in service to the neighbor in need. Here we have the sort
of theological ethic Gustafson explicates in the work of Joseph
Sittler (and behind him, Martin Luther).[12] From
this theological beginning place, the document unfolds through the
expected loci of sin, grace, the two uses of the law, as well as
justification and vocation as ways of speaking of the bound and
free life of the Christian.[13]
Such theological grounding allows both an affirmation of the body
(contradicting the 'excarnating' tendency in Western Christianity[14]) and the
contextual freedom to respond to the neighbor in the complexity of
circumstances faced by Christians today (countering a perception
that settled principles will be sufficient in changing times[15]).
[11] It ought to be clear from
how DSSHS deals with principles and theological affirmations that
it would place a very high value on being contextually sensitive to
the current societal upheaval generally, and with changes with
regard to sexuality in particular. Indeed, the statement
notes on page one a core question the study seeks to answer is how
to be faithful 'in this time and society" and points out that the
"past six or seven decades have seen immense changes in every
aspect of human life, including human sexuality." Reflecting
this, the document offers a helpful phenomenological portrayal of
the complexity and social character of sexuality, and the multitude
of ways-on account of the pervasive impact of sin, individual and
social-sexuality goes wrong. With so much possible harm and
danger at stake, one might wonder, where might one turn for help
and hope for living well?
[12] In answer to the question of how to live well in the midst
of a changing and complex society, DSSHS offers perhaps its most
helpful contribution to our Church's conversation, and to broader
conversations as well. In addressing the last base of a sound
Christian ethic, that is, the nature of the self in the Christian
life, the document portrays us homo fiducia, or trusting
humans.[16]
Martin Luther describes this as fundamental in his explication of
the first commandment: "We are to fear, love, and trust God above
all things."[17] And "to
have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in that one
with your whole heart."[18] Right trust
is trust in God's promises made in Christ, and such trust not only
marks right relationship with God but also is a fundamental marker
of right relationship between people. Such an understanding
of humans leads to an articulation of the things that make for-and
break-trusting relationships of various sorts, including the
extension (for the first time) to consideration of trust in
'same-gender relationships', something we need to think about much
more openly as now a second state in the USA has made gay marriage
legal (Massachusetts in 2004 and California in
2008).
Conclusion
[13] We are selves who
trust in God and seek to trust and be trustworthy towards one
another. This key view of the self in Christian life helps us
face a dramatically challenging and complex age, especially when we
consider that the trust we seek to offer to others is the same
trust we place in God who in Christ is reconciling all things.
While any number of particular implications of this theological
framing could be argued differently, and in some cases I
would argue differently, I think this robust and vibrant
theological framing of a Lutheran theological ethic offers the
church grounding for engaging in thoughtful and important
deliberation regarding human sexuality today. I, for one, am
grateful for their diligence and wisdom. May we have the
wisdom to think in fresh and faithful ways about the contemporary
challenges before us as the Church of Jesus Christ.
Endnotes
[1]James M. Gustafson, " Context Versus
Principles: A Misplaced Debate in Christian Ethics," Harvard
Theological Review 58:2 (April 1965): 171-202.
[2]Paul Ramsey, War and the Christian
Conscience. Durham: Duke University Press,
1961.
[3]Gustafson, "Context Versus Principles,"
194-195.
[4]Joseph Sittler, The Structure of
Christian Ethics. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana University
Press, 1958.
[5]Gustafson, "Context Versus Principles,"
179-180, cf. also 199-201 discussing Martin Luther's "The Freedom
of the Christian."
[7]One of my irritations with social
statements is the way they mask authorship. Given that we
don't know who wrote the statement, or how committee wrote it, if
it was co-authored, I will cite as author the Task Force for ELCA
Studies on Sexuality, Church in Society. Draft Social
Statement on Human Sexuality. Chicago: Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, 2008.
[10]Task Force, Draft Social Statement
on Human Sexuality, 2.
