By Keith R. Odegard
Download pdf version
The following summary outlines the response submitted by the Solid Ground Ministry/Canada Executive to the Task Force of the ELCIC Study of Human Sexuality. The Solid Ground response matches the format of the Study with the addition of an introduction and a conclusion.
Introduction p. 2
Background and brief description of “new theology” advocated by the Study
Bishop Susan Johnson’s responsibility for the Study
Session One - Called to be Disciples p. 8
Analysis of violation of Article II of the ELCIC Constitution
Illegal and improper use of ELCIC human and financial resources
Session Two – Relationships p. 13
Improper and illogical presentation of orthodox Christian doctrine
Unorthodox presentation of God
Session Three – Sin p. 17
Introduction of “new theology” heretical description of sin; misplaced trust
Exclusion of orthodox Christian doctrine of original sin
Session Four - Families p. 23
Promotion of feminist ideology that is not compatible with Article II
Rejection of orthodox view that sexual activity should be restricted to husband and wife
Session Five - Sexuality, Justice and Healing p. 25
Illogical rejection of law and rules to address consequences of sin
Analysis of David and Bathsheba story based on “new theology” concepts promoted by the Study
Session Six - Sexuality and Orientation p. 31
Analysis of Task Force and ELCIC hierarchy’s agenda to promote same-sex blessings/marriage and the ordination of active homosexuals
Session Seven - Sexuality and Spirituality p. 35
Conflict between cited Study authorities (Harber, Martinson, Roth, etc.) and ELCIC Constitution, Scripture and the Book of Concord
Conclusion p. 37
For advocacy of a theology that is incompatible with Article II of the ELCIC Constitution, the Solid Ground Executive call for the resignation of Bishop Susan Johnson and all members of the Task Force of the ELCIC Study on Human Sexuality from all ELCIC offices and responsibilities.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
INTRODUCTION
The ELCIC Task Force on Human Sexuality (“Task Force”) has recently prepared a study for the ELCIC community to provide feedback to the Task Force regarding the issues of human sexuality. This feedback will supposedly aid the Task Force in the formation of an ELCIC social statement relating to human sexuality. Strangely, no author(s) is (are) of the Study are identified. If the members of the Task Force were not the primary authors of this study document, then in the interest of transparency and honesty the person or persons who were the primary authors should be identified. The Study was issued and supported by the Task Force. The Task Force is responsible for drafting the ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality. The members are:
Judy Wry (Chairperson)
Richard Crossman
Sonja Free
Steve Kristenson
Nadine Smith
Rebecca Ulrich
Sam Voo
Paul Gehrs (ELCIC Staff Support)
Every member of this Task Force was appointed by Bishop Raymond Schultz. Regardless of the unknown authorship of the Study, Bishop Johnson is responsible for the Study’s content, since she has approved the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars of ELCIC resources to create, publish and distribute this study to the ELCIC community. The Task Force reports to Bishop Johnson and Bishop Johnson, in turn, reports on its activities to ELCIC National Church Council (“NCC”). Paul Gehrs, a paid ELCIC employee, acts as Staff Support to the Task Force.
If Bishop Johnson, as chief executive officer of the ELCIC, believed that this Study advocated heresy and violated the ELCIC Constitution, she could not, in good conscience permit the ELCIC to pay for its creation, promotion, publication and distribution. In fact, based on the content of the official ELCIC website, it appears Bishop Johnson enthusiastically supports the study and the theology it proffers. The Updates on the Human Sexuality Study section of the ELCIC website includes the following statement:
“I very much encourage individuals and congregations to get involved in the study”, says ELCIC National Bishop Susan C. Johnson. (www.elcic.ca/Human-Sexuality/default.cfm.
The September 30, 2009 ELCIC News Release, publicly unveiling the Study states the following:
I urge all members of the ELCIC to participate in this study, says National Bishop Susan C. Johnson.
In addition to providing a description of the theology of the ELCIC hierarchy regarding human sexuality, a close reading of this study reveals the core theological position of the ELCIC elite on a wide range of theological issues beyond human sexuality. The NCC commissioned the Task Force and a report by the Task Force chairperson, Judy Wry was presented to the NCC at their September 10 – 12, 2009 meeting. Based on the minutes of this NCC meeting, it appears that no one protested the release of the Study to the people of the ELCIC, or the work of the Task Force. In the absence of any written, dissenting opinion from any of the Task Force members, Bishop Johnson, any Synod Bishop, any Synod Council member, or the NCC, it appears likely that the ELCIC hierarchy agrees and supports the content and promotion of this Study. Recognizing the significant ELCIC staff costs and direct costs of creation, distribution and promotion of the Study, the ELCIC hierarchy has chosen to expend tens of thousands of benevolence dollars to promote this Study in the ELCIC.
The relevant NCC motion from March, 2006 reads as follows:
CC-06-17 That the National Bishop appoint a task force to prepare a proposal for the development of a social statement on human sexuality. This proposal would be presented to NCC with possible options and alternatives at the September 2006 meeting. Carried
The Study presents a clear new path that makes a sharp break from the orthodox Christianity of the past 2,000 years. For purposes of this response, this new, false path will be identified as the “new theology”. This “new theology” stands in sharp contrast to the faith described in the Old and New Testaments and interpreted by the Book of Concord.
The introduction to the Study begins the process of describing the foundational assumptions of the “new theology.” The following list briefly summarizes a sample of the doctrines that form the false, heretical, “new theology” advocated by this Study.
Affirmation of Diversity: Diversity is highly valued and should be strongly encouraged. The archaic theology of one static belief system that is meant to apply to all individuals throughout history should be rejected and suppressed.
Conformance to Dominant Culture: All activities of any religious institution, such as the ELCIC, must constantly recognize and adapt to the dominant culture of the relevant time and place. Since all cultures change over time, religious institutions must also change their belief system in order to appear relevant to the current culture.
Scripture is Not Relevant: Original founding documents such as Creeds, the Old and New Testament, and Confessions, must be analyzed on the basis of the inherent cultural bias of the original authors. Although previous generations of Christians saw these documents as the divinely inspired Word of God, such a view is not compatible with the “new theology”. The “new theology” seeks to relate to the value system and behavioural norms of the dominant culture. It is foolish to attempt to apply precepts and principles to the present day if they are written by authors who had no conception of the modern world. This attitude is only applied to non-modern sources that do not agree with the “new theology” view of the world (e.g. Ten Commandments, Creeds, etc.).
Inconsistent Application of Scripture: Paradoxically, in direct contrast to #3 above, the “new theology” is free to use any non-modern source of doctrine if it is consistent with the cultural norms and personal desires of members of the society. For example, “new theology” adherents promote the concept of the “Love of Christ” to support the new faith practice of blessing/marrying active homosexuals. To support this idea, they quote New Testament verses such as 1 John 4:16:
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
Since the concept of the “Love of Christ” supports the “new theology”, this particular verse is somehow relevant and applicable to the modern world, even though it is a concept based on the writings of males during the 2,000 year old Roman era culture.
Scripture Comes from Man and God: Advocates of the “new theology” proclaim that the Bible was written by both men and God. Since all men are severely limited by their own culture, sex and personal experience, they cannot be trusted as prophets from God. Rather, only select portions of the writings included in the Bible can be trusted to be the Word of God. Thankfully, the “New Theologians” are able to distinguish which Bible verses are from men and which verses are from God. The net result is that any verse of the Bible that contradicts the “new theology” is from men. Any verse that supports the “new theology” is from God. For example, in accordance with the “new theology”, all references in the Bible (e.g. Leviticus 20:13) describing homosexual actions as detestable are written by men, not God, and should therefore be ignored.
New Theological Concepts and Faith Practices: Rather than attempting to create a coherent theology based on both the content of the Scriptures in their entirety and what is excluded from the Scriptures (e.g. no acceptance, affirmation or encouragement of active homosexuals to marry), the advocates of the “new theology” are free to create their own theological concepts and faith practices (e.g. same sex blessings/marriages) unhindered by the Scriptures or logic. One attractive feature of this approach is that the “new theology” can easily adapt to the diversity, cultural norms and scientific knowledge that changes rapidly in a modern society.
Context Determines Theology: Context is a critical theological concept that has been ignored by previous orthodox Christian institutions. Context can completely change an acceptable response to any ethical question. It is impossible to determine the correct response to any ethical question without first recognizing the context of the individual. For example, if an individual believes that God created him to engage in sexual activities with another person of the same gender, and the dominant culture accepts this behaviour, his context gives him license to ignore the expectations of a writer of the New Testament, such as Paul. In relating to the person, a religious institution, such as the ELCIC, has an obligation to recognize the context of both the individual and the dominant culture. In order to meet the needs of the individual and the wider culture, the religious institution should joyfully accept and affirm the individual who continues to engage in a behaviour previously prohibited. If a religious institution refuses to adapt to the modern culture, it will likely wither and die. In order to survive, it is imperative that a religious institution adapt and change to meet the needs and desires of the dominant culture. For example, if the culture accepts homosexual marriages and individual homosexuals desire to be blessed/married in a religious institution, ministry practices should be changed to include the blessing/marriage of homosexuals.
Elastic Theological Truths: There are no central core truths that remain unchanged across time and diverse cultures. This lack of consistency in definitively addressing ethical and moral issues results in the need for any relevant religious institution to continually re-examine and test doctrines and faith practices for relevance in the light of the “changing realities of the modern world”.
Primacy of Religious Institution Hierarchy: The responsibility for the doctrine and faith practices of the religious institution rest with individuals that are members of the religious institution hierarchy. Documents from previous cultures and time periods are not recognized as authoritative sources of doctrine, since they do not reflect the context of modern day individuals and the culture of the modern world. In the case of the ELCIC, the documents that have previously specified the doctrine and faith practices include the Old and New Testament and the Book of Concord. Limiting current faith practices to those practiced in the past is illogical since these past faith practices do not fully encompass the context or culture of the modern world. The addition of homosexual blessings/marriage and affirmation of the active homosexual lifestyle is one example of how the ELIC could expand the range of faith practices. It would be improper to limit the range of future faith practices, since over time, cultures continue to evolve and change.
