FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS AND QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS
A Critical Analysis of the Recommendations from the ELCA Church Council to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly on Sexuality Studies dated April 11, 2005

The Rev. Prof. Karl P. Donfried, Dr.theol. – June 2, 2005

Introduction
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America meeting in Assembly this August, is being asked by the Church Council to vote on matters of enormous Scriptural and Confessional import as well as issues that will effect both the future of Lutheranism and all of its ecumenical relationships. It is therefore imperative that all enter this Assembly solemnly, prayerfully, with humility and full knowledge of the assumptions and, often false, presuppositions contained in the Recommendations from the ELCA Church Council on Sexuality Studies dated April 11, 2005 so that all decisions will be grounded in Scripture as interpreted by the Lutheran Confessions.

The fundamental premise of the Recommendations from the ELCA Church Council is that same-sex sexual conduct in a committed relationship is morally defensible for those who are of homosexual orientation and that such persons, following the process outlined by the Church Council, may be ordained into the ministry of the ELCA. Since the Scriptural and theological foundation for such a premise has neither been provided by the Task Force for the ELCA Studies on Sexuality nor by the ELCA Church Council, one is, therefore, obligated to examine the presuppositions and assumptions implicit in the latter’s Recommendations since the Lutheran reform movement from its origin has insisted that all ecclesial and ethical decisions can only be made in accordance with a warrant from Scripture as interpreted by the Lutheran Confessions.

The following ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS are related to Recommendations 1 and 2:

  1.                                  that this church is “united by love of Jesus Christ” and that “within this unity is also a God-given diversity…”  Two issues require discussion.
  2.                      Does love create the unity of the Church or is it the Holy Spirit that unites the Church in the truth of the Gospel through faith of which love is a primary manifestation? “Put things in order, listen to my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you” (2 Cor 13:11). The Apostle further reminds those in Christ to “be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” (Phil  2:2). Love is the manifestation of unity in Christ, not its basis.
  3.                      Since the word “diversity” is an ideological term popular in secular culture and does not appear in Scripture, we have to assume that “variety of gifts” is meant. Paul, however, intentionally links this phrase with the adjective “same.” “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone” (1 Cor 12:4). Reconciled diversity can never function as a substitute for the simultaneous embrace of the contradictory positions within the church.
  4.                      that the ELCA “be urged to concentrate on ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements...” What these words seem to suggest is that the ELCA will be asked to make a decision on same-sex ordinations in August, 2005, based on neither Scripture nor the Confessions and then to urge the majority of its members to subsequently live faithfully with the decisions imposed by a minority that is in flagrant opposition to that held by the Church Catholic always, everywhere and by all.
  5.                                  that “we respect the integrity of convictions of conscience and faith…” Both Scripture and the Confessions unmistakably distinguish between “good” consciences and “weak” consciences. Whenever conscience severs itself from faith in Christ and fidelity to the Word it is no longer conscience in the true sense. Indeed, some in the Corinthian church wanted to solve their disagreements by applying precisely such a therapeutic model of conscience, an approach that Paul unequivocally rejects.
  6.                                  that the ELCA “trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to same-sex couples.” The use of the term “same-sex couples” goes beyond all previous statements of this church that explicitly refer only to “gay and lesbian persons.” However, without Scriptural and theological authorization for the legitimacy of “same-sex couples” within the household of faith, such pastoral care cannot be “faithful” to the sacredness and holiness of sexuality as described by Scripture and the universal Church.

