God will provide clarity that will lead to faithful response
Published 8:30 am Friday, March 19, 2010
By now, I am sure that most readers of this newspaper and this column are well familiar with the controversy brewing in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The issue centers on last year’s August biennial assembly and its action of rostering pastors and other church leaders who are in a “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-sex” relationship.
This, not surprisingly, has caused quite a stir, both positively and negatively, not only within this denomination, but also ecumenically nationally and worldwide. Some individuals, pastors and congregations have indicated their intention to leave the ELCA. Some have already taken the step of leaving. Some individuals and congregations have taken the step of withholding or redirecting their benevolence and mission financial offerings as a protest for the assembly’s action. Others applaud the bold action of the assembly as the fresh wind of the Holy Spirit blowing through the stale air of the ELCA. I think the vast majority of folks are somewhere in the middle wondering what this all means.
Not unexpectedly, as the pastor of a local ELCA congregation, I have been asked about my own personal response. Until now, I have not given a public voice one way or the other; and for a good reason. I am not sure. Right now, I stand with the vast middle majority — uncertain, frustrated, confused, dismayed, befuddled, concerned, angry, hopeful, betrayed. To say anything one way or the other will be seen as a line in the sand; I will be satisfying some and others will see me as standing against their position. That is not where my thoughts take me at this time. Each perspective, in my opinion, has a valid point.
What the disagreement comes down to is not a question of is homosexuality a sin or not? The disagreement is about Biblical interpretation and the application of Biblical truth to our daily lives. This is a fundamentally important point because it strikes at the very heart of the Reformation from which my Lutheran church has sprung — Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura). Let us consider the last: Scripture Alone.
Our ELCA and my congregation’s constitutions both state plainly that “…the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments [are] the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of [the church’s] proclamation, faith and life.” (C 2.03) As with all matters before the church and its congregations, we must turn to the scriptures for guidance.
On the surface, it appears that scripture is very clear. Homosexual activity is not spoken of in positive terms at all. There are basically six Bible passages that refer directly to homoerotic relations, three in the Old Testament (Gen 19.1-11; Lev 18.22; 20.13) and three in the New Testament (Rom 1.26-27; 1 Cor 6.9; 1 Tim 1.10). But here is the problem, as stated in the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Issues of translation are particularly important, as there was no word in ancient Greek corresponding to our modern term “homosexuality,” which was coined at the end of the 19th century. Literally translated, the New Testament terms in question, malakoi and arsenoloitai, mean “soft people” and something like “men who go to bed,” which was probably a reference to male prostitution, but the exact meanings of the terms are disputed. Modern Bible translations, however, often mislead the reader by rendering these terms as “homosexuals.” The Old Testament references seem to be addressing issues not of homosexuality (as we understand it) but of hospitality and exploitative violence.
The relative lack of attention to homosexuality in the biblical writings means that the few passages where it does arise have been subjected to extensive scrutiny and interpretive debate in recent decades. Debates about how to use the Bible to address homosexuality in the modern era are further complicated by: 1) issues of translation, 2) differing contextual understandings of same-sex relations in antiquity, and 3) placing homosexuality within the larger frameworks of biblical approaches to human sexuality.
It is important to note that, even though homoerotic behavior is clearly prohibited in biblical texts, the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality as sexual orientations are modern constructs not found in antiquity. (Page 883. Portions of the above quote have been edited by me for simplicity and space considerations.)
There, dear readers, is the conundrum in a nutshell: How do we interpret and apply eternal biblical truth to our contemporary situation when our modern concept and understanding (and the words we choose to use) of something like homosexuality is not the same as that of the world of the biblical writers?
So, where do I stand on this issue? With one foot planted firmly in each camp! But, had I been a voting member at the assembly (which I was not), I would have had to vote “no,” simply because I sincerely believe we, as a church body, need more time and conversation about this matter. It is obvious even to the casually interested, that the church is not of one mind regarding this matter. I am an advocate of what I call “imminent clarity,” meaning that the right decision or course of action will become indisputably clear in good time. And, at this time, I do not have a sense of such clarity in this matter that, in good conscience, would move me to advocate for acceptance of the ELCA’s assembly action. What we have done, instead, as a church body, is something like squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube before we have a toothbrush on which to put it. However, a decision has been made. So, now, what do we do?
My pastoral heart says “wait and see.” We have time. We can always change course (as difficult as that may be). Let us see how this thing begins to play itself out in this church body that has nurtured and raised me (us) in the faith. My position is informed by Acts 5.33-39. Recall that the Apostles were preaching, teaching and healing in the Name of the risen Jesus. The High Priest and the Council of the Jews had threatened to kill them. But a Pharisee by the name of Gamaliel spoke up saying: “[If this] is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them — in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” I find this to be wise counsel.
In my humble opinion, congregations, pastors and individuals that have chosen to leave the ELCA or withhold or redirect their financial offerings are acting rashly and hastily. Unfortunately, such actions make for a hot news story and are played up in the media. I am much more impressed by those who have taken the more measured response of my own congregation. Yes, we are disappointed, confused and uncertain of what all this means. But, we are not withdrawing or withholding from the church that has nurtured us in the faith. We are not forsaking our responsibilities and relationships in ministry that reach not only our local concerns and needs but have regional, national and worldwide effect. We are waiting upon God to provide imminent clarity that will call us to a faithful response; whatever that response might be. I am proud of my congregation’s maturity and patience and proud of those congregations, pastors and individuals who take a similar posture.
In the mean time, this is my prayer, our prayer: Gracious Father, we pray for your holy catholic church. Fill it with all truth and peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it; where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in need, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord. Amen. (Prayers for the Church: Evangelical Lutheran Worship, page 73)
I wish for you all joy and peace.