Affirmation of all Human Behaviour: God created a wide diversity of human beings, therefore religious institutions should recognize this fact and focus on acceptance and affirmation of all humans, no matter what their behaviour. All behaviour must be viewed through various “lenses”, such as personal experience and politically correct values such as equity, freedom, responsibility, etc. Humans are inherently good, since they are God-created. Religious institutions should focus on celebrating each individual’s unique gifts and characteristics, rather than expend resources on archaic irrelevant doctrines such as the Ten Commandments, Creeds, etc. that are based on male dominated cultural norms from ancient history.
Theological Lenses: In order to make a decision on any ethical question, the use of various “lenses” is a critically important theological technique. In Session One, the ELCIC Study provides a number of different lenses to use when examining the issue of human sexuality. Theological, context and process are the three lens categories that the ELCIC Study presents. The overall object of examining ethical questions is for each individual to obtain “insight”. Since each person is unique, each person will use different lenses to determine their own “insight” regarding moral issues, including human sexuality. One person may use the Bible as a lens, while another may not find this lens helpful. Another individual could use the lenses of the dominant culture, their individual experience, science or the goal of equity in society to determine their personal “insight” into the moral issue. There are no absolute right or wrong “lenses” to employ when analyzing moral issues. Each individual is responsible to choose the “lenses” that result in their obtaining the greatest “insight”. Therefore, there are no absolute truths that apply to all individuals across the span of time and culture. Each person is responsible for their own “insights”. A religious institution does not so much provide definitive answers to ethical questions, but rather constructs a framework for individuals to self-discover their own “insights”, that will lead them to make the moral choice that is right for them. Any attempt to restrict an individual to the use of only one lens, such as the Bible, as specified in the ELCIC Constitution (Article II), should be rejected and ridiculed. Those that view Scripture as the “only source of the church’s doctrine” are naïve, unsophisticated and backward-thinking.
Encouragement of Individual Growth and Change: The world is changing rapidly. God created people to grow and mature in their discipleship. Therefore, individual change is to be expected and affirmed. This personal growth and development will likely include individuals changing their understanding of faith issues, including sexuality, as they grow beyond their initial simplistic, naïve, primitive, immature theological ideas.
Rejection of Rule of Law: Constitutions do not limit the activities and practices of the religious organization. Individuals within the religious organization hierarchy are not bound by the content of the organization’s constitution. Members of the organization’s hierarchy determine the organization’s doctrine and standards of faith and life. There can never be a conflict of interest between the actions of the organization’s hierarchy and the organization’s constitution, since the provisions of the constitution can be ignored by the hierarchy. In the case of the ELCIC, Article II of the ELCIC Constitution can be completely ignored if it conflicts with the theology of the ELCIC hierarchy.
Old Behavioural and Ethical Standards are Irrelevant: Rules and previous standards of acceptable behaviour are no longer relevant. The religious institution’s highest priority is to accept and affirm all individuals. There may be a significant organizational upheaval as the “new theology” is introduced, since many within the religious institution will resist the change to welcoming all people. Such upheaval should be expected and should not force a religious institution back to following long established rules and meeting historic behavioural expectations based on a simplistic, primitive understanding of the Scriptures.
“New Theology”Supported by Non-Scriptural Sources: Authority to support the “new theology” does not normally come from the Scriptures. Modern scientists, poets, etc. can be used to support a theological position that stands against the morality presented in the Bible.
Logic and Reason are Irrelevant: When presenting the “new theology”, there is no need to make the case employing logic. As an example, passages from the Bible can be presented that have no relevance to the “new theology” concept. There is no requirement that there be any logical connection between the Biblical reference and the ‘new theology” concept. For example citing the David and Bathsheba story and ignoring that God has expectations for human behaviour and the consequences of breaking God’s ancient law. Most Biblical passages, the contents of the Book of Concord and 2,000 years of Christian practice can be completely ignored. The important objective is to be “In Mission for Others”. Virtually any concept or faith practice can be proposed if this slogan is presented with the new idea.
The ELCIC Study of Human Sexuality is divided into 7 sessions. Each session has been reviewed and analyzed. A conclusion/summary of the entire Study has also been prepared. It is hoped that members of the ELCIC will find this analysis to be a helpful resource in evaluating the future proposed policy initiatives of the ELCIC hierarchy.
The references listed describe the session and page, for example Session #2, page 3 would be referenced as (S2p3).
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION ONE: CALLED TO BE DISCIPLES
The Study includes the following relevant excerpt from the ELCIC Constitution (Article II, Section 3), “This church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church.”
Unfortunately, the Task Force ignores this unequivocal, clear declaration of Article II, and instead, presents decision criteria that have no connection to the Old and New Testaments. The following summarizes some of the significant problems that exist in the Study:
Rather than recognizing the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as “the only source of the church’s doctrine”, the Study begins with the non-Biblical view of Mr. James Nelson. It is telling that the Study chose not to quote a Lutheran theologian, but rather chose, Mr. Nelson, a member of the United Church of Christ. Mr. Nelson states, “Sexuality is our self-understanding and way of being in the world as male and female.” The Biblical view of sexuality is primarily related to the procreation of God’s people. The Bible does not include the concept that sexuality is connected to our “self-understanding”. The tactic of mentioning, in passing, Article II of the ELCIC Constitution, then proceeding to present 70+ pages of techniques, opinions and theological understandings that are diametrically opposed to this Article, is neither logical nor faithful to the Gospel. A more honest approach would have been to simply state that this Study stands in opposition to the ELCIC Constitution. If the Bible is the “authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church”, why is this Study based on the non-Biblical opinion of many individuals, such as Mr. Nelson?
The concept of employing “lenses” to determine personal insights is illogical, if Article II is in force. The Bible makes no mention of formulating policy for the people of God (Old Testament and New Testament) based on employing various “lenses”. If one did accept the argument for the Biblical use of “lenses”, these lenses would certainly not include many of the “lenses” listed in the Study, which include personal experience, culture, equity, science and freedom. The Study quotes Article II, which includes the statement that the Bible is “the only source of church’s doctrine” (emphasis added). There is no passage in the Bible which includes any reference to personal experience, culture, equity, science and freedom as lenses when determining faith practices of God’s people.
The Study presents no summary or reference to the many direct instructions relating to human sexuality in the Bible. Why does the Study quote Article II, while at the same time refusing to include any analysis or presentation of the content of the Bible relating to human sexuality?
The inclusion of Scripture as only one “lens” of 15, after quoting Article II, is particularly disingenuous. Since Article II must be followed in all ELCIC policies, how can Scripture be only one of the 15 recommended lenses through which Study participants should view human sexuality questions when formulating ELCIC policy?
Considering the content of Article II, the Study’s refusal to present any Biblical concepts regarding human sexuality, coupled with the Study’s provision of a non-Biblical decision framework, does not meet minimum ethical standards of honesty and integrity.
How can any reasonable person trust the ELCIC Study to conform to the ELCIC Constitution when it quotes Article II, yet explicitly ignores the content of this article in the Study?
One foundational concept of the Study is that individuals should search for “insights” to come to a self-understanding of themselves in relation to human sexuality. This approach has no connection to Article II. Article II makes no mention of “self-understanding” or a personal search for “insights” based on culture, science, etc. when determining church doctrine and policy. On what scriptural basis does the Task Force emphasize self-understanding using current politically correct concepts such as equity, dominant culture, freedom and individual experience?
Since there is no Biblical reference to either the proposed methodology (self-understanding through the use of various “lenses”) and/or the specific content of the methodology (science, culture, equity, etc.), is it the intention of the Study authors, the Task Force and Bishop Susan Johnson to work toward the removal of Article II from the ELCIC Constitution by disbanding the ELCIC?
Article XX of the ELCIC Constitution states the following:
Section 1. ARTICLE II on “Confession of Faith” shall be unalterable.
Therefore, Article II cannot be altered without the dissolution of the ELCIC. If Bishop Johnson and the ELCIC hierarchy wish to eliminate Article II from the Constitution they should resign from their ELCIC offices and propose disbanding the ELCIC at the next ELCIC Convention. If the ELCIC was disbanded, all the assets of the organization could be transferred to a new religious institution. Unlike the ELCIC Constitution, this new constitution could be written to exclude any reference to the Old and New Testaments, Book of Concord, God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, etc.. In terms of determining acceptable doctrine, the new religious institution could include the criteria specified in the Study; individual experience, dominant culture behavioural norms, man/woman power relationships, science, equity, etc.
The approach of massively changing the theological doctrine of the ELCIC by simply ignoring Article II and proposing policies and doctrine that are antithetical to orthodox Christianity is not acceptable behaviour by individuals who are paid to operate the ELCIC in a manner that is consistent with its Constitution. If the ELCIC hierarchy wishes to eliminate Article II as the basis of determining ELCIC doctrine and policy, they should resign their positions and work toward disbanding the ELCIC. Why should congregations and individual members of the ELCIC give benevolence money to pay the salaries and overhead expenses of an ELCIC hierarchy that is actively working against the provisions of the Constitution of the ELCIC?
If the ELCIC hierarchy, the Task Force and the authors of the Study have no plans to propose the dissolution of the ELCIC, to achieve the objective of jettisoning Article II, how can they, meeting the minimum ethical standards of honesty, integrity and decency, present a Study that contains a theology and decision framework that unashamedly blatantly violates Article II?
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
This session content sets up a framework that is not Biblical, stands in opposition to Article II of the ELCIC Constitution and contains content that is adversative to orthodox Christianity. Those who would lead the ELCIC to policies and faith practices that are in direct opposition to the Bible and orthodox Christianity should at least have the decency and integrity to propose removal of Article II from the ELCIC Constitution by disbanding the ELCIC. Although many in the ELCIC may determine moral issues on the basis of personal experience, science, political correctness, congruence with dominant cultural norms, etc., current official ELCIC policy is no more or less than the following:
“This church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church.” (emphasis added)
This Study is in stark violation of the Constitution of the ELCIC, therefore it is unethical and illegal to expend ELCIC resources to promote or distribute the Study. If one recognizes that this Study is in violation of the ELCIC Constitution, then the ELCIC Bishop Susan Johnson is duty-bound to reject this Study and insist that the Task Force prepare a Study that, at a minimum, does not violate the requirements of the ELCIC Constitution, including Article II. Sadly, rather than rejecting the Study, she chose to promote it using tens of thousands of dollars of ELCIC resources!