 

The following ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS are related to Recommendation 3:

  1.                                  that “within this church we continue to share a profound commitment to the authority of Scripture as the norm for faith and life” and “we recognize there are deeply held yet different interpretations of Scripture [with regard to homosexuality] to which consciences are bound.” In light of these assertions the following concerns need to be considered:

            a) If the ELCA indeed holds Scripture as normative, it is necessary to maintain the Lutheran hermeneutical emphasis of viewing the canonical whole with regard to sexuality and not to remove isolated texts from this canonical context.
b) Different and conflicting interpretations of the Bible often result from a non-Trinitarian, ideologically driven set of hermeneutical assumptions. Because some scholars, for example, argue that Jesus’ crucifixion is irrelevant for Christology or because some argue that Jesus’ resurrection is non-historical, these are hardly grounds for renouncing the fundamental confessional principles of Lutheran theology.
c) It is the Lutheran, Trinitarian hermeneutic that must judge the appropriateness of the interpretations of individual texts based on the canonical whole. This principle is neither in evidence in the work of the Task Force on Sexuality nor in the deliberations of the Church Council.

  1. that the “most instructive parallel for this moment may be clergy who are divorced and remarried, a condition specifically condemned in Scripture by Jesus. Without contradicting Scriptural teaching, this church examines such persons and their witness, and may endorse their call to ministry.” This statement is both false and contains contradictory double-talk, i.e., how is it possible to state a biblical principle (incorrectly in this case), blatantly contradict it and then say that this is being done “without contradicting Scriptural teaching”? Neither Scripture nor Jesus ever discuss the issue of “clergy who are divorced and remarried…” Scripture indicates that Jesus, in fact, does make an important exception with regard to divorce: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt 19:9; see also Matt 5:31-32). To refer to this as a “most instructive parallel” is grossly misleading. The entire and unanimous witness of Scripture is against the practice of homosexuality in all of its manifestations; this is not the case with regard to divorce where there is a limited exception. One might add that the church’s laxity in properly assessing the appropriateness of divorce and remarriage can never serve as a foundation for an ethic of sexual laissez-faire.  Abusus non tollit usum.  [Wrong use does not preclude proper use] And, then, finally to argue that the  “remarriage of divorced people” is a process that “provides the opportunity for continued discernment for where the Holy Spirit is leading this church” smacks of theological naiveté. Even if Lutherans are not aware of the guidance of the church fathers, they should at least be aware that Melanchton worked out precise criteria for divorce.
  2. that leaving the Scriptural “language reflective of the traditional view intact” but requiring “additional steps for granting exceptions respects what this church believes to be the extra-ordinary nature of these calls.” This assertion both relegates Scripture to “language reflective of the traditional view” effectively excising Scripture as an authoritative Word for the post-modern world and overriding its authority with a non-canonical, ideological perspective.
  3. that “within this church we confess that all people are sinful beings, including those who serve in rostered ministry.” Does this declaration intend to suggest that because we acknowledge sinfulness that therefore all behaviors may be condoned, even those contrary to the Christian life?  Is this assertion not remarkably similar to the one that the Apostle Paul had to unequivocally reject in Rom 6:1-2? (“What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go living in it?”). This declaration confuses the biblical definition of sin as well as drastically divorcing grace from the holiness and purity of the Christian life that is expected of all who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
  4. that “there are those in this church who believe that the Holy Spirit is calling into public ministry persons who are in committed, same-sex relationships, and congregations are indicating a willingness to call such persons to service.” Indeed, throughout the history of the Christian Church many individuals and groups believed that they were being led by the Holy Spirit to do things that the Trinitarian church labeled as heretical. The point is that the Holy Spirit does not simultaneously call the Body of Christ into contradictory paths. We find ourselves in a time when some biblical scholars driven by post-modern perspectives present us with fundamentally contradictory claims about Jesus and the authority of Scripture. The words of St. Paul are appropriate in this second millennium as well: “I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says, ‘Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3). It is the same Spirit that assigns a variety of gifts and to “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7). Again the Apostle Paul speaks to this issue: “we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:12). To discern whether some in Christ are truly speaking for “the upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” of the body of Christ” (1 Cor 14:3) is indeed urgent since “all who eat and drink without discerning the body [i.e., the church] eat and drink judgment against themselves” (1 Cor 11:29). But for such a process of prayerful and theological serious discernment must take place before rather than after the fact of such a momentous decision. To date there is no evidence that such a process has taken place, only the assertions by some that they have been given direction by the Holy Spirit as to His leading. But once the ecclesiological decision has been made to ordain practicing gays and lesbians it will be irreversible and it will have been made on the basis of the alleged individual knowledge of some but not by the discernment of the Holy Spirit by all. We are all “made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:12), the Holy Spirit who is not the private possession of some but the Triune God’s gift to His holy and apostolic Church.

