A lay person from the Alberta Synod proposes that the only hope we have for moving forward together in this discussion about homosexuality is to get to the heart of the matter, namely, by addressing the question: "Is homosexual behavior no longer a sin?".
August 18, 2006
Getting to the Heart of the Matter
To date, most of the discussion and debate surrounding the issue of same-sex blessings has been taking place on the periphery of the real issue that needs to be discussed and addressed. For example, proponents for same-sex blessings at the recent Eastern Synod convention brought forward a lot of periphery issues, such as the following, which have tended to confuse and cloud the main issue:
As per the above examples, those who are actively promoting a change in this church's teaching on homosexual behaviour have been skirting the heart of the matter. The "heart of the matter", quite simply, is the question: "Is homosexual behavior no longer a sin?" The social statement, A Statement on Sex, Marriage and the Family, adopted in 1970 by the Lutheran Church of America, one of the predecessor founding bodies of the ELCIC, continues to guide this church's understanding of sex, marriage and family. According to the following excerpts, from the 1970 social statement, this church's teaching, also in accord with the Church's teaching for over two thousand years, is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and homosexual behavior is a sin:
"Christian faith affirms marriage as a covenant of fidelity a dynamic, lifelong commitment of one man and one woman in a personal and sexual union"
"Scientific research has not been able to provide conclusive evidence regarding the causes of homosexuality. Nevertheless, homosexuality is viewed biblically as a departure from the heterosexual structure of God's creation. Persons who engage in homosexual behavior are sinners only as are all other persons alienated from God and neighbor".Alluding to the 1970 social statement, Bishop Pryse and the Eastern Synod Council advised a segment of the clergy in the Eastern Synod in 2003 that, "…our church's bishops have unanimously agreed that the act of 'marrying' or 'blessing' a same-sex couple, would constitute a breach of this official statement".
According to an article ("Evangelical Lutherans plan July vote on same-sex unions") in the Kitchener/Waterloo Record (March 26, 2005), Michael Pryse, bishop of the church's Eastern Synod, is reported to have acknowledged that critics might argue that allowing same-sex blessings before forming a new statement on marriage is "putting the cart before the horse". However, according to Bishop Pryse, the "counter arguments would be that in some of our congregations this is a pressing issue right now". He then posed the question: "To hold off for another four years or so while we do a larger piece on the theology of marriage, is that the road we want to go down?" The answer to such a question should be a resounding "YES"!
A motion adopted by the ELCIC's National Church Council (NCC) in 2003 acknowledged "that current policy is determined by the 1970 LCA statement Sex, Marriage and Family". In the same motion, the NCC indicated that there was a "pressing need to review this (the 1970 social statement) and if appropriate, to develop a new directive". The NCC with its 'local option' same-sex blessings motion that was recommended to the 2005 National Convention unsuccessfully made a veiled attempt to modify the church's teaching on this matter by the mere stroke of a pen or, more precisely, a strike-out with a black felt marker. With all of the attention focused on the central part of the NCC's 3-part motion, namely, allowing same-sex blessings as a congregational local option, the first part of the motion went largely unnoticed, namely, that "NCC recommends that the ELCIC acknowledge the inadequacy of sections of Sex, Marriage and the Family, A Social Statement of the Lutheran Church in America, 1970 referring to homosexuality and homosexual behaviour in light of developing theological, pastoral and sociological scholarship and that the ELCIC suspend the application of those references". Giving the people of the ELCIC only a 3-4 month notice on a matter requiring serious theological discernment to be changed by a mere vote at the national convention shows a profound disrespect for the people of this church. As well, the cavalier manner in which they tried to introduce change contravened the ELCIC's policies and guidelines for introducing such a significant change in the church's teaching (as described below).
Retired National Bishop Donald Sjoberg has observed that the ELCIC is guided by historic documents of the predecessor bodies, such as A Statement on Sex, Marriage and Family, "until such time as the church has adopted subsequent statements or positions". Retired Eastern Synod Bishop William Huras noted that a policy allowing same-sex blessings, "…would also seem to require a full study of human sexuality, marriage, and related issues". He then asks a germane question, "Has our church conducted such a study?" He also asks that with the NCC bringing forth recommendations to the 2005 ELCIC National Convention in the early part of 2005, "Is it possible for such an important issue to be fully discussed within this time frame?" The answer to both of these questions clearly is "No", revealing the shallowness of the manner in which the NCC tried to implement a profound change in this church's long-standing practice and teaching on this matter.
The ELCIC's Lutheran Office for Public Policy describes a social statement as "an expression of the church's understanding of the social context as well as the biblical and theological framework for considering specific social questions" which serves "as teaching tools, policy, and a witness to society on important social issues". The ELCIC's policy document The Public Witness of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada: A Policy on How the Church Addresses Social Issues notes that social statements from the two ELCIC predecessor bodies (Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada), "serve as statements of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and should provide a foundation from which newly developed social statements or resolutions or study documents will emerge". If these statements are the "foundation" from which "resolutions" will emerge, then putting forward a resolution allowing same sex blessings before forming a new or revised social statement that would support such a resolution is clearly tantamount to "putting the cart before the horse"! According to the guidelines, "It shall be the policy of this church that Social Statements be made only after this church at its various levels (that is, not just the NCC) has taken responsibility to study the issue in question in the light of the Gospel". Furthermore, unlike the 'black felt marker' approach employed by the National Church Council with respect to changing the existing 1970 LCA social statement, the process for developing a social statement (and presumably for making substantial changes to an existing social statement) requires quite an elaborate 6-step discernment process. That process involves extensive consultation and study for a minimum of two years before this church in convention addresses the issue in the form of a social statement.
Coming back to the heart of the matter, "Is homosexual behavior no longer a sin?", ELCIC Pastor Tim Johnson, in his essay "A Clear Question", emphasized the importance of such a clear question as "the only hope we have for moving forward together in this discussion about homosexuality". According to Johnson, "The more that leadership tries to arbitrarily tell us what kind of issue it is (e.g. that it is adiaphora or not of confessional status) the more divisive will be the effect on the church…We have to be honest and acknowledge that this will be divisive. That's just inevitable when one of the alternatives is that this is truly forbidden in God's eyes".
It is time to stop skirting the main issue! Let's get to the heart of the matter: "Is homosexual behavior no longer a sin?" The onus is on the proponents of a change in our church's teaching, which corresponds to the teaching of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church throughout its 2000-year history, to bring forward convincing evidence and arguments based solely upon Scripture - the Lutheran way - to support their view that such teaching is wrong and needs to be changed. According to Johnson, "Bad process creates division while good process heals". The current process is leading to acrimony and bitterness, diverting this church away from its primary mission, and denigrating our witness of Jesus Christ to a watching world. Those who are advocating change should produce a SINGLE document outlining their theological case for changing this church's teaching and make such a document available to this church for consideration.
Ron Voss
Cochrane, Alberta
