[1] As a draft
teaching document for the ELCA, the document provides scant and
occasional reference to classical and past Lutheran theological
construals of human sexuality, especially in relation to
'homosexuality'. The only explicit reference in the body of
the text is the statement that "[a]t this particular point in
history, this church confesses with regret the way in which
Lutheran historical teachings concerning homosexuality sometimes
have been used to tear apart families with gay or lesbian members"
(p. 24). While not denying the abuse of such Lutheran
historical teachings and the need for confession with regret, the
statement as such invites further questions. Most
importantly, one would like to know what were those "historical
teachings." Except for the brief reference to "orders of creation"
as a theological category "sometimes employed … as their
primary framework" - "often used in tandem with a static biological
understanding of "natural law" " in the nineteenth century and
later on p. 47 n. 6, the document never attempts to explicate
a recounting of those past teachings. To those unacquainted
with the history of past Lutheran teachings, this scant reference
to Lutheran discussions arising in the nineteenth century could
give rise to possibly misleading impressions. In addition,
questions would arise as to the character of the systematic
theological construals/frameworks informing those past Lutheran
teachings (including statements on sexuality by the predecessor
bodies to the ELCA) that understood and judged 'homosexuality' as
such to be a sin.
[2] The draft
of "[t]his social statement addresses the question:
What does it mean for us as sexual creatures to love our neighbors
as ourselves and thus fulfill God's law of love in this time and
society?" (p.2). It would appear that an explication of this
question and an attempt to answer it would need to attend to three
elements of the question and their interrelationship:
creation, law, and love.
[3] Yet, as a
teaching document, its order of progression, surprisingly, puts the
topics of creation and law in a subordinate position.
"…, Section II contains important introductory material
designed to explain how Lutherans approach ethics in the light of
God's incarnation and our hope in God who justifies us in
Christ. Only after having discussed these fundamentals does
the statement address the subject at hand. Section III
describes God's gift of sexuality in creation (p. 3). The
document contends that the theological and ethical foundations for
understanding human sexuality are the foundational convictions of
incarnation and justification. It "professes that the Triune
God accepts and redeems humankind and reconciles the creation in
Christ. This belief grounds [emphasis added] the
affirmation that God has lovingly created all humans as sexual -
and therefore relational - beings" (p. 3). In Endnote 6, it
is stated that "[j]ustification and incarnation provide the
theological framework for this discussion of human sexuality.
This may surprise some, but because sin has intervened, Christians
cannot ground [emphasis added] their understanding of
sexuality in nature or creation itself" (p. 47). Indeed, this
claim is quite surprising - one might even say
astounding!
[4] Two things
are cited in support of this claim regarding the grounding of
sexuality in incarnation and justification. First, reference
is made to Luther's summary conclusion to the exposition of the
Creed in the Large Catechism (BC 439-440:64-65) as evidence that
"Christians cannot understand God's intention for creation for
creation except when viewing it through the lens of what God has
done for us in becoming flesh" (p. 47). Secondly, the
document appeals to the concept of "orderings" rather than the
language of "orders of creation" sometimes employed in previous
Lutheran discussions of sexuality: "The concept of
"orderings" assumed here is dynamic and provisional. It
understands the orders of creation, or better, "orderings of
preservation," as subject to God's ongoing creative activity.
They are discussed, therefore, under the rubric of hope and the
entire discussion of sexuality is grounded by justification and
incarnation as the theological framework" (p. 47).
[5] With
regards to the Large Catechism citation, it highly dubious that it
can be used in order to warrant the claim regarding the grounding
of sexuality in incarnation and justification. The
fundamental point of that section is to distinguish the differences
in teaching between the Creed and the Ten Commandments (the "law"
according to Art. IV of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession [BC
121:6]), particularly in relation to what makes us Christian.
It is, I contend, a misreading to extrapolate from that reference a
warrant for the claim regarding the purported grounding of
sexuality in the incarnation and justification. It is also at
odds with what Luther cites as warrants for his treatment of
marriage and human sexuality in his explication of the
sixth commandment in the Large Catechism. The warrants for
his position there are precisely appeals to creation and nature
(see BC 414:207 and 211 for references to creation and BC 415:212
for reference to nature). In addition, he does not even
make explicit reference to or appeal to Scripture in his claims
regarding creation and nature. Luther's argumentation and
exposition regarding the sixth commandment is in marked contrast to
the foundations claimed in the draft statement.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Luther's claims
concerning sexuality in relation creation and nature, they need to
be noted and presented.
[6] With
regards to the appeal to "orderings" of creation, the draft
document only states an assumption and does not make explicit
arguments for that assumption. While many (including myself)
would support such a dynamic and provisional (assuming this means
not immutable) concept of orderings," yet the further claim
that "they are discussed, therefore, under the rubric of hope and
the entire discussion of sexuality is grounded by justification and
incarnation as the theological framework" requires further
argumentation in order to be persuasive. It is not evident
how the "therefore" follows such that the "entire discussion is
grounded by justification and incarnation as the theological
framework." There are many presentations of a
dynamic/provisional understanding of orderings of creation in
modern theology that do not necessarily lead to such a claim
regarding the theological grounding of the entire discussion of
human sexuality in incarnation and justification. Many of
those presentations are complementary to, but not necessarily
reducible to a theological framework of justification and
incarnation. Many of those discussions contend that a
theological framework in terms of creation and law is the horizon
for the centrality of incarnation and justification in terms of a
theological ethics, but that a claim concerning centrality does not
necessarily require that "[a] Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the
death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that
guide it" (p. 11). In terms of the structure of the draft
statement, the quite excellent statements regarding family,
marriage, and social trust and the common good in Parts IV and V
could very easily be derived from an alternative theological
framework. It is not apparent why the discussions in Part IV
and V require the framework articulated in Part II. If the
document as revised for future submission to the next
churchwide assembly still wants to maintain and defend the
assumption as stated and its "therefore" claim regarding the
theological grounding of a Lutheran sexual ethics, further
argumentation will be required. Theological argumentation
that endeavors to reform the teaching of the church in relation to
the complex issues concerning human sexuality will have to address
explicitly the arguments and theological frameworks that have
informed previous teaching and present persuasive reasons as to why
they are relatively inadequate and why possible reformed
theological positions are more relatively
adequate.
[7] A classic
formulation in the Lutheran tradition that has informed later
considerations of marriage and sexuality is the treatment of
the question of sacerdotal marriage in Art. XXIII of the Apology -
a text nowhere considered in the draft statement. Melanchthon
appeals to both divine and natural law in his critique of the
requirement of clerical celibacy (see BC 248:6-249:13). His
arguments are formulated largely in terms of the horizons of
creation and law. Whether one agrees with Melanchthon's
claims and the warrants for those claims, the crucial thing is that
arguments were marshaled.
[8] One would
hope that a teaching document of the ELCA on the central issues
concerning human sexuality would strive to emulate the quality of
theological argumentation presented in the Apology. And, if
recommendations for the reformation of policies currently
precluding practicing homosexual persons from the rosters of the
church are forthcoming (which I would argue for), the church
deserves nothing less than the formulation of an "apology" that
explicitly addresses the theological frameworks that have informed
and structured past teachings regarding human sexuality, which were
formulated chiefly in terms of creation and law (and its
expressions in natural law, the Decalogue, and the great love
command).
© July 2008
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 8, Issue 7