If Bishop Johnson and the Task Force members wish to ignore Article II, they should find the courage to resign from their positions within the ELCIC and work towards disbanding the ELCIC, so that the religious institution that replaces the ELCIC is not constrained by adherence to the Holy Scriptures. This course of action would eliminate the conflict of interest inherent in an organization where the individuals responsible for insuring the organization comply with its constitution on a day to day basis, seek to introduce radical new polices and practices that violate this constitution. If the Task Force and the ELCIC hierarchy sincerely believe God is leading them to a radical change of ELCIC doctrine and practices, they should begin by openly working to form a new religious institution to take over all ELCIC assets, rather than maintain a Potemkin village façade of faithfulness to the ELCIC Constitution, while producing documents and policies that are in direct violation of this Constitution.
Both paid and non-paid individuals who participate in any activities of the ELCIC must be required as a condition of employment/volunteer service to perform their duties in accordance with the Constitution of the ELCIC, including Article II! If they cannot in good conscience adhere to this minimum ethical standard, they should either a.) work openly towards the dissolution of the ELCIC in order to eliminate Article II or, b.) transfer to a religious institution that is not constrained by the content of the Old and New Testaments and/or the Book of Concord.
In addition to the ELCIC Constitution argument, the decision framework presented in this Study is no different than what any non-Christian, politically correct, relatively self-aware member of a modern Western society would employ. The basic message of Session One is that there are no unchangeable Biblical truths related to human sexuality. All rules and expectations should be analyzed and reviewed based on the view of the issue through various “lenses” including science, culture, etc. If this is the new reality of the ELCIC regarding policy changes, it is doubtful that the organization can honestly call itself a “church”. Rather, the ELCIC is no different from other non-Christian organizations such as service clubs, political parties or education institutions, in terms of the decision framework it uses to form policy and introduce new ministry/faith practices. The Rotary Club, New Democratic Party and University of Alberta are not bound by a Constitution that includes restrictions such as Article II. These non-Christian organizations reflect the culture in which they function. It appears that Bishop Johnson and her Task Force see no need to restrict their activities or publications within the boundaries established by Article II. If the ELCIC is no different than other non-profit organizations, one has to wonder why Christian congregations and individuals would continue to support the ELCIC rather than other religious organizations that at least attempt to make policy and ministry practice decisions based on the Bible and their constitutions.
From a strictly organization survival standpoint, ignoring the ELCIC Constitution while attempting to introduce radical change to the organization will likely result in a significant loss of active members and financial support. If congregations and individual members do not trust the hierarchy to operate the ELCIC in accordance with its Constitution, they will likely abandon the ELCIC and search out a religious organization that acts in a manner consistent with its Constitution and orthodox Christianity.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the introduction of the “new theology”, the dishonesty of pretending Article II does not exist in forming church doctrine and policy, does not engender trust and confidence in the ELCIC hierarchy. Why would individuals and congregations support an organization that they do not trust, since it does not operate in an honest, transparent manner? There are likely many ELCIC members who naively believe that church policy must conform to Article II, since it is the only “unalterable” article in the ELCIC Constitution.
If the objective is to radically change the ELCIC Constitution to eliminate or amend Article II, the problem is that Article XX states that Article II is “unalterable”. Therefore a more honest approach would be to propose the disbanding of the ELCIC, with all assets transferred to a new religious institution that reflect the desires and policy initiatives of the ELCIC hierarchy. If a new religious institution was formed, the hierarchy could then act with integrity since the new institution’s Constitution would match their policy initiatives. Individuals and congregations that remained in the new religious institution would doubtless be more likely to support the organization since they would be aware of the new direction of the new religious institution that was no constrained in doctrine and policy by Article II.
In relation to the human sexuality Study, if congregations and individuals view the Study as violating the ELCIC Constitution, it is unlikely they will participate in the Study, maintain or increase support to their local congregation, synod or the ELCIC national office.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION TWO: RELATIONSHIPS
Life in Relationship (S2p2)
The Study mentions foundational documents such as the Ten Commandments and Luther’s Small Catechism, but neglects to describe what these documents require regarding human sexuality. The Task Force reduces these foundational documents to merely support the concept that God cares about His relationship to man and man’s relationship to each other. They fail to present both the text of the sixth commandment which describes God’s expectation for man’s conduct regarding sexuality, and Luther’s explanation of this commandment. A more coherent approach would have been to summarize the sixth commandment and Luther’s explanation
The Sixth Commandment.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
What does this mean?-
Answer: We should fear and love God, and so we should lead a chaste and pure life in word and deed, each one loving and honoring his wife or her husband.
(The Book of Concord, Fortress Press, p.343)
The sixth commandment and Luther’s explanation of it, describe specific behaviour related to sexuality. According to this documentation, God has rigid standards of behaviour that He expects from His people. There is no mention of the concepts that the Study raised in addressing matters of sexual conduct such as culture, context, equity, science, etc. God does not give man the responsibility to formulate his own rules and standards regarding sexual behaviour. Moses and Luther are describing a God that has a very narrow range of acceptable human sexual behaviour. Compared to the wide variety of possible sexual expressions (e.g. homosexuality, bi-sexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.), it appears that God requires one form of sexual expression for mankind, a long-term relationship between a husband and wife.
Contrary to Session 2 which focuses on “agape” love, the Sixth Commandment and Luther’s explanation in no way indicate that God’s divine love cancels His expectations of man’s conduct. Based on the content of this Study, a revised Sixth Commandment and Explanation following the “new theology” espoused in this Study is as follows:
Sixth Commandment (Revised to Comply with the “new theology”)
Human sexuality and human relationships are gifts from God that should be enjoyed by humans to the fullest extent possible.
What does this mean? (According to the “new theology”)
Due to God’s overwhelming, uncontrollable love for humans, humans are free to engage in their God-given sexuality to increase companionship, co-creativity, procreation and pleasure. Controls or limits on sexual activity should only include those restrictions that each individual determines to be appropriate in their individual circumstances. The factors that may effect their circumstances could include culture, science, equity, personal experience, etc.
It is important to recognize that the “new theology” does not include any explicit limits on human sexuality. Restrictions such as the number of simultaneous participants, age of participants, contraception technology, gender of participants, species of participants, chemical or other enhancements to the sexual experience, etc. are not specified. In contrast with the Bible, Book of Concord and historic orthodox Christian practice, the “new theology” promoted in this Study does not recognize unchanging uniform standards of human behaviour that apply across the span of either culture or time.
The authors of this Study go on to present three orthodox Christian concepts, but from these concepts, the Study veers off to implicitly include unorthodox concepts. The Task Force introduces the practice of drawing illogical heterodox conclusions from orthodox Christian beliefs. The following gives a short summary of the likely illogical progression the Task Force applies to God’s expectations relating to human sexuality.
Relationships are important to God. Therefore,
God gave commandments which Luther thought were important. Therefore,
God loves humans with an overwhelming “agape” love. Therefore,
All of God’s commands and expectations are not relevant regarding human sexuality. God needs humans so He can demonstrate his “agape” love. He does not require humans to comply with His rules and expectation. Therefore,
Rather than looking at the many references in God’s Word relating to human sexuality, humans should look to individuals such as Roland Martinson. Therefore,
Sexuality is not to be restricted to one husband and one wife as described through the Scriptures, but rather, “as an indispensable dimension of human identity, procreation, companionship, co-creativity, and pleasure.” (S2 p3) Therefore,
Sexual activity outside marriage could result in both companionship and pleasure. Therefore,
“Understanding sexuality may provide insight” (S2 p4) Therefore,
Sexuality takes place in relationships. Therefore,
Relationships are complex and are formed by many factors including culture, history, personal experience, etc. Therefore,
It would not be faithful to God to restrict the ELCIC’s understanding of sexuality to God’s commands as revealed in the Scriptures.
The Study does state that God’s command in Genesis 1 is to be fruitful and multiply, yet recognizes this command only in the context of the impact of family on relationships. Paradoxically, the Study does not explore this command or recognize that if this is God’s command, how could His church encourage and affirm relationships that have no possible chance of being fruitful or multiplying? It is biologically impossible for homosexuals to be fruitful and multiply. Instead of presenting a survey and analysis of the commands of God regarding sexuality, the Task Force authors gloss over these commands by mentioning them only in passing, in sections that focus on relationships or a description of the modern family. This technique of including references to foundational documents, without revealing the direct commands of God regarding human sexuality, is not honest nor logical.
The bulk of this Study relates to descriptions of modern society and the non-Biblical factors that may affect any person, including non-Christians, in examining the issue of appropriate sexual behaviour. Sadly, this modern-culture approach is completely useless to Christians. This Study would be appropriate to non-Christians who wish to explore modern society’s current view of human sexuality. This Study has no place in an organization like the ELCIC, that is restricted to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only source of the church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church. (ELCIC Constitution Article II).
Freedom, responsibility and accountability (S2p6)
The Study presents the un-Christian view that “Marriage is valuable, but it is not the only way to live a sexually moral life. What God expects is less about obeying particular laws, and more about living values, such as respect, honour, mutuality, generosity and kindness.” (S2p6) To the vast majority of Christians throughout history, such a view is heresy. The definition of heresy is defined by The Living Webster Dictionary as: A belief at variance with the accepted doctrine of a church. Given the contents of Article II of the ELCIC Constitution there can be little doubt that those who promote ideas or faith practices that are at variance with the Bible and the Book of Concord are advocating heresy. If Article II was deleted or amended, the scope of theological concepts and faith practices that could legally be introduced into he ELCIC could be greatly expanded. All the sexual proclivities of humans could be blessed and affirmed by ELCIC congregations if the Constitution of the congregation and the ELCIC was changed. At this time, Article II has not been revoked, therefore, any opinion that is expressed regarding official ELCIC policy that is at variance with Article II of the Constitution is heresy.
The Scriptures support and affirm values such as generosity and kindness, but they do not make the illogical leap to the position that these values replace the rules and expectations of God. The idea of releasing humans to their own unchecked sexual desires as long as there is mutuality of feeling or respect between homosexual partners is frankly, absurd. This replacement of God’s commands and rules with amorphous “values” is simply a manifestation of man’s continual desire to “..be like God,..” (Genesis 3:5) The promise of the serpent is just as empty and dangerous today as it was in the time of Adam and Eve. The context may have changed, but mankind’s insatiable desire to claim lordship and command over his own behaviour has not.