SUMMARY

            Given the fact that the Recommendations of the Church Council have no demonstrated Lutheran theological foundations, are based on questionable assumptions and a series of false presuppositions, their Recommendations for Action will result in a heterodox ELCA marked by:

  1. the creation of enormous tensions at the local level and heightened political activity with regard to the election of bishops at both the synodical and national levels with a key litmus test being a given candidate’s position on the “limited process for exceptions to the normative policies of this church” thus effectively undermining “ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements.”
  2. a church willing to do mission without a normative Trinitarian hermeneutic and willing to live with contradictory interpretations of Scripture derived from a hermeneutic alien to that confessed by the Lutheran reform movement.
  3. a church that no longer believes in one and the same Holy Spirit that activates all His gifts for the common good, but rather a series of contradictory spirits that substitute ideological agendas of diversity.
  4. a church that will operate on the basis of deception by maintaining one set of standards but simultaneously contradicting them. Thus the normative principle of sola scriptura [scripture alone] is maintained by creating contradictory exceptions to it thus, in effect, undermining its authority. Such deceit is further enhanced when one fails to recognize that by authorizing the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians via the process of “exceptions” is, in fact, to have created a new norm in the life of the ELCA, one that will contradict Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, the one holy, catholic and apostolic church and the stated positions of its worldwide ecumenical partners.

            Therefore, in order to avoid the dissolution of American Lutheranism as currently expressed by the ELCA, it is urged that the Churchwide Assembly recognize that serious failures of process and policy have been pursued to date and that the only appropriate action to be taken is the call for a completely new course of action. Such a renewed procedure would place all future deliberations in the context of the Lutheran Confessions and marked by careful theological, scriptural and scientific study and deliberation. Further, it is requisite that the ELCA follow the proper order of first emphasizing the Christian understanding of sexuality as a whole and only then its specific manifestations and/or aberrations. If this course is not followed the words of the eminent German Lutheran theologian, Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, may indeed be tragically prophetic.

 “Whoever pressures the church to alter the normativeness of its teaching with regard to homosexuality must be aware that person promotes schism in the church.  For a church that would permit itself to be pressured to no longer understand homosexual activity as a deviation from the biblical norm and to recognize homosexual partnerships alongside marriage, such a church would no longer be based on the foundation of Scripture, but, rather in opposition to its unanimous witness.”(Zeitwende, 65/1, January 1994).

The (Culture) War of the Word
By Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio show is heard daily in Los
Angeles on KRLA-AM (870). He may be contacted through his website:
www.dennisprager.com

May 29, 2005
A number of years ago I discovered a root cause of America's culture war. It came to me as I debated professor Alan Dershowitz about issues of Jewish concern before a 1,000 Jews at the 92nd Street "Y" in New York City. With the exception of support for Israel, Dershowitz, a

Harvard liberal, and I agreed on nothing, political or religious. Toward the end of the evening I came to understand why.
"Ladies and gentlemen," I announced, "the major difference between Alan Dershowitz and me is this: When professor Dershowitz differs with the Torah, he assumes that he is right and the Torah is wrong. When I differ with the Torah, I assume that I am wrong and the Torah is  right." Dershowitz responded that for the first time that evening he agreed with me.

That realization was an epiphany for me. I have come to realize that the great divide in values is not between those who believe in God and those who do not but between those who believe in a divine text and those who do not.

This explains in large measure the great culture war in the United States. Americans, of course, are divided not so much by religion as between right and left. Jews and Christians on the left agree with each other on just about every political and social question, and Jews and  Christians on the right do the same.

