I hosted a discussion at my local Lutheran congregation a few nights ago about the recent ELCA Churchwide Assembly 2009, which approved gay clergy and possibly gay marriage. When I was asked the question, “What’s the Biblical basis for the ELCA action?”, I’m afraid I didn’t provide an adequate response. That’s partly my fault and partly because the answer is complicated and nuanced and not a black and white, unambiguous, simple “proof text”, which is what many conservatives on this issue demand.
Does the Bible speak to nuclear disarmament? Universal health care? Teaching evolution in biology class? The flat earth society? Does the Bible speak to twenty-first century issues that are far beyond the purview and understanding of the ancients who authored the words of the Biblical texts? (Ok, if you’re of a mind that God wrote the Bible, you may as well stop reading now).
Does the Bible speak to “publicly accountable, monogamous, life-long same gender relationships?”
Yes, but we must use modern lenses to filter the pre-scientific, culturally conditioned worldview of ancient authors. We must view the issue in light of a twenty-first century understanding and apply broad Biblical principles and not isolated proof texts.
The sixteenth century monk and priest Martin Luther, the greatest sexual revolutionary in history, not only confronted the church’s insistence upon a celibate priesthood when he gleefully married his love, the nun Katy von Bora, but he also reversed a millennium of sexual angst by rejecting the hangups over human sexuality dating to the fifth century, the time of Augustine and Jerome and others who saw sex–even within marriage–as the spreading of the sinful seed of Adam. The joy of sex: the author of the modern book by that title can thank old Father Martin.
But I digress …
It was Martin Luther who suggested that we view, interpret, and understand Scripture through the lens of “the canon within the canon.” Not all scripture is equal. Not all verses carry the same weight. Had it been up to Luther, he would have excluded the “epistle of straw”, the book of James, altogether. He also had serious doubts about the book of Revelation. With deep devotion toward the Holy Writ, he was nevertheless willing to challenge that which should be challenged.
And what is the heart of the matter, Luther’s “canon within the canon”, or the Scripture’s “core testimony”, to use the terminology of theologian Walter Brueggemann? I think most Christians would agree that it has to do with the gospel, the good news of Jesus of Nazareth, the one who accepted and included those rejected by society.
And what of the law, the rules and regulations, the moral precepts that guide and instruct? Here too, there is a heart of the matter, a canon within the canon, and core testimony attributed to the words of Jesus himself. Love God and love your neighbor, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Or, as John the evangelist records the words of Jesus, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.”
Christian ethics is less a set of rules than a principle: a measuring stick, a gauge, or a scale. What is the loving thing to do? The evidence must be weighed–and that includes the best evidence available—scientific, cultural, academic, historical, medical and psychological. Faith and reason. If the weight of the evidence tilts the scale one way—despite the ancient words of the Levitical priests or Paul the apostle—our way forward as faithful Christians is clear. The heart of the matter, the canon within the canon, the core testimony compels us.
While others may disagree, it is unfair to judge this view as unbiblical or unchristian. With Jacob at the ford of the Jabbok, we have wrestled with our wonderings. We believe we have plumbed deeper streams that wash away the passages that some would use to clobber their fellow.
Your wrote, “Ok, if you’re of a mind that God wrote the Bible, you may as well stop reading now”. I appreciate your candor. I wonder what was in the remainder of your blog.
Gosh, Noel. Are you suggesting that Paul was God? Or that God was lying when He claimed that it was Paul writing those books? This is all very confusing.
Noel – just a brief question … WHICH language was used when God wrote the Bible? You seem to be quite certain about that – although since you didn’t finish reading the remainder of the blog post … I’m just saying …
Obie, I think you have you have identified an unfinished project that the ELCA is going to need to return to, probably pretty soon. Since the task force was so divided it was unable to make any definitive statement one way or the other. All it did was identify four typical viewpoints in the church (and presumably on the task force) and make the obvious observation that there is no concensus. Since none of the four were endorsed then the project of developing a biblical and theological defense was never done. This has to be one of the best examples of the limits of theology by committee.
There are, of course, some find biblical and theological defences for acceptance of gays and gay clergy that have been written by individuals. Until the ELCA definitevly resolves this, however, that’s all we’ll have. Eventually, a clear statement needs to be made affirming homosexuality and gays in the church. It will be interesting to see how long we’ll have to wait for that. It will also be interesting to see if this finally pushes the ELCA to adopt a consistantly progressive view of the Bible. One of the most amazing things to me in the CWA debate was how graduates of ELCA seminaries could take such diametrically opposed positions. Some may see such “diverstiy” as a strength of the ELCA but I think it just results in a muddled self-understanding and message.
Optimistically, we could say this is a teaching moment. The church has implicitly rejected the authority of the so-called “clobber” passages. Instead of being defensive about that, pastors are now given the opportunity to share what they have learned about critical exegesis. Instead of shirking from their seminary education, they can run with it. Or, at least we can hope.
All governments, all societies, are built on one foundation, the family. The family is one man, one woman, having children. When you change the definition of family, problems arise, as the Roman Empire found out, and other governments, such as China, are finding out, with their one child rule, ie too many men and not enough women to have a family. Celibate gays can only be friends, never a family. The scientific method states, “if you do the same experminent over and over again, you will always get the same results.” If we were all celibate gays the human race would die out quickly. It does not meet the basic requirement of the law. The average straight person will have sex with 3 people in their life time, the average gay male will have 76 pardners in their life time. The cost of treating STDs alone is mind boggling. The cost of calling a gay relationship “natural” to our children will destroy our society just as it destroyed the Roman Empire. I have always been taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner, allowing the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. The action of the ELCA is bringing the sin into the church and passing it off as “normal & natural”, even desirable. Gay men and women need to repent, just as all sinners need to do. To allow this sin into the church, will just open the door to other sins. History has shown the ELCA’s action to be wrong over and over again. And it is wrong now.
Dear Mr. Fake,
I think you’re fantasizing about history and politics. There is no historical basis for suggesting the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was related to a shifting understanding of family. Nor is there any political basis for suggesting China is in decline. You’re making up facts to fit your theory.
It appears you also pull facts out of the air regarding the promiscuity figures you cite (oh, you saw it on the internet so it must be true?) I think you need to rethink where you get your information. A blog post just came across my desk that has a line that I think fits. The blog post is entitled The Internet and the Ignorant: