Personal tools
You are here: Home Sexuality When There Are No Biblical or Theological Grounds to Change, Don’t
Read— with us!

Luther Reading Challenge

Archive  February 17, 2010
Blogs  August 21, 2007
Book Reviews  August 21, 2007
Categories  August 17, 2007
Columnists  January 23, 2008
Editorials  August 21, 2007
ELCA Sexuality Statement  August 21, 2007
Extras  August 21, 2007
Hymns  August 15, 2007
Sermons  August 21, 2007

Prayers for all 3 years of the lectionary cycle.

Year A  October 18, 2011
Year B  October 18, 2011
Year C  October 18, 2011
Document Actions

When There Are No Biblical or Theological Grounds to Change, Don’t

by Robert Benne — March 04, 2009

The Statement and Recommendations of the Sexuality Task Force have been released, and they are as disappointing as I expected them to be, though the statement itself is much improved in some ways. It moves closer to the Lutheran way of doing Christian ethics as well as to the church’s rich understanding of the centrality of marriage. Yet the key problems remain: the statement avoids making normative judgments about homosexual conduct by neglecting the testimony of the Bible and the Christian moral tradition on that issue...

The Statement and Recommendations of the Sexuality Task Force have been released, and they are as disappointing as I expected them to be, though the statement itself is much improved in some ways. It moves closer to the Lutheran way of doing Christian ethics as well as to the church’s rich understanding of the centrality of marriage.

Yet the key problems remain: the statement avoids making normative judgments about homosexual conduct by neglecting the testimony of the Bible and the Christian moral tradition on that issue. In doing so it departs from the moral consensus that the church has held for millennia, a consensus that was reflected in the social statements of the predecessor Lutheran churches. We essentially will have no teaching at all on this matter. Yet the Task Force moves forward anyway, violating the settled prudent conviction that there should be overwhelming evidence against a moral teaching and practice of long standing before it is changed. The two documents admit we have no consensus on that key issue but yet propose major changes in teaching and policies anyway. This is “journeying together faithfully”? It’s more like “we respect your bound conscience by adopting those policies to which you are opposed.”

The “Bound-conscience” Doctrine

There are two erroneous judgments that anchor the statement. The first has to do with the “bound-conscience” doctrine that is so central to the documents. Both documents argue that we can have major differences in our convictions about central matters of faith and life and live with them as long as we sincerely hold different views of biblical interpretation and Christian doctrine. This relativizes Christian teaching by appeal to sincerity. Luther did not doubt that his opponents were sincere at Worms, or that they held different views of biblical interpretation and church teaching. He thought they were wrong and he was right, on the basis of the Word of God and clear reason. Further, he appealed to the teachings of earlier authorities in the church in his debates with the Church of Rome at that time. He thought the weight of Scripture and authentic Church tradition was on his side of the tough issues of that day.

Likewise, I believe it is incontestable that the Scriptures and the moral teaching of the Christian church throughout the ages—and presently that of the ecumenical church—proscribe homosexual relations of any sort. (I want to make it clear that clear public teaching on these matters does not preclude compassionate and even flexible pastoral care in private. The issue at stake is what the teaching of the church should be. The revisionists in the ELCA aim at changing our teaching and public practice, not primarily at deepening and enriching its pastoral care.) Conversely, I am quite certain that the revisionist side believes it is right and I am wrong.
Thus, I am not satisfied with appeals to sincerity and tolerance, especially since I think Christian teaching is clear. And I am certainly not satisfied with those appeals when the recommendations of the Task Force lead to no teachings at all on the subject, but yet lead to sharp changes in practice. Appeals to sincerity will not do. We may have to separate amicably rather than journey faithfully, since the right construal of the faith is at stake.

Another dubious facet of the “bound-conscience” doctrine is the claim that the revisionist side will respect the convictions of the orthodox or traditionalist side over time. Richard Neuhaus famously opined: “Where orthodoxy is optional, in time it will be proscribed.” He hit the nail on the head. The revisionists already control the “commanding heights” of the ELCA—the headquarters, the Church Council, the majority of the Sexuality Task Force, most of the seminaries and colleges, the publishing house, and many Synods. They make sure that outspoken proponents of orthodox teaching on these matters do not disturb the near consensus they have forged. (If you keep quiet about these things, you may get hired or appointed, but you must remain quiet in order not to be shunned.)