So what distinguishes leftist Jews from rightist Jews and leftist Christians from rightist Christians? It essentially comes down to their belief in the Bible, not their belief in God.

Jews who believe that the Torah is from God agree on almost every important issue of life with Christians who believe that the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament is divine. Jews who believe that men (and perhaps women) wrote the Torah agree on virtually every important issue with Christians who also regard the Torah (and the rest of the Bible) as man-made.

For example, as a religious (though non-Orthodox) Jew, I have many differences with Christians' theology. We differ on the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the identity of the messiah; the role of Torah, not to mention rabbinic law, on who is and who is not saved; and on such  matters as faith versus works. Yet these theological differences cause almost no difference in our social and moral values, which are almost identical. Why?

Because conservative Jews and Christians share the belief that God revealed a text (a text, moreover, that we share). At the same time, liberal Jews and liberal Christians share the belief that this text is man-made.

Jews and Christians who believe that God revealed the Torah, for example, are far more likely to believe that marriage must remain defined as only between a man and woman, and cannot be redefined to include members of the same sex. They believe that people are not  basically good, that human life, not animal life, is sacred (because humans, not animals, are created in God's image), and that murderers should be liable to the death penalty (the only law that is in all five books of the Torah is to put murderers to death).
On the other hand, Jews and Christians who believe that people wrote the Torah are far more likely to support a redefinition of marriage, to view human nature as basically good (and therefore more likely to ascribe human evil to outside influences), to be more receptive to seeing human beings as essentially another animal, and to oppose capital punishment for murderers.
After all, what people, not God, wrote thousands of years ago should hardly serve as a guide to life today especially when one's heart argues against it. The heart feels compassion for gays, for animals and even for murderers facing execution. And the heart wants to believe that human beings are basically good.

But Jews and Christians who believe in a divinely revealed Bible do not trust the heart as a guide to doing the right thing (indeed, that Bible repeatedly warns us not to). That difference do I listen to my heart or to what I believe is God's word? This explains most of the differences between right and left. Much more than whether one believes in God.

Can We Live in Unity?
Rev. Dr. Jeffray Greene

Can we live together faithfully?  That is a fundamental question we are now asking.  Can we live in unity?  That’s the other question that has is being asked.

In the history of Lutheran mergers over the past two centuries, the goal has been to bring together the various Lutheran denominations that developed as the United States grew.  In no small measure, the various churches were driven either by ethnic familiarity, or as reacting to political movements in Europe.

The Swedish Lutherans had a heritage of unity from the beginning when they immigrated to this country with strong loyalty to the mother church.  Most of the Norwegians came to this country from a Norway that was first the vassal state of Denmark, and then, with the marriage between Danish and Swedish royalty, the gift of Norway to Sweden which continued the vassal status.  The clergy were also the state administrators.  The Norwegians who came to America either had great mistrust of the hierarchical church, or else abandoned it altogether.  They were also effected by theological controversy over baptism, which gave birth to the Evangelical Free church in the 1850's.  The Danes had two primary groups, one of each kind.  The Finish were greatly influenced by the piety movement of the nineteenth century and brought with them a very personal, yet somewhat disconnected polity.   The first Germans, who came in the eighteenth century immigrated with their church identity and loyalty in tact.  These Germans, who were in the center of the formation of the General Synod, saw that unity amongst peers was a good thing.  After the Enlightenment and with the Age of Reason, things changed in Germany.  When the Union Movement came along (which was deemed politically expedient for those trying to unify Germany), there was a rebellion that caused those Germans who came to America to come with an entirely different view of church polity.  It was out of this group that an anti-union sentiment grew – primarily in the Midwest.  Missouri, Wisconsin and the churches that would form the old ALC were among this group.  Two polities for being Lutheran found root.  One favorable to unity for the sake of mission and one suspicious of unity.  Herein, we can see the foundation of the anti-episcopate sentiment among some Lutherans with a mistrust of visible connection.  The confessions were uplifted, in both cases to ‘prove’ a point.  We also can understand those who find no problem with seeking a visible sign of the oneness we all have in Christ through an episcopacy.

