Sexuality Task Force—Questions and Responses …..Robert Benne

1. What do you consider to be the strongest arguments for or against change in the current ELCA policies? I assume that “policies” includes the theological and moral teachings that under-gird them. The strongest argument against change in the traditional teachings and policies of the church is that there is no warrant in scripture or theological/moral tradition for such a change. Even the revisionists—Jersild, Wink, Hunsinger—are admitting as much. Analogies to changes in women’s roles in the church and in the status of slavery do not hold because there were many warrants in scripture and tradition to argue for change. There seem to be none with regard to homosexual relations. The Bible and tradition are clear on these matters, in spite of the attempts to relativize their witness by historical-critical efforts.

   A second argument concerns the status of a moral teaching of several thousand years duration and held by 99% of the Christian church. There must be overwhelming biblical, theological, and moral reasons for overturning such a settled teaching. To marshal such reasons ought to take at least a generation. We have nothing close to such overwhelming arguments and we have only a decade of discussion.

   A third argument is an ecclesiological/ecumenical one. Were we to change our teaching we would associate ourselves with the most accommodated and declining religious bodies—United Church of Christ, Unitarianism, Reformed Judaism, and Episcopalianism—and separate ourselves from growing and normative Christianity—Catholicism, Orthodoxy, evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism. I believe change would align us with decadent and sectarian religious bodies.

   A fourth argument concerns the disruption of the ELCA. Changing the teachings and policies—or allowing “local option”—will bring about a great defection from the ELCA. There will be open schism by many churches and disaffiliation by many more, i.e., they will give only token support to a church they believe has lost its way. Many clergy will leave or withdraw their support from wider expressions of the church. Lay people will leave in droves when the new teachings are introduced into Sunday School materials. The ELCA as a unified and coherent church will cease to exist.

   A fifth concerns the sexual confusion and chaos that will increase in the church if we adapt new policies. Teaching moral equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual relations will be a great disservice to those who are confused about their sexual identity. I experienced such turmoil in early battles about sexual ethics at LSTC.

   There are arguments for change. The major one is that we have gay and lesbian Lutherans who want to have their unions blessed. We have gay and lesbian Lutherans who want to be in partnered relationships and be called as pastors in the church. Compassion for and empathy with them seem to suggest that we give them what they want. But, given the clarity and unanimity of the Bible and tradition, I do not see how we can do that. I believe we can bless their friendships—as we can bless other kinds of friendships—but we cannot bless something that the Bible and tradition proscribe.

2. Are these issues Church defining and Church dividing issues? As I suggested above, I believe they are. The teachings on marriage—and correlatively on homosexuality—are at the core of Christian theological and moral teaching. Marriage between a man and woman is the primal covenant that God established for humankind even before the Fall. The whole Bible assumes and expresses a heterosexual structure. Revisionists recognize this when they charge the Bible with being “heterosexist.” At least two commandments directly assume and express this covenant and structure. Many people will wince if they disagree with a social statement of the church or with Bishop Hanson’s pronouncements on war and peace, but many will fight or leave the church if it changes its teaching on this issue.
   
3. What advice would you give us in the structuring of study materials? I could advise you to be “even-handed” and it would be an improvement over earlier materials, which clearly revealed the bias of the writers. But I think “even-handed” is not what is called for. I think it has to be made very clear that the church has teachings and policies on these matters and that, given their duration and near universality, it will take overwhelming argument and evidence to overturn such weighty theological and moral presumptions. The contending positions are not standing on equal ground so that we can pick the best arguments for one or the other. Rather, the traditional theological and moral teaching stands on much higher ground, and the arguments against it must be so strong that they can climb up that steep hill. It simply is not a case of picking between positions of equal standing.