I have been in so many ELCA contexts where this process of selection has been at work that I don’t have space to enumerate them. Let’s just say that the most of the cards are held by those in the “commanding heights” and they will not respect those with orthodox convictions who might threaten their hand. And in time those orthodox convictions will not even be allowed to surface. This, by the way, has been the trajectory of those orthodox voices in the Episcopal Church. Finally, orthodox voices were so marginalized that they began another church.

A cynic might charge that the appeal to respect consciences is a convenient instrument to mollify those orthodox among the laity who are very upset by the moves being made. The revisionists do not want those laity to bolt the ELCA or send their money elsewhere. So the statements promise that their consciences will be respected. But beyond the congregational level, such respect will be hard to come by in a few years. Indeed, it already is.

The Demotion of the Law

While this draft definitely bolsters the role and evaluation of the Law of God—his commandments—in the first part of the draft, it forgets about them theologically and practically when the chips are down. First, Lutherans have always believed that the Word of God includes both the Law and the Gospel. Indeed, one could say that the full meaning of the Gospel includes the Trinitarian faith—the revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without the first and third persons of the Trinity, the Gospel of justification is either unintelligible or leads to cheap grace.

The first part of the new draft does affirm the Law in principle, but when it comes to disagreement over what the Law commands, it says that such disagreement is not church-dividing. This reduces the importance of the Law and makes agreement on justification the sole source and sum of our unity. “Thus, we recognize that this church’s deliberations related to human sexuality do not threaten the center of our faith, but rather require our best moral discernment and practical wisdom in the worldly (left-hand kingdom) realm” (10:326). Likewise, Task Force Chairman Peter Strommen states that “This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are differences.” Stanley Olson, representing the ELCA , follows this line of thinking: “Our Christian unity does not depend on agreement about ethical matters.”

This is quite a novel teaching. Would it be church-dividing if the ELCA suggested we alter the Sixth Commandment to allow adultery if the two spouses agreed upon the practice? Did the Lutheran World Federation allow the Apartheid-supporting Lutheran Church in South Africa “to journey together faithfully” with the rest of the Lutheran churches? If I remember correctly, denouncing Apartheid became a matter of status confessionis, and that little church was tossed out of the LWF. Did the Christians of the Barmen Declaration resist the Nazis because they attacked the doctrine of justification? Hardly. Rather, they resisted because the Nazis demanded that they violate the First Commandment by recognizing the Nazi regime as a higher authority than God. Did the southern and northern branches of the Lutheran Church divide over the doctrine of justification during the Civil War? Indeed, did not the Episcopal Church split over violations of Christian moral teaching, something we Lutherans seem eager to imitate?

There definitely is a sense in which we can live with our differences when it comes to public policy. Lutherans live with all sorts of differences in social and political ethics. The left-leaning pronouncements of our Bishop and the ELCA in this realm are merely irritating, not church-dividing. Most agree that Christians of good will and intelligence can come down differently on the issue of recognizing civil unions in society. But the sexuality issues under discussion have to do with the teaching and practice of the church. They strike much closer to the core of Christian life and teaching—what does it mean to love the neighbor in sexual matters? What does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord in our personal life? Are the Commandments a guide in these matters, two of which assume the heterosexual nature of the marriage?

The demotion of the Law and the isolation of justification from repentance and amendment of life will not do. These disagreements are far more serious than the statement suggests. Further, as in the case of the Episcopalians, disagreement on the matter of the Law reveals other differences, especially on the authority of Scripture and the church’s tradition of moral teaching. The Episcopal shipwreck had little to do with disagreements about justification.

A Continuing Problem: Aversion to Form in Christian Ethics

I complained about the formlessness of the first draft of this document. I called it an “Ethic for Tele-tubbies” because it refused to recognize formal principles in ethics: male and female forms, ethical rules, the Commandments, different forms of love, the created forms in which those different forms of love are properly expressed, and the God-intended forms of marriage and family. This statement bolsters that formal element by recognizing and explicating the Commandments of God as a guide for the Christian life (6: 204ff. and the footnote on 6) and extolling marriage as an institution established by God.