Roots are important.  Although the Call to Common Mission created tension in the church, the roots of that tension are understandable.  What has won the day overall thus far, so to speak, is the idea that unity is the essential ingredient driving our church. 

One of the interesting, and initially confusing things to understand about the unities that took place in the twentieth century was why the Augustana Synod chose to join with the LCA and not the ALC.  In many ways, the Augustana Synod had a polity and practice much more like that of those churches who would form the new ALC.  But they did not have the angst of mistrust in their history and the idea of greater unity, in part, I suspect, was a driving factor in their joining with the LCA.  In simple, and certainly not complete detail, we saw the two similar, yet divergent groups coming together to form the ELCA.

The taint of ‘Reason’ over the historic faith in theology was hard pressed upon the ‘upper Midwest piety’ folk.  It’s dark side was not experienced heavily by those Lutherans who fled the European unity movement.  It would be easy to give justification as to the right attitude of one party or the other at this point, but that will not serve our purpose here.  For on the one hand, the influences of the Enlightenment fall heavy on this generation’s theologians and teachers.  On the other, the rigid and often un-relenting self-righteousness that has emerged from a prideful piety has created endemic problems on the other.  The tension, ignored in the Lutheran practice of being nice has allowed the tension to move beyond conflict and into polarity.  In polarity, it’s a lose-lose proposition.  Conflict can be mediated, but polarity separates.  We are in the position of polarity, which is why the unity ‘factor’ is held so high.  Seeing unity first in many aspects of our life together seeks to call upon the momentum of the past to come together for the sake of the future.  Ignoring the conflicts that exist causes us to also ignore the issues and their history which prevent genuine trusting unity.

At many levels within the ELCA, there is mistrust.  The system is not working well, in spite of all the proclamations of how well we work together.  Mission starts are low.  The number of missionaries abroad is a fraction of what they were at the time we merged.  Churches are reeling under the cultural warfare surrounding us as the pews are increasingly emptied and the average age of congregants is ever increasing.  Theology has gone wanting and we compromise on many levels to keep what we have.  We are, by many indications, a dying church.  The most positive thing we can say is that the Lutheran church is dying at the slowest rate among the mainline Protestant denominations.  We all agree that the mission of Christ is essential, but we disagree on what that means.  The ‘evangelicals’ want to make the church relevant and understood in our contemporary culture.  The liturgical folk see that the old traditions are the essential ingredient for the preservation of the church.  Those who say renewal is the answer are themselves at odds with how best to do that.  Driving through the middle of this are the revisionists who believe the old piety that clung to a rigid interpretation and use of Scripture needs to be modified, updated and changed to best meet contemporary circumstances.  In the midst of all this is that group which seeks to make normal in the church a variety of sexual orientations.  We are not one in thought, word, or deed.

On top of these divergent positions is a divergence of what living together faithfully means.  There are the strict constructionists who see Scripture as being above all else and every matter of life and faith must be compared to the full body of Scripture.  There are those who believe Scripture is simply an amalgamation of writings that speak God’s story and to use the book in such rigid fashion constrains at best, and hampers at worst the sharing of the Gospel.  Is it historic biblical folk against revisionists?  In part, yes, but it’s more complex than that.  At the fringes of the polarity, there is a war of words that, on the one hand call for an eradication of ‘fundamentalists, (those who are strict constructionists) versus the revisionists who seem to be seeking a complete overhaul (modernization) of what it means to be Christian to make it relevant in the twenty-first century.  The two are mutually exclusive; yet they currently operate together under the umbrella of the ELCA.  One is hard-pressed to see how it is possible for these groups to remain faithful to what they believe without compromise.  In the middle are those, who from the appearance of those at each end, seem to not care what is believed as long as everyone walks together.  Living together faithfully, for them, seems to be a matter of just staying together.

