To explore the two different methods of interpreting Scripture that were at play during the 2009 ELCA Churchwide’s decision to allow congregations to choose whether or not to call a practicing homosexual in a “life-long, committed, monogamous, relationship.”

To allow participants to further refine their own particular stances on this issue while seeking to understand the other point of view.

To allow exploration of how one may faithfully respond to the Churchwide decision without causing major conflict within a congregation.

Part 1: Basic Premises

#1. This issue is one of major contention within congregations and in the church.

I don’t think I need to go too far in depth with this particular premise. Throughout the ELCA, congregations are up in arms in support of or against the Churchwide’s decision. Some have seen decreased offerings (one friend saw his congregation’s cut in half.) Some have entered into turmoil as sides have been drawn and conflict has ensued. Other congregations willingly supported the measure from the get-go. These congregations applaud the decision but are now preparing a defense as a backlash is building in the church. What remains to be seen is whether or not the backlash will have sufficient numbers to overturn the 2009 decision, especially since congregations are leaving the ELCA. Lutheran Core reports that nearly 700 have signed up to leave and join the synod that they are currently forming.

#2. As articulated by ELCA National Bishop Mark Hansen: Two "hermeneutics" or paradigms are at work among the members of the ELCA that make agreement difficult on scriptural and theological matters. The Rev. Craig L. Nessan, academic dean and professor of contextual theology, Wartburg Theological Seminary, an ELCA seminary in Dubuque, Iowa, writes that there is a "traditional approach" and a "contextual approach" in interpreting Scripture, both of which are valid and irreconcilable. (Note to participants: your pastor believes that there are two approaches that are irreconcilable, but he does not believe they are both equally valid.)

#3. “Camps” have formed along these two paradigms in interpreting Scripture, and they are alive and well in nearly every congregation.

#4. Because the two methodologies are “irreconcilable” major differences come into play and lead to conflict.

#5. The tendency is for both groups to ignore the core convictions that lead to the different conclusions and “demonize” one another as un-Christian or ignorant.

#6. The leader of this study believes that generally, people hardly ever change their minds regarding this particular issue, so to try to sway someone one way or the other is fruitless.

#7. The leader of this study, however, believes that there is wisdom in Jame’s Hering’s attitude toward living in relationships, “Seek first to understand and then to be understood.”

#8. The leader of this study believes most folks would benefit from seeking to understand one side or the other.

#9. The leader of this study is biased toward the “traditional approach” to Biblical interpretation. As such, he does not agree with the ELCA Churchwide’s decision. However, he will attempt to show both methodologies in a “fair and balanced” way. He might need a little bit of correction if he starts going overboard in favor or against one particular methodology.

#10. The leader of this study also believes that one can still faithfully be a part of the church in which one disagrees with its policies.

Ground Rules:

#1. I expect disagreement in the midst of our conversations. Keep it respectful. We are Christian, after all.

#2. No forcing one’s understanding upon another person or upon the entire church. The only place where everyone is forced to believe exactly like everyone else is a cult. We’re not one of those.

#3. When making claims, please refrain from using the accusatory “you”. (Ex. You don’t know what you are talking about.) Instead, begin statements stating what you believe. (Ex. I believe that you don’t know what you are talking about.)

#4. If at all possible, don’t say things like that last example. :-)

#5. Ask questions. Ask for clarification. This is the main purpose for our time together.

Scriptural Interpretation:

#1: The Traditional Approach:

The traditional approach, for Lutherans, has its roots in the Reformation. In the Roman church, Scripture was interpreted using a four-fold methodology:

The Literal or “plain” sense of the text.

The allegorical sense of the text: which pointed to the text’s doctrinal importance.

The moral sense of the text: which pointed out the text’s meaning for individual lives.

The anagogical sense of the text: which pointed to the text’s meaning in light of the end of time.

The literal sense of the text was often seen as the inferior of the four methodologies, and honestly, this led to abuses in the church. How? Well, take a look at the example that I have provided regarding an Allegorical reading of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. First read the parable in Luke 10: 29-37. Then read the interpretation on Worksheet 3A from the Kerygma Study: Parables.

Do you see how this can lead to abuses? Any group of scholars can get together and decide what each individual item in a particular passage of scripture “really” means, and they can darn near make the Bible say anything and everything that they want. Not good.

Therefore, Luther argued that the “plain” sense of the scripture was the most important and deserved the highest priority. He believed that “the Bible’s meaning would be clear to those who were (finally!) free to read it in their own language...Luther’s confidence in the clarity of Scripture was grounded on his theological conviction that the entire Scripture points to Christ.”