But, oddly, I believe, it relies on the concept of “trust” to make the case for right relationships in personal and social life. However, “trust” is not really a principle of moral guidance; rather, it is the quality in a relationship that arises when moral actions elicit trust. It is the proper actions and the guiding principles and intentions lying behind them that elicit trust. Trust is not the active principle but rather the response. Thus, love in its various forms elicits trust—the love of God for each sinner, loving actions among friends, between husband and wife, between parents and children, and so forth. But it is very clear in Christian ethics that different forms of love are appropriate to different forms of relationship. Erotic love does not and should not elicit trust if it is directed from parent to child. Such love is also forbidden for those outside the marriage bond. Filial love is directed toward parents but does not include erotic love. The love of friends is of yet another sort. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, seems appropriate in all forms of relationships that need mending and/or mercy.

It is on this issue that the statement fails. By relying on “trust,” it avoids the Christian moral tradition’s distinctions about forms of love and their appropriate expression. The Bible and Christian sexual ethics throughout the ages prohibit sexual love with those who are too close to us (incest), those who are too different from us (bestiality), those who are too different in age and maturity (pederasty), and those who are too much like us (homosexuality). One part of that settled Christian moral consensus is now being challenged and that is a very serious matter, one that is likely to be church-dividing. (Logically, once the prohibition against homosexual conduct goes it seems unlikely that other challenges can be resisted. Trust can emerge in all of those forbidden relationships. It is the actions that are morally illicit.)

Further, in the long section on family life the statement seems unable to affirm the God-intended pattern of a mother and father bearing and nurturing children. It grudgingly accepts the “nuclear” family’s ability to “foster the development of trust in children and youth,”(20: 727ff) but it cannot bring itself to hold up that triad as the ideal for Christians. (By this I do not mean that we should be uncaring or unwelcoming of other forms of family, but in this confused world we should be able to impart a normative vision of what God intends for his creation.)

The statement also shows reluctance to employ rules regarding premarital sex. It relies on the principle that “degrees of sexual intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment.” (27:1005) But that convenient principle leaves it up to the individual to decide the level of commitment present in a relationship. Does sex come with a promising relationship, with “going-steady,” with engagement, with living together, none of which are “non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual?” (27:1012) Fairly fuzzy teaching, that.

Likewise, the statement is pretty fuzzy on cohabitation. While “this church does not favor” cohabitation, it offers many reasons why it might be tolerated or even allowed (28: 1045-1066). It certainly muddles the C. S. Lewis’ famous summary of the rule of Christian sexual ethics: “Complete fidelity within the marriage bond; complete abstinence outside it.”

Finally, how can a statement on sexuality avoid the issue of abortion, particularly when we will soon have legislative efforts before congress to strike down all limits on that practice? If men and women have sex, children are often the result. The classic Christian understanding of marriage is that it is a one-flesh union of complementary beings (man and woman); oriented toward new life; and a protection against sexual sin. This would have been a perfect time to offer a strong endorsement of the sacrality of all nascent human life, which should be taken only for the weightiest of reasons.

I offer a course in Christian sexual ethics, at the end of which I survey student opinion on the issues discussed above. The students often turn out to be more “traditional” than I expect. I also ask them if the church’s teaching should be more “realistic,” more accommodated to their opinions. To a person they say “no,” they want the Christian sexual ethic in all its challenging grandeur to be taught and encouraged. They want something clear to aspire to and, if they fail, something before which to repent and amend their lives.

Robert Benne is professor emeritus at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia, and the Director of the Center for Religion and Society.


Posted by Atwell C. LOhr at March 21, 2009 19:25
IN addition to the biblical argument, CDC' National Center for HIV,STD,and TB Prevention states"Statistics show that one-third of gay males 20 and younger will be HIV positive or DEAD by age 30" Greensboro News and REcord Wednesday 11/9/05.


Posted by Pr. David Saylor at March 23, 2009 15:30
If 20% of heterosexuals contracted cancer and would be dead within the next 10 years, would that help the argument? I need convinced that AIDS has anything to do with how to settle this legitimate biblical, theological, and historical argument. Please inform.

REply to FR.David Saylor

Posted by Atwell C. Lohr at March 24, 2009 11:32
We do all we can to prevent Cancer; why would we not modify life styles to prevent STDs,AIDs?

Shouldn't they take their beliefs and go?

Posted by M. J. Shirley at March 21, 2009 19:56
If all this passes and we, long time members decide to "split away from" our church....shouldn't the gays and lesbians leave instead? Why should we give them the buildings, land and all that is in it?

Great Statement of Faith

Posted by Eileen Finer at March 23, 2009 15:41
What a fine artical! This speaks to all of the thoughts and ambiguities is this Sexuality Statement. It seems that the ELCA is moving much to quickly and avoiding speaking to issues and trying to appease everyone. We must have ideals and try to live up to them.