This is a difficult time for Christians in the church.  Can we agree that we disagree?  Can we find a way to be faithful in that which we deem beyond compromise?  To do anything less is to simply postpone the inevitable and it is not honest.  For either one ‘side’ will win, or else all will be compromised into a form of the church, steeped in historic roots, but filled with no life.

We are at a place of schism.  Standing firm on the foundation of what it means to be Christian, not denying the fundamental doctrines upon which the church has been built, will go a long way to correct the division.  There are many who seem to be unwilling or unable to realize that what has happened is a deepening chasm that threatens the very definition of what it means to be Christian.  Acknowledging sin, repent and fall wholly and completely on the mercy of God, which is granted through grace to all who are truly penitent.

When unity was more real amongst Lutherans, we all agreed that being penitent, with time for amendment of life, with pardon and remission of all sins would bring grace and the comfort of the Holy Spirit.  Now, when we are fractured in thought, word and deed, we do confess that we are in bondage to sin, but gladly accept absolution without mention of penitence or amendment of life.  It is God who grants forgiveness, not any human.  It is God, therefore with whom we need to settle these issues.  That there is rebellion in all of our hearts against God, His will and His way is foundational.  That we are unable by our power, merit or reason able to come to Him is at the core of Lutheran identity.  We have always, in the past, held ourselves captive to the Word of God and our conscience – not just our conscience.  It would seem that there is a struggle to rewrite, reinterpret and change what we mean when we say we are Christian Lutherans.

A unity forsaking our Christian identity is apostasy.  A unity at the cost of our soul fulfill what Jesus told us about gaining the world but losing our soul.  It is time for us to stand firm on what it means to be Christians and let come what may for those who would hold faithfulness in the faith once given as essential in contempt.  There has always been a cost for discipleship in Christ.  Is it time to pay the price?

Law and Sexual Behavior
by Gerhard O. Forde
The full text of this essay is available on the web at:
http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library/LawSexualBehavior.htm
FOCL readers are incouraged, if possible, to access this article to build a comprehensive understanding of the theological issues at stake in continuing on the course for full inclusion of all in leadership regardless of sexual orientation and specific practice We are unable, due to space limitations, to reproduce the full article here, but would love for our readers to take advantage of this greater opportunity for understanding.  Excerpts from the essay are included to hopefully encourage you to read the whole essay.

This is an essay about the function of law as it confronts sexual behavior. Therefore the first thing that needs saying is that it cannot be a paper about compassion. To be sure, Christians, not to say human beings in general, are called upon to act with compassion and care toward all, particularly those who suffer, whatever the cause. But this essay is not about that. This disclaimer needs to be entered because the vast majority of discussions about sexual behavior, especially of homosexual behavior, become arguments about compassion. Discussants relate tragic and agonizing stories about failures in compassion. Those who wish to talk more "objectively" about law and ethics are faulted for lacking compassion. Of course we are to act compassionately toward those who, are caught in the immense web of tragedy that problems of sexual identity and practice have spun about us today. Of course we are to act justly and compassionately toward those who suffer from AIDS or whose civil rights are violated. But this is a discussion about law and sexual behavior, not about compassion. A major dimension of the problem, mostly obscured or forgotten, is that law has no compassion.

Headings include: The End and Establishment of Law; The Uses of the Law; The Civil Use of Law and Sexual Behavior; The Estate of Marriage; The Homosexual and the Uses of the Law; and, Concluding Observations on the Theological Use of Law.
Law has no compassion. That is just as it should be. But it is not the end of the matter. Compassion is the business of the gospel. To return to what we said at the outset, there is another pole to the doctrine of the law. Christ is the end of the law to everyone who has faith. Christ is the only end. There is no other. That is the reason the treatment of law can and must be so uncompromising. For where the law is watered down or jettisoned we come under the most diabolical illusion of all—that there is no longer any need for Christ. We must not take that road. What the church has to offer in these, as in all matters, is not accommodation but absolution and a new life. That is the greatest service to the neighbor we can do. True, many today may find this to be of small comfort. But that may be only because they fail to realize how desperate the battle is.