In addition, Luther adamantly believed that if there were a text within scripture that was unclear, then “scripture interprets itself.” In other words, if you came across something that was confusing, you could read other passages of scripture that would clear the confusion up.

Let’s look at an example of this taking place:

Matthew 6 verses 14-15 read, “14For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

So, what does Jesus really mean by this? How does it all shake down? According to Luther, we can read other portions of Scripture to flesh this teaching out in its entirety.

Matthew 18: 23-35:

23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; 25and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. 26So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. 28But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. 31When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ 34And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. 35So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister£ from your heart.”

Ephesians 4:30-5:2:

30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. 31Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, 32and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. 5:1Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, 5:2and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Colossians 3:12-17

12As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. 13Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. 17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

One easily see how one is called to act out Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness by these texts. Scripture indeed interprets scripture.

So, all is well and good, is it not? Well, not exactly. There is a shortcoming to the “plain” reading of the text, and that is human sin. History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that despite Luther’s conviction that the Bible’s meaning would be clear to those who were finally free to read it in their own language, it just hasn’t happened that way. In fact, the God-honest truth is that folks take Scripture and interpret it much as they see fit. Why do you think there are so many denominations of the Christian Church? Do you think it’s because they all clearly understand Scripture? Not a chance. It’s because they interpret it differently.

Let’s look at an example from Holy Communion. In 1 Corinthians chapter 11, St. Paul pens these words, “23For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

Completely clear, correct? Really? Do you really think so? If you think this is absolutely clear, then it means that you believe that the bread and wine at Holy Communion transform into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, correct? (That’s the Roman Catholic approach.)

What’s that you say? It doesn’t taste like flesh and blood? It tastes like bread and wine. So, perhaps you believe that it’s simply bread and wine that we are receiving. Perhaps you believe that the bread and wine are symbolic and nothing more. Perhaps the real key in celebrating Holy Communion is the remembrance that Jesus talks about in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It’s a memorial, and Jesus is present with those who gather to receive the Sacrament. (See, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, et.al.)

Wait. You’re not comfortable with that one either? You think “is” really means “is” even though you are tasting bread and wine and not flesh and blood. You believe that somehow Jesus is actually present “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine in some mysterious fashion. You believe that Communion is a remembrance, but that there is something more significant that is taking place? Well, you might just be a Lutheran then.

So, which of the above interpretations is most clearly understood? And yes, the Church split over these issues in the 1500's.

Realizing these shortcomings, there are those who have claimed that one should try to use the plain language of the text using the historical-critical methodology of interpreting Scripture. I’ll delve into this a little more in a minute; however, I would like to make it clear that at this point, I begin to diverge with Dr. Nessan and others who argue that adding historical-critical methodologies is an attempt to truly understand the “literal” or plain meaning of the text. What do I mean by that?

Dr. Nessan argues that when we try to understand how Jesus’ words (or Paul’s, or Old Testament writers) were understood by the original hearers, we are uncovering the original meaning of the text. I disagree. Luther’s original understanding of the plain language meant that folks who read the Bible without all the scholastic additions could and would find its meaning. I am adamant about this fundamental understanding of Luther’s. ONE DOES NOT NEED A PHD OR A MASTER’S DEGREE IN THEOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND SCRIPTURE!!! Therefore, with all due respect to Dr. Nessan and others, I firmly believe that historical-critical methodologies belong in the second category of Scriptural interpretation: the contextual method.

#2. The Contextual Approach:

I believe the Contextual Approach has two significant trains of thought. One is the historical-critical methodology, and the other is the experiential approach coming out of one’s personal context. Both tend to offer insights into Scripture that we might not ordinarily catch. We will look at two examples to help us understand these approaches.

A. Historical-Critical Methodology

One of my favorite explanations of the Historical-Critical methodology is to look at Jesus’ comment, “Turn the other cheek.” This comment is actually found in two places in the Bible:

Luke 6:27-29, “27But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.”

and

Matthew 5:38-39, “38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”

I included Matthew’s text second, because in Matthew we find something quite significant. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, what hand are they using? The left. Know what is significant about that hand in the Middle East culture? Give up? It’s the hand that is used to wipe one’s self after defecating–you know, pooping. It is considered the “unclean” hand to this day in many countries. In fact, did you know that in Islamic law, if you are caught stealing, you are supposed to have your right hand cut off? Why, so you are forced to eat with the hand you wipe yourself with. It’s really a nasty sort of punishment, but that is beside the point.

What is the point then? Well, Jesus is telling his followers that if someone strikes them, they are to stand and demand dignity. If someone slaps you with their left hand, they are basically calling you dung.