Rather than conform to Article II of the ELCIC Constitution, the Study presents an alternative view of Article II that could take the following form:
The Task Force of the ELCIC Study of Human Sexuality recognizes that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are not the inspired Word of God, through which God sometimes speaks, and, as one of many sources for the church’s doctrine, these Scriptures are not the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the ELCIC social statement.
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
Session #2 demonstrates a deeply flawed theology that stands against orthodox Christianity, in general, and Lutheranism, in particular. The Study appears to take the view that all people’s opinions and sexual behavioural are equally valid and deserve the same level of respect and consideration. This attitude is consistent with movement toward a church blessing/marrying homosexual couples, since all people should have the benefit of a “lifelong partnership” with a “life partner”, where the “church affirms and lifts up marriage as a holy commitment that enriches companionship” (S2p5). By virtue of the elimination of terms such as “husband” and “wife”, it is obvious the Task Force is going far beyond the boundaries of human sexuality affirmed in the Bible.
References to Scripture and the writings of Luther are falsely included, since the numerous commands and explanations regarding human sexuality contained in these documents are ignored. It appears that the authors of the Study simply wanted to be able to state that, “This Study even includes references to the Ten Commandments and Luther’s Small Catechism!”
Session #2, like Session #1 completely ignores Article II of the ELCIC Constitution since it recognizes the scriptures as only one of many sources for formulating an ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality. Based on the form and content of the first two sessions, there can be little doubt that the proposed Social Statement will mirror the ELCA Social Statement which includes the blessing/marriage of homosexual couples and permits active homosexual individuals for ordination and pastoral ministry. This expected result is not surprising when one recognizes the published personal views of many of the members of the ELCIC hierarchy.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION THREE: SIN
The Task Force should be commended for including the topic of sin in their Study. Unfortunately, they do not present this topic in a manner consistent with the ELCIC Constitution, the Bible nor the Book of Concord. The primary deficiency is the creation of a new definition of sin; misdirected trust and the exclusion of the doctrine of original sin. Although this change may seem inconsequential, it has a profound impact on the conception of man’s relationship to God and humans’ relationship to each other. The elimination of the doctrine of original sin, a foundational Christian and Lutheran doctrine, is one more example of the Study authors advocating a “new theology”.
Solid Ground has been unable to find any reference to the definition of sin as misdirected trust in the foundational documents of the ELCIC. The Bible, Book of Concord and all of Luther’s Works (in English) contain no description of sin defined as misdirected trust. The illogical sequence that the Task Force provides to support their new doctrine of “sin as misdirected trust” and the potential ramifications for the Study and the ELCIC Social Statement, is as follows:
Disobeying God’s law reveals something in human life, a lack of trust in God. Therefore,
Sin is misdirected trust. Therefore,
Disobeying particular laws is a symptom of misdirected trust. Therefore,
Misdirected trust is a painful reality in the world. Therefore
Man has the capability of consciously deciding where he places his trust. Therefore,
Individuals should properly direct their trust to God and, specifically, the concept of the love of God (Christ). Therefore,
Properly placing their trust in the love of God (Christ) will result in ignoring other flawed historical descriptions of the nature of God. Therefore,
God’s (Christ’s) love is an accepting affirming love that transcends law. Therefore,
The critical objective of all Christians is the proclamation of God’s (Christ’s) love. Therefore,
God has a deep love for humanity, including individuals who actively engage in sexual behaviour that was prohibited by past orthodox Christian doctrine. Therefore,
If individuals are expressing “genuine love” and “respect” for their sexual partner(s), the gender of the individuals is of no consequence, since God loves all people and accepts them, especially when they direct their trust to His love. Therefore,
The primary concern in the relationship between God and man is man’s acceptance of God’s love and the recognition that this love frees man from the requirement to meet God’s commands and expectations recognized by orthodox Christianity for the past two thousand years. Therefore,
It is really about nothing more than the “love”, God’s love for humans.
The concept that sin is misdirected trust is a new theological concept that does not appear in the Book of Concord or the Bible. The ELCA excerpt quoted in the Study, references the Book of Concord as supporting the new theology definition of sin as misdirection of trust. The ELCA Study falsely states, “sin is misdirected trust and desire (called “concupiscence” in classic texts)”. Concupiscence sin has nothing to do with the doctrine of misdirected trust. The definition, according to the Living Webster Dictionary, of concupiscence is: lust; ardent sexual longing; physical desire. A quick reading of the ELCA excerpt gives the impression that somehow the concept of sin’s definition as misdirected trust is present in the Book of Concord. This is simply not the case. Orthodox Lutheran theology includes two aspects of sin, acts of commission and omission and the doctrine of original sin. The Solid Declaration, Article I of the Formula of Concord ( Book of Concord, Tappert, Fortress Publishing, p. 509) describes the dual nature of sin as follows:
In the first place, it is an established truth that Christians must regard and recognize as sin not only the actual transgression of God’s commandments but also, and primarily, the abominable and dreadful inherited disease which has corrupted our entire nature. In fact, we must consider this as the chief sin, the root and fountain of all actual sin. Dr. Luther calls this sin “nature-sin” or “person-sin” in order to indicate that even though a man were to think no evil, speak no evil, or do no evil-which after the Fall of our first parents is of course impossible for human nature in this life-nevertheless man’s nature and person would still be sinful. This means that in the sight of God, original sin, like a spiritual leprosy, has thoroughly and entirely poisoned and corrupted human nature. On account of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man, our nature or person in under the accusation and condemnation of the law of God, so that we are “by nature the children of wrath,” of death, and of damnation unless we are redeemed from this state through Christ’s merit. (Emphasis added)
It does not appear that this definition of sin that is included in the foundational documents included in the ELCIC Constitution can be easily stretched to include homosexual blessing/marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals. Therefore, the new theology replaces this definition of sin with the “misdirected trust” theory. There does not appear to be any orthodox historical support for the new theology theory that sin is misdirected trust.
It is unfortunate that the Task Force has replaced the concept of original sin with the concept of misdirection of trust. Although the ELCA quotation mentions concupiscence, the Study (S3p7) does not include concupiscence or original sin. Misdirection of trust is a much different concept than original sin. The elimination of original sin in the presentation of the definition of sin is a grave renunciation of orthodox Christian doctrine.
The misdirection of trust doctrine as a replacement for original sin is a flawed initiative in that it places responsibility for man’s sin in the control of man. Most readers of the Study would likely believe that man has conscious control in which direction he places his trust. For example, when approaching a traffic light, man can make the conscious intellectual decision to trust that a green light means he can proceed. He could make a conscious decision to trust that the light is showing red for the cross street and that other cars will stop, even though he can see that there are three different lights facing the cross street and is not certain which one is lit (green, yellow or red). Alternatively, he could make a conscious decision to not trust the green light, stop the car and look both ways before crossing. In any case the driver has complete conscious control over whether or not he “trusts” the green light.
The terminology of the Study that describes sin as simply a “misdirection of trust”, will likely present the false idea that humans have the ultimate control over their placement of trust. According to this doctrine, if man would simply learn to trust God, and more specifically, the “love of God (Christ)”, he would not sin. On the other hand, original sin is an inherent desire that is woven into the very fabric of every human’s personhood. These lustful desires cannot be purged by consciously attempting to direct all trust towards God. It is impossible! Luther’s doctrine of the “Old Adam”, is consistent with original sin as a correct description of sin. In the Small Catechism, he makes the following statement regarding the Sacrament of Holy Baptism:
Fourth
What does such baptizing with water signify?
Answer: It signifies, that the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts, should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that the new man should come forth daily…..
In the Large Catechism Explanation of the Sixth Petition of the Lord’s Prayer, Luther describes the nature of the old Adam:
… We live in the flesh and we have the old Adam hanging around our necks; he goes to work and lures us daily into unchastity, laziness, gluttony and drunkenness, greed and deceit, into acts of fraud and deception against our neighbor-in short, into all kinds of evil lusts which by nature cling to us and to which we are incited by the association and example of other people and by things we hear and see. All this often wounds and inflames even an innocent heart.
In concluding his section on Baptism in the Large Catechism he states the following:
As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism, so forgiveness remains day by day as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old Adam about our necks.
The presentation of “sin” in this Study stands against the ELCIC Constitution since Article II Section 4 reads as follows:
Section 4. This church subscribes to the documents of the Book of Concord of 1580 as witnesses to the way in which the Holy Scriptures have been correctly understood, explained and confessed for the sake of the gospel, namely:
a. The Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds as the chief confessions of the Christian faith;
b. The unaltered Augsburg Confession as its basic formulation of Christian doctrine;
c. Luther’s Small Catechism as a clear summary of Christian doctrine;
d. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Luther’s Large Catechism, the Smalcald Articles with the Treatise, and the Formula of Concord as further witnesses to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession
Although the Study mentions the Book of Concord, its description of sin does not include the concept of original sin and it creates a concept that is not presented in either the Holy Scriptures or the Book of Concord; sin as misdirected trust. If the Task Force wants to eliminate existing theological concepts regarding sin and introduce new theological concepts to the ELCIC that are outside the boundaries of the current foundation documents, then they should work towards changing the ELCIC Constitution. The current action of consuming ELCIC resources to promote theological concepts outside of the ELCIC Constitution is neither ethical nor legal.
Current Context (S3p4)
In this section, the Task Force makes statements that are patently illogical. In Jesus’s story of the woman at the well, the Study includes the last verse (John 8:11)
Jesus says, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.
In the next paragraph the Study states:
Through the action of Jesus, the woman’s life is spared, and she receives a taste of love, a fresh start, and a command to leave her sin behind. (emphasis added)
This is a good example of how the new theology changes the meaning of the words of Jesus. The statement “From now on do not sin again” is transformed by the Study author(s) into a command to “leave her sin behind”. Although this transformation is completely illogical, it is consistent with the new theology doctrine of ignoring the actual words of the Scripture and replacing them with words that fit the agenda of the Task Force. “Leaving her sin behind”, sounds like simply moving to another location and making the conscious decision to abandon the sin. This idea is not consistent with the concept of original sin which takes the position that, on earth, human’s inherent sinfulness can never be left behind. The previous example of changing original sin into misdirected trust also fits this pattern.
In the “Discuss” section (S3p5) the Study asks the question:
“How do you respond to the idea that moral laws or traditional norms may not always provide the most life-giving answer to an issue of sexuality?”
The word moral means “good in character or conduct”. The false idea that moral laws are not the most life-giving answer, demonstrates that, in violation of the “moral laws” contained in the Bible, the authors see behaviour outside of these moral laws as acceptable. Acceptance of this false doctrine would permit new faith practices such as the blessing/marriage of homosexuals to be introduced that are in direct violation of the moral laws described in the Scriptures. Such a view is not consistent with the ELCIC Constitution or orthodox Christianity. This is one more indication that the authors of the Study are creating a new theology that shares little with orthodox Christianity.
The final two paragraphs of the Study call people to study the Bible for answers to moral questions. This encouragement is appropriate, but included with this statement is several sentences regarding the value of diversity, mutual respect and the concept that there is no definitive answer to the issue of sexual behaviour. Since everyone in a church is a disciple, all disciples have the right to be heard and understood. There is no unchanging Biblical truth that is relevant in all cultures and time periods. The commands of God described in the Bible and the historical precedent of orthodox Christians is not relevant.
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
As in the previous sessions, this Study mentions foundational documents, but does not report what these foundational documents describe as appropriate behaviour regarding human sexuality. This session introduces a new concept of sin; “misdirected trust” and eliminates the concept of original sin that is found throughout the Bible and the Book of Concord.
By so blatantly disregarding the Book of Concord, this session is in direct violation of the ELCIC Constitution Article II Section 4, since it contains concepts that are not included in the Book of Concord. The new concepts that are introduced are likely leading the way to homosexual blessings/marriage and eventually to a complete disregard of God’s commands and expectations that are revealed in Scripture. This direction is not compatible with the existing ELCIC Constitution. The expenditure of any additional ELCIC resources on documents and proposals that are not in accordance with the ELCIC Constitution, is scandalous.
Any analysis of sin in the ELCIC must include the doctrine of original sin. The Task Force’s action of eliminating any recognition of this foundational doctrine is very disturbing and unacceptable. If the Social Statement is to be seriously considered by the ELCIC community, please insure that the ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality includes an analysis in light of the doctrine of original sin.
In the future, if the Task Force is going to directly quote the Bible or other sources, insure that the conclusions your group reaches are at least marginally logical.(See the Task Force’s analysis of John 8:1-11)
Like the previous two sessions, this one is filled with a truthful statement (e.g. Unity comes from Christ and it is a gift from Christ.) mixed in with many other statements that are not orthodox (e.g. Usually ethical discernment is seeking common ground, in order to help guide the actions and witness of disciples and a faith community.) The purpose appears to be to use orthodox concepts to support unorthodox concepts that have been excluded from orthodox Christianity for the past 2,000 years. It would be more truthful to simply outline your new theology and acknowledge that it is not orthodox Christianity.
The new theology that God’s love permits and affirms previously prohibited sexual behaviour is heretical to the ELCIC’s doctrine that is specified in Article II. If the Task Force members want to massively change ELCIC doctrine, they should work to amend the ELCIC Constitution using their own financial resources, rather than spending funds donated to the ELCIC to promote a theology that is anathema to orthodox Christianity and the current ELCIC Constitution.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION FOUR: FAMILIES
This session includes the sentence, “The words presented below are not presented as ELCIC policy or perspective;” This statement is only included in this session, so the logical conclusion is that the other six sessions are presented as ELCIC policy or perspective. The sessions are in direct violation of Article II of the ELCIC Constitution, and clearly, the content of the other sessions may be the perspective and policies of Bishop Johnson and the NCC, but they cannot be the policy and perspective of the ELCIC, since they are in violation of the ELCIC Constitution.
This Study begins by describing a broken world with many terrible problems such as “HIV/AIDS, and the sexual and other practices that spread it.”
It makes the statement, “….most men still need to find an identity that is not lived out by exercising dominating power over women,…” (S4p3) Gender roles are changing, women carry the most responsibility in home and family, but men should start assuming more of this responsibility.”
The definition of families has changed in the last generation, including the “struggle of homosexual couples for rights similar to their heterosexual counterparts.” (S4p3)
The Study reiterates the themes from previous sessions in the context of families. Family realities are changing; cultural differences demand different responses. There is a diversity of sexuality that should be affirmed, sympathetic listening to all is required. “There is no one pattern or answer that can be imposed on all.” (S4p3) The Bible includes definitive descriptions of family life, but these are tainted by the “embedded in the cultural notions of family honour and shame.” Prohibitions in the Bible related to sexuality are associated with either a concern relating to activities that were “impure” or greed.
In the early church, the established social pattern of domination of men over women was reduced. However, in Paul’s other writings, “male dominance continued to prevail.” The Study makes the unsubstantiated statement that, “Consequently, as the church became more established, there were moves away from this new equality, and a reassertion of patriarchal family values.” The Study makes the radical statement, “What begins to emerge is the ethical principle of judging behaviour according to what will result in the least harm to self and neighbor in particular situations, rather than upholding certain absolute rules under all circumstances.” (S4p5) This statement is heretical to orthodox Christianity, since it promotes a “situational ethics” decision-making framework.
The Study makes the statement that Christians “should honour the teachings contained in the Holy Scriptures while being open to challenges based on social existence, with norms of love, inclusiveness and mutual acceptance of each other.” (S4p6) The Bible takes a markedly different approach by requiring that the faithful, “obey” God’s commands, without regard to the, “norms of love, inclusiveness and mutual acceptance of each other”.
The Study makes the case that, “In the case of intimate sexual activity, what is ethically significant is the qualitative nature of the relationship within which this occurs, and whether this activity builds up and enhances, or harms and destroys the life of the other (the sexual partner, the family, the community).” (S4p6) The Study abandons the terminology that is used in Scripture to describe acceptable terms regarding human sexuality. The Bible speaks of husband and wife in a marriage. The Study speaks of sexual partners engaged in intimate sexual activity.
This view stands in opposition to the Bible and Book of Concord. The acceptance of intimate sexual activity without any concern for gender, or number of participants is absurd in the context of orthodox Christianity. The contents of this session are yet another example of the “new theology” proposed by the Task Force. This theology has no connection to the ELCIC Constitution or orthodox Christianity. The idea that the ELCIC Social Statement will be based on the currently politically correct feminist idea that men are to be viewed as both abusers of power and shirkers of their family responsibility is not compatible with the Bible or the Book of Concord. By the inclusion of this content, in stark violation of the ELCIC foundational documents, it appears the feminist agenda will be included in the formulation of the ELCIC Social Statement.
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
As in previous sessions, Session Four includes the concept of making illogical conclusions after making a rational observation. In this case, the session lists a vast array of the consequences of sin within the world. After describing the depravity of the world, they come to the illogical conclusion that this is not a result of sin in the world, but rather the domination of men over women. This Study presents the non-Christian idea that women are somehow good and most men selfishly seek power over women. Not only do men seek dominion over women, they are also lazy! Although this theory may be appropriate for an extreme feminist political party, this is not appropriate dogma to be included in any ELCIC documents or discussion material. Inclusion of this feminist doctrine undermines the entire process of the formation of the Social Statement, since it graphically demonstrates the non-Christian bias of the Task Force members.
The inclusion of a feminist analysis of family life is not helpful to the formulation of a Social Statement that is required to be in accordance with the ELCIC Constitution, Article II. Like the previous three sessions, this session introduces many non-Biblical concepts that have no place in ELCIC policy, unless the Constitution is changed.
Rather than presenting a feminist call to arms for justice against the domination of lazy men, the Task Force could have adopted the ethical position of providing research on family life as presented in the Bible and the Book of Concord. To wantonly spend ELCIC resources on promoting the feminist agenda is not acceptable.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION FIVE: SEXUALITY, JUSTICE AND HEALING
The Task Force continues the strategy of introducing political issues into the debate of an appropriate ELCIC policy on human sexuality. Based on the ELCA statement, it appears the strategy is to devote a significant portion of the final policy statement to the theme of a left-wing understanding of justice. Somehow, the reality of sin in the world seems to be a surprise to the Task Force authors. On the one hand, the Task Force calls for justice for the victims of sexual exploitation. Yet they do not apply the decision framework that they advocate in the first three sessions of this Study which seeks to ignore any rules for sexual behaviour and denies the existence of an unchanging Bible based standard of behaviour. The authors decry a depraved world that ignores and openly violates the behaviour based expectations of the Bible, yet intentionally ignores the standards of behaviour specified in the Bible for the formulation of the ELCIC Social Statement. So the Task Force condemns the consequences of violating God’s commands, yet seeks to address these consequences by ignoring God’s rules and expectations. The Task Force rails against the consequences of sin in the world, yet refuses to acknowledge the orthodox concept of original sin. Somehow, the Task Force highlights the many terrible consequences of violating God’s time-honoured commands and expectations, as specified in the Bible, such as HIV/AIDS, but comes to the conclusion that His commands are not relevant to the modern world. The Study presents the illogical idea that, even in the face of terrible consequences, God’s rules and expectations should continue to be ignored. If individuals conformed their sexual behaviour to the standard established by Luther in his explanation to the Sixth Commandment, the scourge of HIV/AIDS would be greatly reduced. How is it logical for the Task Force to lament the terrible consequences of humans acting to satisfy their own corrupt desires and simultaneously argue that humans should be given more latitude with respect to their sexual behaviour?
An Analysis of the David and Bathsheba Story (S5p2)
The following analysis of the David and Bathsheba story (2 Samuel 11:1-12:9) illustrates the inconsistency in this Study. On first reading, the inclusion of a Bible story from the Old Testament is very positive, since there are no other stories from Scripture included in the Study. In contrast to the decision framework advocated in the previous sessions, the Study adopts a behaviour based criteria when analyzing this story. The authors go so far as to itemize many of the “sins” David has committed throughout the story. These sins are in violation of the Ten Commandments, originally presented by Moses to Israel. This is a strange approach for the Task Force, since the idea of an unchangeable standard to measure behaviour against, is completely foreign to this Study. The concept of the existence of consequences from the commission of sinful acts is also a new idea not previously mentioned in the Study. Rather than exploring these orthodox Christian principles and the potential impact on the ELCIC Social Statement, the authors conclude with the idea that this story is primarily about the abuse of power in general and, specifically, the abuse of males (David) over females (Bathsheba).