[11]On the one hand, to follow Benne's lead
would be to give in to a temptation Lutherans have by and large
resisted since the 1960s when, in the preparation for the LCA
statement Sex, Marriage and Family, the task force rejected Carl
Braaten's essentialist theological treatment and turned to Martin
Heinecken for a more relationally and contextually grounded ethic
quite amenable to this new draft statement. For more on this
history, see Christian Scharen, Married in the Sight of
God (Lantham, MD: University Press of America), pp.
68-70. However, on the other hand, the church may not simply
draw on liberal political virtues such as "rights" and "social
contract" since in Christ we are beggars, wholly dependant on God's
mercy, and not in a position to "demand" anything. Our place
in the church flows from claims that, following Sittler's arguments
in the 1950s, this draft statement frames in fundamentally
theological terms. If our lives in Christ take on the shape
of what God in Christ is doing in and for us, we have a very
different starting place from which to make positive arguments
regarding, for instance, the full welcome of queer men and women in
the life of the church. For more on this worry about
progressive arguments grounded in rights talk (which, by the way,
is totally appropriate in so far as love is active for justice in
the civil realm seeking to assure protection under the law in
society) see Christian Scharen, "Experiencing the Body: Sexuality and Conflict
in American Denominations," The Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 57(Spring-Summer 2003): 47-65. Those who hold a
traditionalist position, therefore, are not in my view fostering
'oppression' or trafficking in 'injustice' but rather with faith
and hope seeking to commend what they understand to be the call of
faithful life in Christ. While I disagree with them, it is
very important to disagree on those terms and not falsely confuse
issues and attack where agreement is already in place (say on
churchly welcome of, or civil protection for, our queer brothers
and sisters. While it may be hard to read for some
progressives, a careful reading of Paul Hinlicky's brief
"Recognition, Not Blessing," (Journal of Lutheran Ethics
5: August 2005) shows remarkable common ground albeit without
agreement on the core issue (and I think it
isthe core issue) of queer orientation as
1) variation in or 2) disordering of God's creative
work.
[12]Gustafson, "Context Versus Principles,"
179-180.
[13]See endnote 6 that gives a defense of
this starting point drawing on Luther's discussion of the creed in
the Large Catechism. Against the possible (and in the past,
common) starting point with a doctrine of creation and the
categories of law and order (orders of creation, etc.), Luther
suggests that sin blinds us to God's ways, making us see only "an
angry judge" and our only means to understand God's intention in
creation "through the lens of what God has done for us in becoming
flesh." DSSHS 47.
[14]Charles Taylor, in A Secular
Age, (Cambridge: Harvard, 2007), pp. 613-615 describes the
de facto 'excarnating' effect of the trajectory of what he
calls "Western Reform" and calls for its undoing.
[15]DSSHS, 11. Given the fact that
Lutherans have been struggling over these issues for 50 years, it
seems literally incredible to see a document like the Lutheran CORE
in its "Some Questions and Answers about the ELCA Sexuality
Discussions" document assert over and over the view that we must
"remain faithful to the Scriptures and to the settled Christian
consensus" on sexual ethics. People on various sides of
the tough questions before us as a church seek to be faithful to
the Scriptures, but recognize that our conflicts are exactly the
result of living in unsettled times in which long-held views have
come into question. Their arguments would be more honest and
more helpful to the church were they not to simply assert that
holding to the settled positions of another time can settle our
complex contemporary circumstance. See http://www.lutherancore.org/papers/s-ques-031108.shtml. (accessed May 26,
2008).
[16]This way of putting it recalls Johan
Huizinga's Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in
Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971, original edition
1938).
[17]Martin Luther, "The Small Catechism," in
Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, The Book of Concord
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), p. 351.
[18]Martin Luther, "The Large Catechism," in
Kolb and Wengert, p. 386.
© July 2008
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 8, Issue 7