Jesus tells his followers in much fewer words, “Don’t let anyone stomp on your dignity and call you dung. Show them that you are on an equal footing with them, especially in God’s eyes. If someone slaps you with their left hand, offer them your left cheek. Make them slap you as an equal. If they refuse to do this, it’s to their shame, not yours.”

Do you see how the historical-critical method of looking at the context in which these words were originally spoken really and truly add a depth of meaning to the text that is not exactly in the “plain” reading? I hope that you can easily see this. Yet, be aware that the historical-critical reading does not change or detract from the plain reading in any way, shape, or form.

So, by example, let’s put a definition to the historical-critical methodology as contextual theology: the historical-critical method of interpreting scripture is to seek and understand the words of scripture as the original author intended and the original audience heard them.

There is a shortcoming to this methodology; however. How can anyone really and truly know the understandings of the original author and audience? Sure, we can get some idea; however, is it really and truly possible to deduce this from studying history and applying it to what was or was not said? Humans have a very interesting capacity for reevaluating history and (dare I say) changing what happened. Humans also have a very interesting capacity for missing certain details as they look at events. Need proof of those two statements?

Concerning history: Let’s answer this question. How did Davy Crockett die at the Alamo? Was he captured and then executed or did he go down fighting? Any historians out there want to take a stab at this one? Google this particular item on the internet and see if you can find the controversy around how Davy Crockett met his match.

Concerning looking at events: Let’s answer this question. Have two people ever given exactly the same accounts of an automobile accident? Even under oath? Enough said.

B. The Experiential Approach

There is no doubt in my mind that our personal experiences color how we view and interpret Scripture. A middle-class American does not hear or read Scripture the same way a poor Latin American peasant hears Scripture. One of the significant factors in this is the societal context in which we find ourselves. How does this come into play?

Let me provide an example that I heard recently in a speech given by Justo Gonzales at the Tri-Synodical Theological Conference in San Antonio I attended in January 2010. Dr. Gonzales spoke about this text:

Matthew 26: 69Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant-girl came to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” 70But he denied it before all of them, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71When he went out to the porch, another servant-girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72Again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” 73After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” 74Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know the man!” At that moment the cock crowed. 75Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

A little bit of background: Dr. Gonzales grew up in Cuba and received the privilege of attending private school. He became very well educated and went to Yale University to get a degree in Theology. Despite his training and having lived in the United States since the 1960's he still speaks with a heavy Cuban accent. Can you guess what particular sentence in the above Biblical text caught Justo’s eye?

You probably guessed the part where the bystanders accused Peter because “his accent betrayed him.” Justo found himself deeply embedded in the biblical text because he related to Peter. Justo knew what it was like to be “betrayed” by his accent living as a Hispanic in the U.S.

Now, such contextual reading of the Bible is not a bad thing. It is always helpful to find that this ancient story is also our story today. However there are some severe limitations to reading the Bible in this manner. What are they? Well, let me ask this question: how many different contexts are there in the world? You got it. Billions. So how do we know which contextual interpretation is true? What happens if you have contradictory interpretations that come from different contexts? Are they both true?

There is an inherent danger in saying that contextual interpretation is a fully valid method of reading and understanding Scripture because there is no fundamental basis for truth. Truth comes out of context and is not subject to any other criteria. You might not believe me on this, but this is extremely, extremely dangerous. It leads to people like Jim Jones and David Koresh who believe that they fundamentally know the truth, and they can easily lead people to their demise.

These, of course, are extreme cases, but the danger is real because those extreme cases are the result of men heading down a very slippery slope when they became disengaged from a community of faith and focused solely on their own interpretive methodology.

A Look at Homosexuality in Scripture

Now that we have these two interpretive methodologies defined and articulated, it’s time we applied them to the biblical text. We will look at many of the texts within Scripture that are used to lead the church in its conclusions regarding homosexuality and how those texts are viewed through both the plain reading of the text and the contextual method of reading Scripture.

To begin dealing with the Biblical texts, we will actually use the ELCA’s study document on human sexuality entitled “Journey Together Faithfully Part 2.” It was released in 2003. We will be delving a little more in depth than the resource itself does.

Genesis 19:1-11

1The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the square.” 3But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” 6Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. 10But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.

Judges 19:16-30

16Then at evening there was an old man coming from his work in the field. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was residing in Gibeah. (The people of the place were Benjaminites.) 17When the old man looked up and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, “Where are you going and where do you come from?” 18He answered him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am going to my home. Nobody has offered to take me in. 19We your servants have straw and fodder for our donkeys, with bread and wine for me and the woman and the young man along with us. We need nothing more.” 20The old man said, “Peace be to you. I will care for all your wants; only do not spend the night in the square.” 21So he brought him into his house, and fed the donkeys; they washed their feet, and ate and drank.

