Attacking With a Specious Theology

By Rev. Gordon Selbo

Gordon Selbo, retiring president of the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans, responds to the actions of the Sierra Pacific Synod Council in retaining every relationship – except voting at assembly – with the two San Francisco congregations which were removed from the roster of ELCA last Dec. 3ist for ordaining and continuing to employ three homosexuality active pastors. They celebrated their expulsion from the ELCA congregational roster with a "New Year's Eve Party" with two ELCA synodical bishops in attendance: the one, their synod bishop, as the celebrant for the Holy Eucharist, and the other as preacher for the occasion.

It would be day dreaming to hope that the division in the Church over the issue of homosexual conduct might come to a sudden and dramatic conclusion. The ELCA has postponed the formulation of a statement on the mailer, a fallback from its previous intent. Though it relies for now on the position of its predecessor bodies, this inaction has insured a continuing dialogue and confrontation. In its most recent action, the ELCA Church Council authorized yet another "message" on human sexuality. After several years of study and the production of three documents one wonders – why the delay?

Discussion continues, but there seems to be no common ground, no base, from which meaningful conversation can take place. A communication was sent to clergy of the Sierra Pacific Synod by a pastor of one of the two San Francisco congregations recently expelled from membership in the ELCA. In it the following statement, perhaps his core argument, reads:

"It is sad that a church body as gospel oriented and as large as the ELCA cannot tolerate the presence of openly gay and lesbian pastors and their life partners."

The slightest scrutiny reveals an alarming confusion of law and gospel. If this is the pro-homosexual argument it needs to be exposed, severely challenged and refuted, before any further discussion in a Lutheran context can take place.

Law and Gospel

The ELCA policy is based on biblical authority and moral conduct, not on "gospel orientation." But in a strange diversion, there is thrust upon us (the ELCA) the burden of this dual implication: If you believe the gospel, you will approve of homosexual conduct; if you disapprove, you cannot be gospel oriented. Astounding! The gospel is used as a kind of trump card, a theological club. Even the most amateurish of theologians ought to see through this.

To argue the legitimacy of homosexual acts is one thing. The good news of salvation in Christ is quite another. Since Paul condemns various forms of behavior, perhaps he too was not gospel oriented? How far shall we go in mixing the gospel with the law? When we play this game we not only dilute the gospel, we lose it, and the Church is in deep troubleù very deep.

What is "inclusive?"

Perplexing also is the use of the word "large" in the above quote. What does the largeness of a church body have to do with its moral judgment? Are we to believe that the larger the church, the more tolerant it should be? This is weird.

At issue also in the church's ongoing discussion is the use of that good word "inclusiveness," inherent in the gospel itself. Traditionally it has meant that God's call is to everyone, that Christ's great commission is universal, that the church's doors are open to all sinners, that discrimination denies the church's very nature. It has never meant approval and "tolerance" of errant belief or conduct.

Hypocrites in the Church

In the same letter from San Francisco, the ELCA is accused of hypocrisy because it implemented its policy regarding sexual conduct of its pastors. It is based on the rationale that gay and lesbian pastors are encouraged by the church to remain secret and lie about their sexual identity. The ELCA to my knowledge encourages no one to lie. Do we want some kind of ecclesiastical gestapo to probe the pastors' personal lives? Of course not. But if a pastor intentionally "hides" his/her sexual practice for the sake of remaining on the clergy roster of a church which does not condone it, who really is the pretender, the hypocrite?

Teaching the Gospel

In a service officially terminating ELCA membershipforthe two expelled congregations, our bishop issued them a mild reprimand for their failure to live within the church's guidelines and promised his pastoral support and prayers for the future. He regretted, as we all do, the tension and divisiveness which their action created. With all due respect, one questions his statement to the media that the aberrant churches have taught the ELCA that the gospel is for all. In the context it was misleading and perhaps a put-down of the broader church he serves. If there are those who do not believe in an all-inclusive gospel, they too ought to be disciplined. I know of no such folks.

One might question also the bishop's choice of words in referring to the ELCA position on sexuality as "the received presumptions...of our forbearers." Perhaps I read more into that phrase than is intended.

True Unity in the Gospel

The San Francisco letter laments the fact that the ELCA has had sufficient time in the five-year suspension period to be "more flexible" in the certification of its pastors. No mention is made of the corollary that the two suspended congregations also had been given time to be in compliance.

We wish the two churches well. We do so genuinely. If Christ crucified and risen is proclaimed with power and clarity, the Spirit will work. But law and gospel must not be mixed, or we lose the essence and the purpose of both.

Unity in the church, whether ecumenical or strictly Lutheran, is much to be desired. Ill-founded accusations leveled at the church (betrayal of the gospel, non-inclusiveness, hypocrisy) are not helpful. These are very serious charges which tend only to alienate and polarize, eroding any hope there may be for conflict resolution.