Unfortunately, the Task Force does not provide an analysis of this story using the techniques and decision framework they presented in the previous four sessions. The following is an attempt to employ the analytical concepts recommended in this Study to this well-known Bible story.
There are five main characters in this drama. The following brief summary is an analysis of this story based on some of the tools and new theological concepts advocated by the ELCIC Sexuality Study.
David
To analyze David’s sexual behaviour, one must not look at an unchangeable standard such as the Ten Commandments. The only appropriate method of determining the morality of David’s behaviour is to recognize the context of his situation. The Ten Commandments were written 500 years before David. They were given to a culture that was completely different than David’s culture. In the time of Moses, the Israelites were all former slaves, a relatively unorganized group of nomads; living in tents. They survived by rudimentary agriculture. From a political perspective, they were wandering aimlessly in the desert trying to find a land to call home. By David’s time, they had constructed cities, were a recognized country, supported an organized army, operated with a political structure that included a king as the supreme political leader. The Israelites also had the benefit of all the prophetic writing that occurred between the time of Moses and David. Obviously there would be many new theological concepts and ideas in these writings that superseded the knowledge of Moses. It would be laughable to expect David and Bathsheba to be bound by the archaic concepts of Moses, who existed in a completely different cultural, political and theological context.
Employing the method of engaging his human sexuality through self-understanding, and by examining the issues through the use of various lenses, David would have likely found his behaviour correct and proper. Through the “lens” of culture, there can be no doubt that the Ten Commandments had no relevance to David and his sexual activities. The Ten Commandments related to a primitive, nomadic, stateless group of disgruntled former slaves. Through the lens of David’s personal experience, he was the king and absolute ruler of the nation of Israel. As the possessor of many wives and concubines, his personal experience was that sexual activity with many women was normal acceptable behaviour.
Like modern society, sexuality in David’s time had moved far past the idea that it existed simply for procreation. The Study teaches that sexuality is an “indispensable dimension of human identity”, that includes purposes such as companionship and pleasure. (S2p3) If David and Bathsheba were experiencing companionship and pleasure, why would his behaviour be unacceptable? The “new theology” presented in the Study has no pre-established limits on sexual activity, so to be in step with the “new theology”, the community should have affirmed and approved of David and Bathsheba’s sexual union. Rather than feel guilty about his sexual conquest of Bathsheba, David could have simply decided to change the irrelevant Ten Commandments to meet his requirements, or possibly, call an assembly of his advisors to vote on creating a ritual to bless and affirm David and Bathsheba’s hitherto illegal sexual relationship. Once the ritual blessing/marriage was completed, the community could support and affirm David and Bathsheba in their relationship. If the simpleton, uneducated members of the community refused to abandon the Ten Commandments, David could simply ignore the established rules and continue his sexual relationship with Bathsheba.
It appears the strategy of ignoring the rules was working well for David until Nathan intruded on his arrangement with Bathsheba. If God, through Nathan, had not demanded David’s adherence to the unchanging standard of the Ten Commandments, this story could have ended happily with David and Bathsheba continuing to obtain pleasure and companionship from each other.
In the story, David makes the unsophisticated statement, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2Sam12:13) If David had properly employed the decision framework of the “new theology” presented in the ELCIC Study, he would have realized that sin is either turning in on oneself or misdirecting his trust. By recognizing his culture, personal experience, equity, science, etc. he would have the power to redirect his trust and, therefore, not sin. The idea that a human could sin “against” God is based on a childlike, black and white, simplistic concept of God which is not part of the “new theology”.
If David was not under the misapprehension that his behaviour was wrong, he would likely not have sent Uriah to his death at the front of the battle. His misplaced trust in the concept of an unchangeable standard of human behaviour is responsible for Uriah’s death. If David had spent more time analyzing the context of his situation, including gaining insight by examining his situation through various lenses, he likely would not have had to murder Uriah. The whole concept of an unchanging standard of human sexuality based on the commands of God is a completely out of date idea.
Bathsheba
Recognizing that she lived in a society that perpetuated an established social pattern of domination of men over women, she would take the steps necessary to increase her level of power and control over her life. Using her God-given beauty to attract a high-status male was one of the few avenues she had to survive in a male-dominated society. Her ethical choices were limited in this particular situation, so she made the choice that would result in the least harm to herself and others around her. Given the uncertainty of the survival of her husband in battle, she had a duty to provide for herself and her family. Attracting the sexual interest of King David would be an ideal method of insuring her survival in the harsh patriarchal culture of the time. By placing herself in just the right location on the rooftop of her husband, Uriah’s home, she could insure that King David would be able to see exactly what she had to offer. What other action would a logical woman take? By attracting King David, her status and access to power would rise dramatically. No need to feel guilty about participating in David’s sexual adventure. Any intelligent woman, considering the dominant culture and her personal experience, would have taken the same action.
Uriah
Uriah has a simplistic almost child-like understanding of his sexuality. He believes that he should abstain from sexual relations with Bathsheba, because he feels an obligation to his friends and colleagues fighting in battle. If he made decisions based on the theology of this study, he would have realized that sexual behaviour is about his own individual needs and desires. He has accepted the concept that there is a standard of honesty and integrity that will effect his sexual behaviour beyond his own and his partner’s needs and desires. This primitive attitude has no place in a modern society and certainly not in an ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality. If Uriah had the benefit of this Study, he would soon realize that there are no unchanging standards of behaviour in regards to sexuality or any other issue.
If King David had directed the Levites to create and perform a new faith practice that would bless his relationship with Bathsheba, Uriah could join in the public acceptance and affirmation of this relationship. If Uriah did not accept the reality of his wife’s sexual relationship with King David, he should be coached to examine his anger from the perspective of culture, science, his personal experience, the experience of others, the pleasure and companionship David and Bathsheba enjoyed and the likely increase in the power and prestige of Bathsheba. Uriah should be taught that, since an unchangeable standard of God’s commands does not exist, it is ridiculous to expect any boundaries relating to individual sexual behaviour.
Nathan
Nathan presents an ethical view that is unsophisticated and backward. It appears he actually believes that ethical choices are bound to the commands of God as revealed in Scripture. This parochial position does not recognize the concept of each person searching for insight into their own human sexuality. Nathan does not listen patiently as David explains his search for personal insight. He does not honour and affirm the opinions of David. He rudely speaks the words of judgment against David, using the primitive concept that God has strict expectations of human behaviour, and takes it as a personal insult when his statutes are broken. (2 Samuel 12:10). If Nathan followed the theology advocated in the Study, he would have sat and carefully listened to David explain his journey of self-discovery into his individual, personal sexuality. Nathan should have realized that what makes sense for God, may not make sense for David. How could God expect David to curb his lust for Bathsheba, based on archaic rules and commands? Any right-thinking person would be aware that the Mosaic law had no application to the culture of David’s time and David’s personal circumstances. Following the Ten Commandments would be tantamount to allowing God to impose His will on humans.
God
It appears that God has overreacted in His response to David and Bathsheba’s sexual relationship. Frankly, God seems to be taking this whole matter on a personal level. Rather than listening respectfully to David and Bathsheba’s explanation, he sends Nathan to attack David’s decision to pursue Bathsheba. God is quoted as saying, “Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes?” (2Sam12:9) and “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you.” (2Sam12:11). God proceeds to kill the innocent baby of Bathsheba and David (2Sam12:15). God does not seem to realize that His primary purpose is to show “love” to all humans by accepting them and affirming their choices regarding morality. If He were really “In Mission for Others”, He would have recognized that He created humans to have relationships and David and Bathsheba had a relationship that resulted in pleasure and companionship for both of them. Rather than forcing David to murder Uriah to hide his pleasure with Bathsheba, God could have sent Nathan to direct the Levites to create a new faith practice to bless David and Bethsheba’s sexual relationship. Then Uriah would have to listen respectfully to David and Bethsheba when they explained why their personal freedom permitted, even encouraged them, to engage in intimate sexual relations. If the couple had access to a community blessing/marriage ceremony, this would have reinforced the acceptance and affirmation by the whole community of David and Bathsheba’s behaviour. If God truly was “In Mission for Others”, He would have provided more “life-giving” encouragement and ministry practices that affirmed individual human choices, instead of issuing commands and rules. God’s decision to punish Bathsheba’s innocent baby, David, and the entire nation of Israel is not logical if He applied the concepts of the “new theology”.
The David/Bathsheba story is an excellent example of God’s commands regarding sexuality and the consequences that can occur when his time-honoured laws are broken or ignored. It is unfortunate that this story was not included in Session #4 regarding sin, since it so ably illustrates the existence of sin in our world and the consequences of ignoring God’s established behavioural based expectations. It is doubtful that God included this story in the Bible to demonstrate the existence of cultural power differences between men and women. If this was His objective He would have made Bathsheba an innocent victim rather than a willing and active participant. At several points in the story she could have protested and stopped David’s advances, but chose instead to encourage them. Is she the villain in this story? No, she is a sinner, like David, and everyone else who lives or has lived on earth. Original sin contaminates her personality just as it does David’s; that is why God gave humans the gift of the law and His behavioural expectations. No matter the cultural background, personal experience or level of scientific knowledge, anyone who breaks the Triune God’s commands does so at their own peril. For an institution, such as the ELCIC, that purports to do God’s will to encourage and affirm sexual behaviour that is specifically condemned in the Bible, is unacceptable, illogical and dangerous.
Session 5 continues by taking the unusual position that the David/Bathsheba story somehow relates to sexual exploitation and unequal power relationships. The emphasis on power relationships that are only tangentially related to sexuality is likely an attempt to use the ELCIC Social Statement to address justice issues. The result will be a statement that seeks to solve the existence of sin in our world (pornography, sexual slavery, etc.) by “journeying in solidarity with those who are experiencing oppression.” Individuals practicing homosexual behaviours will be included in the groups that are “experiencing oppression”. As a result, the concept of justice will be used as yet another reason to proceed with same-sex blessings/marriage as official ELCIC policy.
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
Once again the Task Force takes a story or information that would normally be relevant to the social statement (David and Bathsheba, Rev. Noko’s description of a sinful world) and leaps to non-logical conclusions that meet the objectives of the “new theology”. Once the illogical pattern has been established, there are virtually no limits to how far it can be used to support behaviour prohibited by orthodox Christianity. Based on the ELCA Social Statement and the contents of this Study, it is likely that the future ELCIC Social Statement will make the following illogical analysis of the David/Bathsheba story:
The David/Bathsheba story is primarily a message about the existence of sexual exploitation and unequal power relationships between men and women. Individuals in many countries are bought and sold as slaves which results in horrific treatment of the slaves. Many of these slaves are young women. Therefore,
Christians should journey in solidarity with the oppressed. Therefore,
Since homosexuals are oppressed, justice demands that Christians journey with these victims of oppression. Therefore,
If Christians truly want to journey with homosexuals, they must not discriminate against them. Therefore,
The creation of a blessing/marriage ceremony to allow the community to accept affirm homosexual behaviour is necessary for the ELCIC to be “In Mission for Others”. Therefore,
If sexually active homosexuals are to be accepted and affirmed for blessing/marriage, they must also be permitted to be ordained and work as pastors in ELCIC congregations.
The use of deeply flawed logic to advance the cause of the blessing/marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals is an indication of the weakness of the case for this radical change in faith practices. If the Task Force employed rational thinking and restricted themselves to the documents mandated by the ELCIC Constitution, the idea of homosexual blessing/marriage and homosexual ordination would not be considered.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION SIX: SEXUALITY AND ORIENTATION
This session unequivocally demonstrates that the entire purpose of the Study is the acceptance and affirmation of homosexual couplings by the radical change of the faith practices of the ELCIC to include same-sex blessings/marriage. Recognizing the official policy of the ELCA, the ordination of individuals engaged in homosexual activities will also likely be included. Although there are many issues surrounding sexuality that have not been addressed by this Study, such as abortion, artificial conception technologies, contraception technologies, divorce, polygamy, etc., the agenda of the homosexual lobby has successfully hijacked the formulation of the ELCIC Social Statement. After failing decisively in the 2005 and 2007 ELCIC Conventions, the homosexual lobby and their supporters have insured that the Study develops concepts throughout that support the unorthodox faith practice of homosexual blessing/marriage ceremonies and the acceptance of active homosexuals as ELCIC clergy. Session #6 is the culmination of all the groundwork laid in the previous sessions. If one uncritically accepts the themes and concepts of the first five sessions, the official affirmation of the active homosexual lifestyle is the obvious objective of the Study and the future ELCIC Social Statement. Although this goal is heretical to orthodox Christianity, the Task Force, Bishop Johnson and the ELCIC hierarchy should be commended for finally revealing their agenda in a transparent, open fashion. This Study outlines, in graphic detail, the many heretical assumptions and concepts that the Task Force must employ in order to promote their cause.
How appropriate that the “Hearing the word” section of the introduction of this session references the following verse 5 and 18 from the first chapter of Romans (emphasis added):
Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
Changed context (S6p1)
This session reiterates the concept of “context” as a prime determinant of the ELCIC Social Statement. There has been a “rapid increase in the general acceptance of diverse sexual orientation by Canadian society.” This has resulted in overt, “hostile discrimination” of people who are not heterosexual. After providing an extensive quotation from Roland Martinson on the non-Biblical concept of “orientation”, the authors re-introduce the concept of “diversity”. They conclude with the following sentence, “Diversity itself is diverse, and individuals are even more diverse.” (S6p3)
Response of the church (S6p3)
This section recognizes the concept of “respectful conversation”. Once again the Task Force strategy is to make an orthodox statement, but come to a conclusion that has no connection to the statement and/or ignores other Biblical or ELCIC Constitution requirements. The session makes the statement:
As members of the body of Christ, we are together seeking: to know Christ in Word and Sacrament, to deepen faith in the midst of Christian community, to express faith through witness and service, to experience support, care and encouragement in the midst of life’s joys and sorrows, and to be In Mission for Others. (S6p3)
How could any orthodox Christian be against seeking to “know Christ in Word and Sacrament or deepen faith, express faith or experience support, care and encouragement”? The problem is that the Task Force will use agreement with this statement to mandate homosexual blessings/marriage. A more logical statement, given orthodox Christianity and the restrictions of the ELCIC Constitution, would be to add the following qualifying statement to this sentence:
Recognizing the imperative that all ELCIC actions must be in accordance with the content of the New and Old Testaments and the boundaries of Christian theology mandated in Article II of the ELCIC Constitution, we, the people of the ELCIC will engage in many activities including, seeking to know Christ in Word and Sacrament, deepening our faith in the midst of Christian community, expressing our faith through witness and service, supporting, caring and encouraging others to proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior.
Considering some possible responses (S6p4)
Again the Task Force presents relevant Bible passages Romans 1:26-27 and Genesis 1:27-31, but concludes that from these texts the three potential responses of a faithful, thoughtful, caring Christian attitude toward individuals that are actively engaged in non-heterodox sexual activity are as follows:
Welcoming but not affirming;
Concessionally affirming; or
Fully affirming.
The only approach that is in accordance with Article II of the ELCIC Constitution and the Old and New Testament is the first choice, welcoming the person and condemning all sin, including the sin of non-heterodox sexual activity. The other two choices are heretical to orthodox Christianity, since they reject the primacy and authority of the Scriptures, seek to place human ideas above the commands of God, reject the concept of original sin, and encourage and affirm a destructive lifestyle that has been specifically condemned by God as revealed by the Bible and the Book of Concord.
Misquoting continues on page 8 of the session when the Task Force somehow equates opposition to same-sex blessing/marriage with social discrimination. Those opposed to same-sex blessing/marriage are warned that they are failing to honour the Lutheran “tradition of proclaiming justification by grace when discrimination tries to exclude some people from access to the gospel.” This accusation is almost laughable, encouraging people to reject God’s commands, then inventing a new faith practice to affirm their sinfulness and rejection of God is equated with giving them “access to the gospel.” The Task Force, in essence, accuses anyone who opposes same-sex blessings/marriage as committing the sin of discrimination by excluding some people from access to the gospel.
The second last paragraph on page 8 is particularly troubling. The Study authors have engaged in apostasy by making up new concepts and ascribing them to Paul. Galatians 3:23 states the following:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all in one in Christ Jesus.
The Task Force offers the following, if Paul were writing to the ELCIC today:
“There is no longer easterner or westerner, there is no longer conservative or liberal, there is no rich or poor, there is no longer gay or straight, there is no longer male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. (emphasis added)” (S6p8)
This speculation by Task Force is completely beyond rational comprehension. Paul’s list of individual’s characteristics (ethnic background, sex, political status) do not include any characteristics of people that have been condemned by God. (Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.) Homosexual activity was practiced in Paul’s time. His knowledge of it resulted in his condemnation rather than affirmation and acceptance of this sexual practice. Paul’s list does not include any individual human behaviour that is prohibited by the Ten Commandments. He does not include adulterers and faithful spouses, thieves and honest businessmen, worshipers of idols and worshipers of the Triune God. The idea that, if he were writing to the ELCIC today, he would include individuals engaged in homosexual activities in his list of social classes is preposterous.
This paragraph ends with the statement, “According to Paul and his understanding of the gospel, no human categories can ever preclude one from saving grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (S6p8) This is an accurate statement, but one that has no relevance to the question of human sexuality. Homosexual behaviour is not a “human category”, it is a human activity that is specifically, unequivocally condemned and prohibited by God as revealed in Scripture. This misapplication of Paul’s writing is consistent with the attempt by the Task Force to twist foundational concepts to fit their agenda of employing Christ’s church to affirm homosexual behaviour.
One congregation’s story (S6p9)
This is a positive story. It is a story that is consistent with orthodox Christianity. The congregation welcomed the individuals participating in the Gay Pride run, but did not affirm their sinful behaviour by blessing the runners, or by inventing a new faith practice to support their homosexual behaviour. This story does not support and is not germane to the proposal that the ELCIC should begin to bless/marry individuals involved in homosexual activity.
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
Thank you to the Task Force for so clearly indicating the purpose of this Study. After reviewing Session #6, there can be no doubt that the Task Force seeks to convince the people of the ELCIC that blessing/marrying active homosexuals is the required response based on the material contained in the first six sessions of this Study. Your clear support for affirming homosexual behaviour and denigrating those who oppose your initiative is one more indication of the push for implementation of the “new theology.” Your references to Scripture, especially Paul’s writings, completely misrepresent his message. If this Study represents the best rationale that the Task Force can make for homosexual behaviour affirmation, it is a completely untenable case.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REVIEW OF SESSION SEVEN: SEXUALITY AND SPIRITUALITY
This session opens with a reference to a relevant passage of Scripture. Romans 12:2,
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what god’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. (emphasis added)
Father and creator (S7p2)
The above Biblical quotation stands in direct opposition to the Niloufer Harben statement quoted by the Task Force,
“Our sexuality is linked to vitality, playfulness, spontaneity, delight, wonder, celebration, procreation and creativity of all kinds, a profound affirmation of life. To deny a person’s sexuality is to put a lid on energy and life.”
The Romans’ text speaks of rejecting the standards of behaviour prevalent in the dominant culture. Only when one has been transformed can one recognize God’s good, pleasing and perfect will. God’s will includes His commands and expectations. The idea that a person’s sexuality should have no limits is ridiculous if one uses the standards of the Bible and the Book of Concord. A careful reading of this passage presented by the Task Force reveals that one could expect the “pattern of the world” would not be in compliance with God’s will. It is strange that the Task Force included this passage in their Study, since it clearly negates one of their foundation concepts, that God’s standards should be ignored and the dominant cultures practices affirmed.
