By Dr. Paul Gravrock
At the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther said: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason...my conscience is captive to the Word of God. (Roland H Bainton, Here I Stand, Abingdon Press, New York, 1950, p. 185) His words would be a fitting response in our day to the study. Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith sent out for response to the churches of the Evangelical Lu tberan Church in America (ELCA).
In constitution and in practice, the Lutberanchurchhas confessed the inspiration and au thority of Scripture and the folly of building faith and life on any other foundation. The ELCA sexuality study, however, does not reflect such confidence in the reliability and power of the biblical record. The concept of the inspiration of Scripture is not found in the document Instead, the Scriptures are regarded as little more than the best thinking of fallible folk of other times and places.
And while the word "authority" or "authoritative" appears five times in the study, in no case is the Scripture simply declared to be authoritative. On page 1, we are told that "these authoritative bases of our faith [the witness of Scripture and the historic confessions of the church], in dialogue with contemporary experience and knowledge, guide us corpo-rately as we seek to discern what is good, right, or Fitting regarding matters of sexuality." A dialogue is presumably a conversation among equals. Thus the Scripture is apparently no more authoritative than human knowledge of "the cries, fears, arid joys of people" (page 1).
And on page 11, the writers state: "We need to talk with one another, but even more importantly we need to be in conversation with Scripture, the authoritative basis for the church's faith and life. As Lutheran Christians, we cherish Scripture and insist on seeing God's word as a living partner in our deliberations about sexuality."
The statement above begins well, but by the time the second sentence has been added, the Scripture is no longer the authoritative source and norm the ELCA Constitution declares it to be. A "living partner" is merelyone among many voices, and theone can be overruled by the many. This is precisely what has taken place. Contemporary experience, scientific research, and human rationalizing have been given precedence over the clear words of Scripture.
Plain reason is also lacking in the document. The text is replete with phrases like "there is evidence to suggest," "may refer," "could designate," and "if this indeed was the case." On such foundations the major conclusions of the study are built!
We are given a list of six guiding principles on page 12. Five are stated in the negative, setting a tone of mistrust of what the Scripture has been understood to say. On page 13, the text refers to David's adultery with Bathsheba and Ammon s rape of Tamar to demonstrate that just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is to be affirmed. Do the members of the Task Force seriously believe that Christian people have u nderstood these two stories to describe positive behavior which is to be condoned and emulated? And really, is gender hierarchy the primary message of toe Old Testament regarding sexuality? Is Jesus' ministry focused on crossing purity boundaries? Are we vastly different than people of Old or New Testament times? Are our assumptions and understandings superior to those of the biblical writers? All these are declared or implied, but none is convincingly proved.
The task force'sdiscussion of the Greek word malakoi(malakoi)on page 23 further defies plainreason, Thedocumenttellsus that this word may not mean what Christians traditionally have thought it meant. The discussion of this assertion takes place in a footnote (page 27) which refers at length to the writings of John H. Elliott and Robin Scroggs. A list of possible meanings is given to show that malakoi in I Corinthians 6:9 meant "soft" rather than "effeminate." But then, in a moment of scholarly honesty, the footnote states: "Greek usage beyond the New Testament, however, attests the extended connotation of soft as "effeminate." The footnote further suggests that malakoi in I Corinthians could designate frequently abusive situations. But again the writers admit "It should be noted, however, that there is not evidence contemporary to Paul to support this meaning." This is hardly compelling reasoning for changing the church's understanding of either word meanings or moral convictions.
I believe that the whole study stands or falls on the basis of its understanding of the inspiration andauthority of Scripture. ThestudyfindsScripture untrustworthy for moral decision-making in our day. And I? Together with the Constitution of the ELCA, Ifind Scripture to be descriptive of the human condition and absolutely trustworthy for faith and lifejincluding morality and sexual practices.
To ignore Scripture or set it aside is to court personal and corporate disaster. Let us rather set aside this study, for it is neither a true exposition of Scripture nor an example of plain reason.
* TheRev. Dr. Paul Gravrock is the pastor ofGoodShepherd Lutheran Church in Novato, CA, and chair of the Division for Congregational Life, Sierra Pacific Synod of the ELCA.