Posted by Rev. Kenneth R. Storck at March 23, 2009 22:03
Dr. Benne,

Several years ago, you spoke at the Northern Illinois Synod at St. John's in Mendota, IL. At thet time you came across as arrogant and unrelenting. It is the same. CORE and WORD ALONE need to unite and join the LCM, or LC-MS.

I wish we could respectfully disagree. But you seem to have little or no respect for those who value Scripture and listen to tradition but come to a different conclusion. Dr. Ralph Klein and many others see how the church has moved away from the opression of slavery, embraced the rights of women, allowing for divorced clergy to be rostered in the church. We went against nearly 2,000 years of church precedent when we began to ordain women.

Anyway, the end result might best be an healthy separation. Then the purists that you speak for can have a happy church with no disagreeable folks.

Rev. Kenneth R. Storck
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
Rockford, IL

I have learned from Lutheran Ministers, all my life

Posted by Joe Congregation member at March 24, 2009 17:40
Leviticus 18:22
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Matthew 5:17-18
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
Subjective narcissism or not, from either side...

With all do respect, to individual thinking, and discernment.

Just a beggar after all

Posted by Joe Congregation Member at March 24, 2009 17:54
So, what is sin, and what is intentional sin? If you get to go do whatever ones mind desires?

John 8:11; ...And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”


Posted by Tim at March 25, 2009 01:02
Is Joe the Congregation Member the same person as Joe the Plumber???


Posted by Dan Barr at October 02, 2009 05:04
It seems that Dr Benne is simply making a distinction between what Scripture says and what mankind hears. When two people hear the same Word and come to opposing conclusions, it doesn't mean both are correct and it doesn't mean the Word has failed. It means the Word has revealed a hearing problem.
You'd think two hearers coming away from Scripture with opposing views (disagreement over what the Law commands) on human sexuality would become concerned enough to learn more, instead of shrugging it off as "to each their own" opinion of what the truth is.
You'd think that if this was all good to go, Lutheran theologians would be lining up, bibles in hand, ready to affirm such a thing. But they aren't, because there isn't.

Biblical argument for change

Posted by Tim at March 24, 2009 18:46
Within the Bible there are occasional, stunning reversals.

From "love friends, hate enemies" to "love enemies" (Mt 5-7)

From "don't eat with Gentiles" to "eat with Gentiles" (Peter's conversion in Acts 10-11)

From "kill the Canaanites" (Dt 7) to the "healing of a Canaanite" (Mt 15)

One might see a Spirit inspired reversal today in our understanding of homosexuality. Of course, there is no "proof text" verse where God says, "It is okay now." However, I don't see Lutherans as proof texting people.

Response to Tim

Posted by Michael Dooley at March 31, 2009 15:26
"Might" is a big, hairy word here. The overwhelming burden of proof is the "reformers'" responsibility to provide when they make their case. Then it is for the people of God to discern which spirit is actually speaking in the call to lay aside two thousand years of Christian teachings on homosexuality.

If you take Neuman's "The Development of Doctrine" essay half-seriously, one notes that new doctrines or understandings actually were present (generally unrefined) in the days of the early church. The recognized "stunning reversals" Tim refers to have roots into the Old Testament itself.

Where are the antecedents for the reversal Tim suggests? In what commentary(s) in the Church's history is it suggested that homosexual behavior is no longer a sin?" For that matter, in what commentary(s) have any Jewish authorities declared homosexual practice is not longer an abomination?

How do those who claim to hear the Holy Spirit's inspiration above the Word of Scripture defend themselves against the charge of enthusiasm? Have they no fear of God? Do they fear what is in store for false prophets--those prophets who do not speak for God?"

The burden of proof is on you, Tim. A blithe comment will not do.

Now in Print

Fall 2015

Fall 2015 cover

In this issue:

The Sheep and the Goats

Death Comes to
the Sanctuary in
Birmingham and

Whose Flannery?

Time Travel and Culture
Crossing to Reignite
the Church

Penance and Prayer Day

An Introduction to
Evangelicalism for
Evangelical Lutherans

...and much, much more!

Subscribe online!

We always welcome thoughtful articles, letters to the editor, hymns, and artwork.

Submission guidelines


Powered by Plone CMS, the Open Source Content Management System

This site conforms to the following standards: