Supporters of gay clergy are impatient and want changes right now. They believe that traditionalists are too slow in responding to their appeals for justice and mercy. They do not intend to stop short of making as many changes as quickly as possible in every ecclesiastical setting that will hear them out and accept their views. Last week the goal of the gay advocates was to change the present policy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) at its annual meeting in Chicago. By the time you read this article a decision will have been made. I find this whole debate deeply troubling and quite revealing of where we are in North America in terms of the power and real impact of the gospel.
TRADITIONALISTS RESPOND TO GENDER AND SEXUAL IDENTITY
Some traditionalists are so politically galvanized by this issue that almost nothing else seems to matter to them other than fighting this battle. This is the line in the sand, the watershed issue. A little study of history will reveal that other issues in the past have had the same status only to see the Church correctly change its collective mind about an issue. What makes this one so different?
One problem that I have with this "line in the sand" approach is that it treats a single issue as the only way to renew the Church by the power of the gospel. The gospel can then be reduced to sexual and gender issues in this process. The gospel becomes a "political" and "moral" agenda, and we run the serious risk of losing the Good News in the process. In some settings dialog of any sort is seen as fraternizing with the enemies of the faith. Everyone who disagrees with your conclusions is positively evil. No one on the other side can be a "real" Christian. We must oppose them and remove them in any way possible. Overt political pressure is employed and the goal is victory.
As I have entered into mainline renewal work I have seen these traditionalist expressions all too frequently. Renewal of the whole Church is intensely focused on this issue and the struggle associated with it. I am now convinced, from real first-hand experience, that solving this issue will not renew the Church. To be right on same-sex ethics is not the same as being right about the gospel or about spiritual formation, the mission of Christ, or developing and planting healthy churches. A lot of energy can be put into this issue and that energy can sidetrack us. Sometimes it is necessary to fight proper battles, I have no doubt, but we need to be very careful that we do not turn the mission of Christ into a mission against our ecclesial opponents.
THE ACTIVIST RESPONSE TO GENDER AND SEXUAL IDENTITY
Those who push for the approval of homosexual practice, the ordination of homosexual ministers and homosexual marriage, all seem to have little or no interest in preserving the unity of the Church. Unity is irrelevant since they truly believe they are being persecuted by traditionalists who are the real problem. For example, Bishop Eugene Robinson's actions in the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) over the past few years demonstrate this point powerfully. He could have taken a road of humility and charity, stepped down in the midst of the battle, and thus not chosen to be the lightning rod that prompted upheaval and disunity. But he seems to actually enjoy the role of being provocative. (This is not to suggest that there are not conservatives who have the same problem.) His arrogance and independence, at least to me, are very striking. He doesn't care an iota that he is destroying the unity of his own Episcopal Church. His supporters seem to think that it is now time for all the ignorant traditionalists to leave so that Bishop Robinson, and his friends, can continue the pursuit of their own agenda, not the peace of Christ in the whole communion. This is about politics, about winners and losers. Who has the power and who uses it for their understanding of what ought to be?
The same type of scenario was transpiring in Chicago this past week. Frustrated by the dismissal of a popular Atlanta ELCA pastor, a minister who lived in a same-sex relationship, supporters wanted to "jump start" the gay agenda again and skip an already agreed upon process from a previous general synod so that they could lift the celibacy requirement upon gay and lesbian ministers. They want what they want and they want it right now. In the case of the ELCA almost a third of their regional synods have already expressed support for a proposal to do exactly this. And these activists also want to reinstate those already removed from ministerial office. The ELCA is already scheduled to release a broader social statement on human sexuality in 2009, but the activists didn't want to wait for two more years.
In Chicago, to give you an example, gay clergy are already allowed to serve in ELCA churches so long as no one challenges them. Chicago's outgoing bishop, Paul Lendahl, expresses the view of some when he says: "We are not here to fight. Christ was a welcoming presence in the world in his time. It's a Gospel issue. I think the church is dead wrong on it." And his successor, the popular outgoing pastor of St. Mark's Lutheran in Aurora, Illinois, Wayne Miller, wants to see bishops have even more authority to express latitude in their particular local settings. Knowing full well that many Lutherans in other regions of the country will oppose a nationwide ELCA effort to legitimize same-sex union and ordained clergy, Rev. Miller understands this is a "hot button" issue. What he wants is a solution that he calls "faithful and reasonable." He says the ELCA hovers "near the middle." I guess it depends on what "the middle" means. One person's middle is another's left or right flank. Again, the rhetoric here is highly political.
The argument that Bishop Lendahl makes is really very simple. If you miss it then you will miss what is really being said by activist proponents of gay marriage and ordination. "It's a Gospel issue," he says. I agree completely but this means that we have a totally different conception of the gospel. Let me explain.
WHAT HAS THE GOSPEL TO DO WITH SAME-SEX PRACTICE?
The gospel is good news about grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Christ died for the sins of the world and is seeking and saving the lost. He longs for sinners to find their way home to the Father's house and to be welcomed into the family of God. Make no mistake about this. The gospel is not primarily about gender and sexual ethics, at least not at its core. This is where I think some conservatives go wrong. They begin to talk about the gospel as if it really was about sexual and gender issues, about politics, and about who we can exclude as the enemies of the faith. But this is precisely the point where Bishop Lendahl also goes wrong, desperately wrong. The apostle Paul puts the point very plainly:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards not slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
I would suppose that Bishop Lendahl could say that these words do not strictly apply to monogamous relationships, which are not the same as promiscuous sexual practices with multiple partners. Furthermore, he could argue that since sexual orientation is determined by God, and is thus a matter of biology, we should allow for people with same-sex orientation to practice their God-given freedom in Christ since we know things about this that we did not know a few decades ago. (There are huge assumptions behind such a conclusion that I am not convinced at all are clearly proven, but I will allow the argument to stand just for the moment. I wrote about these kinds of issues a few years ago quite extensively.) I would also suppose that the bishop would argue that the gospel is about grace, not about the law and holding to traditional sexual mores. We must offer free and radical acceptance to all people, especially to sexual sinners. (I do not disagree with this final point!)
But the words of Paul are quite serious about this matter if they are taken in a normative sense. We have to be clear about this, really clear. A great deal is at stake for those of us who read the tradition of the Church as normative and believe that its reading of the Bible is quite clear about sexual practice. Please observe carefully that this is not just about warning practicing homosexuals about not inheriting the kingdom of God but also about practicing thieves, and about the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. The way the Church has read this text traditionally is to say that Paul is saying something like the following: All who continue in these lifestyles of sin, thus all who allow these sins to dominate them and who choose not to wage spiritual war against them through formation and discipline in the Spirit, are in danger of final and tragic loss in the last judgment. The passage is so striking that if you stop at verse ten you would be prone to conclude that almost no one could possibly make it into the kingdom of God. But Paul does not stop at verse 10. This is why the ELCA, and every other Church group, should never stop there either. There is redemption, inclusion and love. Verse 11 says:
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Look, justification is not a free pass to heaven that allows you to live any lifestyle you want. You do not get to make up biblical ethics on this or that as you go along. The power of salvation is transformative. It "washes" those who are saved, thus it cleanses them of sin. This is at the very heart of historic Christian teaching. But the power of salvation also transforms those who are in Christ by the Spirit of our God. We are not left in the way of sin, but step-by-step we are removed and delivered from the power of our forgiven sin. Simply put, sanctification is not an option. Being saved, or transformed, is a process and we cannot opt out of ethical choice just because we disagree with the biblical teaching.
So is this really a gospel issue? No, if you mean by gospel that we are forgiven on the basis of refusing to practice a homosexual lifestyle. If this were true then we would be forgiven because we do right things and live a certain way. But the answer has to be a very strong yes if you mean that the gospel is a message about the power of God to save and transform those who really believe it (cf. Romans 1:16-17). Sexual ethics are never an optional or unrelated matter when it comes to the power of the biblical gospel. Those who refuse to live by the Spirit will die. This is the plain teaching of Romans 8, also a crucial text in this debate. Those who live by the Spirit, who is received through the transformative power of the Good News, are saved. The categories that Paul employs are quite clear.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind controlled by the sinful nature is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. The sinful mind is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8).
CONCLUSION
The ELCA had on its agenda last week another initiative. This initiative called upon the churches to conduct a study of the Bible in all congregations for the purpose of a real discussion about a moral response to the war in Iraq. I would applaud this agenda item if I knew the study would include an honest and open freedom to bring various Christian perspectives on war to the discussion. My guess is that the approach itself will promote only one answer: This war is immoral and totally evil and should not be supported by Lutherans. I conclude this because this has been the general direction of the ELCA from the beginning. (The ELCA's presiding bishop, Mark Hanson, has been a fierce critic of the war since it began.)
What is striking here is that the ELCA can speak with authority on an issue that the Church has always held differing opinions, while on an issue that has been treated as unmistakably clear for two thousand years it wants to remake the whole direction of the denomination.
Like most mainline denominations the ELCA is in decline. It presently has 4.8 million members. If you attend an ELCA congregation, and I have, you will soon discover that in most cases large numbers of members almost never actively attended or financially supported their local church. While there is life to be found here and there, the denomination as a whole is in real trouble. Some insiders will admit it. Many will search for answers that continue to ignore the real problems. Some know that vibrant missional Christianity, combined with a healthy and living orthodoxy, is the only answer. But the linkage of the two is all too rare. Mainline leaders want new churches but they want them to be creative to the point that orthodox theology, to varying degrees, is optional.
I fear biblical and traditional Lutherans will lose this battle in the long run. Meanwhile there is life in many Lutheran churches. That life will not go away overnight, even in the midst of this present battle. What does the future hold? I do not know. I tend to think that you will see further erosion on the national level, more cut-backs financially, and greater restlessness among members and clergy. Welcome to the mainline.
But I also believe the next generation is already showing that it will not be as willing to entertain moral relativism as the boomer generation was before them. The next generation is far less churched, far less knowledgeable about the teaching of the Bible, and far more willing to learn what Scripture teaches and to stand for a Christian gospel that calls for real transformation. They do not want the world's agenda, and they are willing to take a tough position with an equal tenderness and graciousness. This might be the real hope in the end.
The principle is biblically universal. It is rooted in Christ and his death.
Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies it produces many seeds. John 12:24
Many wonderful Lutherans are now being called upon to live this principle out. The question I have for more conservative churches, and those of you in them who are thankfully not unclear about how sexual ethics are to be properly linked with the message of the gospel as moral transformation, is simple: "Where will God take you to die before he produces a new missional harvest that will glorify his Son in your fellowship as you seek to respond to this ever-hardening North American soil?" We must all die in some way, the only question is how and when.