Rather than providing references to the Bible or Book of Concord, the Task Force has relied on writers such as Ms. Harben. Unfortunately for the Task Force, in terms of establishing ELCIC doctrine and policy, Article II of the ELCIC Constitution makes no mention of Ms. Harben, Roland Martinson, Vera Roth, Catherine of Siena or any other authority other than the Bible and the Book of Concord. Ms. Harben presents a view of sexuality that is not Biblical. Her concept of sexuality as an individual characteristic that must be free from constraints is heresy to orthodox Christianity. Taking this concept to its logical conclusion, there would be no limit to human acceptable sexual behaviour. This means that if an individual was sexually attracted to young boys, to deny their ability to act out the “vitality, spontaneity, delight, wonder and celebration” they experience when engaging in sexual experiences with young boys would be to “put a lid” on the person’s “energy and life”. To restrict an individual to one sexual partner rather than multiple simultaneous sexual partners could also have this same effect, placing “a lid on energy and life”.
After the Harben statement, the Task Force states that, “Paul affirms that in God we live and move and have our being.” It appears the Task Force proposes the following illogical sequence of ideas:
God created males and females. Therefore,
Human sexuality was created by God. Therefore,
Sexuality is an individual characteristic of every person. Therefore,
Denying a person’s sexuality would limit energy and life. Therefore,
There should be no limits on expressions of human sexuality. Therefore,
Paul says, in God we live and have our being. Therefore,
God surrounds us. Therefore,
God blesses all of human life’s dimensions including sexuality. Therefore,
The blessing/marriage of active homosexuals must be ELCIC policy. Therefore,
The ELCIC must also permit active homosexuals to be ordained.
Lord Jesus Christ (S7p3)
This section makes logical orthodox statements such as, “As in all other dimensions of human existence, sexuality is tainted by sin and no longer truly reflects God’s intentions for creation.” The Task Force then goes on to introduce the writing of Christian mystic, Catherine of Siena who had a vision of Jesus marrying her. This section concludes with the following statement, which has no rational link with human sexuality, or formulation of an ELCIC policy initiative to create a new faith practice to bless active homosexuals.
Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour connects with our souls in multiple ways. Our faith in Christ keeps us connected to his many gifts.
Holy Spirit: comforter and advocate (S7p4)
This section concludes with the following statement:
As we seek to make sense of ourselves and God’s complex world, we trust that the Holy Spirit is active among us, moving us along to become the disciples God calls us to be.
It appears that the Task Force believes these broad statements that do not contradict orthodox Christianity somehow provide support to the idea of making up a new faith practice that blesses/marries active homosexuals.
FEEDBACK FOR THE TASK FORCE
It is difficult to determine the rational connection between this session and the formation of an ELCIC Sexuality Statement. Although the session does include some references to the Bible, the references chosen do not relate to the topic of God’s commands regarding the sexual behaviour of humans.
SOLID GROUND RESPONSE TO ELCIC STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
CONCLUSION
The Task Force appointed by the National Bishop of the ELCIC to prepare the new ELCIC Sexuality Statement has presented a “new theology” that abandons orthodox Christianity. Bishop Johnson is responsible for insuring that all operations of the ELCIC are in accordance with the ELCIC Constitution including Article II. Her action to provide ELCIC financial and human resources for the creation, promotion and distribution of this heretical document is reprehensible and totally unacceptable. To use her office as National Bishop to “encourage individuals and congregations to get involved in the study”, is appalling. The actions of Bishop Johnson and other members of the ELCIC hierarchy to support this Study are illegal since the Study is an unashamed violation of Article II of the ELCIC Constitution.
The “new theology” does not include the Triune God that is described in the Old and New Testaments, but rather presents a new God, a personal desires god (“pdgod”). This new God, shares very little with the Triune God, revealed in the Scriptures. The nature and characteristic of the pdgod is primarily determined by each individual’s requirements or by the requirements of a community of individuals. Since there is no authoritative standard to describe the pdgod, the pdgod’s nature can change rapidly to meet the context and diversity that an individual or group encounters in the dominant culture. Believers in the pdgod seek to spread the good news of acceptance and affirmation of all people. Acceptance and affirmation are the core characteristics of the pdgod. The act of welcoming and affirming previously prohibited behaviour clearly demonstrates that adherents of the pdgod are truly In Mission for Others.
Although the nature of the pdgod can change quickly, this brief summary will present the description of the pdgod presented in the ELCIC Study of Human Sexuality:
Triune God of the Bible personal desires god
Nature of God Loving, also a judge Accepting, affirming of human behaviour of human behaviour
Source of Knowledge Documents, Bible and Book Personal insight of
of God of Concord (“BOC”) each individual
Source of Knowledge Documents, Bible and BOC Individual experience,
for human behaviour science, culture,
goal of equity, etc.
Core Principles of Faith Static Dynamic
Triune God of the Bible personal desires god
Definition of sin Original sin and active sin Misplaced human
trust and active
sin
God’s Expectations Specified in the Bible, pdgod will
Book of Concord, 2,000 affirm individual
years of church history behaviour
Role of Church To proclaim the good news Welcoming and
of Law and Gospel as revealed affirming all
in the Bible and Book of Concord people
Existence of an Yes. Specified in the Bible No. Culture, personal
Unchanging Standard and BOC experience, science,
Of Human Behaviour etc. determines acceptable behaviour
Requirement to follow Yes. Honesty, integrity, etc. No. Belief in the
pre-existing rules such are important attributes of pdgod releases one
as Constitutions Christian behaviour, especially from requirement to
in addressing “God” issues follow rules and laws
Preferred Values Faithfulness to Scripture, Acceptance,
Of Believer witness to truth of Jesus affirmation and Christ, repentance of sins welcome of
a diversity of
people
Criteria for Acceptance Attempt to meet behaviour based Culture, personal
In the Religious commands of God experience, personal
Organization insight, science, etc.
Critical Core Concept Christ as Saviour of humans Love of Christ
from their sins accepts and affirms
all humans
Application of logic Yes. Reason is a gift from No. Individual
and to reason theological God. Theological ideas insight and self-
issues should be tested for discovery are not
logical consistency. restricted by logic.
Triune God of the Bible personal desires god
Is the theology a Yes. What is not included No. Limits ability
unified whole is as important as what is to create new doctrine
included
Introduction of New No. Faith practices are Yes. Dependent on
Faith Practices based on Bible and BOC changing individual
(e.g. homosexual blessings) and societal desires and needs
Terminology of Husband and wife Sexual partner
Human Sexuality Marriage Intimate sexual activity
Importance of High. Creeds, etc. None. Historical
Historic Christian help believers church doctrine is not
Church Doctrine understand the faith relevant to the
modern world
Mission focus Conversion of non- Welcome all people
Christians to to the love of Christ,
Christianity accept and affirm
wide diversity of individuals’ behaviour
Relationship to Dominant Confronts the culture Follows the culture
Culture
Although the proponents of the pdgod present this theology as “new”, this is a false assertion, since the idea that God exists to serve human desires is as old as recorded history. Modern society has fully embraced the notion of pdgod, since this concept permits humans to have ultimate control of their lives. Pdgod is the same “God” presented to Adam and Eve by the serpent, a “God” that meets the personal desires of humans.
In the attempt by some in the ELCIC to replace the Triune God with the pdgod, it is particularly distressing that the Triune God is robbed of His rightful place of power, authority and responsibility. The Triune God assumes the responsibility for leading, guiding and protecting humans. For example:
Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
And carries them close to his heart;
He gently leads those that have young
Matthew 11:28-30 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
While the Triune God takes on the responsibility of leading His people, the pdgod follows the direction and command of individual human desires to provide humans with a false veneer of spirituality. On close examination, the spirituality proffered by the pdgod is nothing more than the empty husk of humans’ sinful desires.
On the surface, and in the short term time frame, the pdgod appears attractive, since it releases humans from the responsibility of meeting any unchangeable standard of behaviour. Unfortunately, those that ignore the Triune God’s commands do so at their peril. Throughout history the consequences of disregarding the First Commandment have proven to be catastrophic on both a personal and community/national level. For example, it is likely that the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah had a strong belief in a pdgod, a god that encouraged and affirmed whatever behaviour was in agreement with their culture, personal circumstances, societal gender power structures, and personal desire for companionship and pleasure. The Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-29) describes the actions of the Triune God when confronted by individuals who chose to believe in a pdgod rather than the Triune God. If one believes in orthodox Christianity as described in the ELCIC Constitution, that the “Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church.” (ELCIC Constitution Article II, Section 3), the promotion of the pdgod is the promotion of heresy. Sadly, this Study appears to be promoting such a god.
There is a wide divergence between the pdgod and the orthodox Triune God, although there are some similarities. The current debate regarding the issue of official ELCIC policy regarding human sexuality is just one aspect of the disintegration of the ELCIC from an orthodox Christian denomination to slavish worship of the pdgod. The delegates to the 2011 ELCIC Convention will have the opportunity of demonstrating whether they believe in the Triune God of the Old and New Testaments or the pdgod.
In light of the changes in the theological stance of the ELCIC advocated by the ELCIC Study on Human Sexuality, in flagrant conflict with Article II of the ELCIC Constitution, the members of the Solid Ground Executive, namely
Keith Odegard, President
Bob Schmidt, Vice-President
Rosalynn Tubbe, Secretary
John Schoenhals, Treasurer
Rev. Dr. Peeter Vanker, Chair
call for the following:
The immediate cessation of the expenditure of any further human or financial resources of the ELCIC on any activity that does not conform to Article II of the ELCIC Constitution.
The resignation of Bishop Susan Johnson and all members of the Task Force of the ELCIC Study on Human Sexuality from all ELCIC offices and responsibilities for advocacy of a theology that is irreconcilable with Article II of the ELCIC Constitution.
The election of a new committee to draft an ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality selected by the 2011 ELCIC Convention. Nominations to come from the convention floor.
The 2011 ELCIC Convention to direct the new committee formed to create an ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality to strictly adhere to the ELCIC Constitution including Article II, in all their deliberations.
The ELCIC National Church Council to enforce discipline on any member of the ELCIC, including employees of the ELCIC and ELCIC Synods who present, advocate or promote any initiative or policy that violates the ELCIC Constitution.
All future National and Synod Bishops, National Church Council and Synod Council members, and National Convention Delegates, before taking office, pledge to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the ELCIC during their term of service.