22While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him.” 23And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. 24Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.” 25But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, until it was light. 27In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28“Get up,” he said to her, “we are going.” But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home. 29When he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30Then he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, “Thus shall you say to all the Israelites, ‘Has such a thing ever happened since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until this day? Consider it, take counsel, and speak out.’”

Jude 5-7

5Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. 7Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Ezekiel 16:48-50

48As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

20:13: 13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9

9Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

The two words in Greek used to deal with this issue are “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”

“malakoi” can be translated as soft, effeminate, or as the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. It can also be translated catamite. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a catamite is a young boy who is in a homosexual relationship.

“Arsenokoitai” can be translated male homosexual or sodomite. Or one who engages in same sex activity, pederast. A pederast, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a “lover of boys.”

1 Timothy 1:10

10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

“Arsenokoitai” is the same word used here.

Romans 1:18-32

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

So What Now?

We have seen differing methods of interpretation at practice in regards to the biblical texts on homosexuality. We have seen how a plain reading seems to explicitly state that such practices are not kosher in whatever shape or form in God’s eyes. We have also seen that there are scholars who argue to the contrary. The question arises: what is the truth? What is the reality of what the Bible tells us is true in regards to this issue.

–My Personal Stance–

At this point, the matter must literally be decided in one’s own mind. No one can coerce another into believing something (see my reference to the difference between a cult and a church above). However, I will define my own personal stance in regards to this issue and list the reasons why. I do not ask that you believe as I do; neither am I trying to influence you in an unhealthy manner. I am simply defining my own stance; nothing more.

I have wrestled with this issue for many years. I remember it surfacing when I began attending college in 1992. Someone in the ELCA offices intentionally slipped a draft copy promoting the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same sex unions to the media before even the pastors in the pews received the study. It caused quite an uproar in the church. Not in a positive manner. Yet, Pandora’s box had been opened, and the discussions began in earnest.

I remember working through the issue on an emotional level at college as I made some dear friends who are gay/lesbian. I listened to their stories of rejection by many; intimidation by some; and abuse by a few. I knew that such stories of rejection, intimidation and abuse had no place in the church. I became very sympathetic to their plight.

However, I could not simply ignore Scripture. Even though I began hearing arguments of Scriptural interpretation that seemingly allowed Scripture to gloss over the behavior, none of them truly satisfied my questioning.

For instance, I heard numerous times that as Christians the “Law” doesn’t apply to us anymore. In reality, this is a blatant falsehood. The Law still is applicable–especially laws dealing with moral code. Let’s take this example:

Jesus was once asked what the most important commandments were. He responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. And the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” (Matt. 22:34 and following.)

How many of you know that Jesus is quoting Levitical law as He is teaching? Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:17-18 which reads, “17You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. 18You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” Anyone want to argue that this law does not apply?

Indeed, to say that Christians “no longer follow the law” is a heresy called anti-nomianism (anti-law). It stemmed from the early Church’s emphasis on the grace of God being revealed through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The book of James, in fact, is a corrective on those who argued that works of the law were completely unnecessary in living the Christian life. St. Paul also dealt with those who believed that practicing the law was unnecessary. After talking about the wonderful grace of God that frees us from the condemnation of the law, Paul adds this note in Romans chapter 3, “31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Paul also wrestles with this issue in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, “12“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.” Paul upholds tenets of the law even though he acknowledges that we don’t have to do such things to earn salvation.

This needs to be made abundantly clear. We do not have to follow the law to attain salvation. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection, the only means to the Father is by the grace of God. Period.

Yet, the law becomes a guide for how God calls us to live with one another. (The third use of the law in theological terms.) We gladly yoke ourselves to God’s word and His instructions for living out of thankfulness for what He first did for us. Because of this fact, whenever someone tries to tell me that as Christians we do not have to follow the law, I cringe. It’s not an entirely true statement.

Secondly, I cannot escape the relevance of the “plain” reading of the text. For sure, it is not perfect, but I give considerable more weight to it than I do other methods of reading Scripture. Why?

My grandmother is fast approaching her 90's. She embodies what it means to be both saint and sinner. I’ve heard her cuss a blue streak. I’ve seen her bite the head off my grandfather (figuratively of course). But I’ve seen generosity on a scale that is hard to fathom. I’ve seen her make sacrifices for people all over the place. She’s got a heart of gold. And she is a tremendous person of faith. She knows the Bible. She knows the stories by heart. And she knows the Lord. She does not know historical-critical methodologies. She does not know liberation theology. She has an eighth grade education from back in the 1920's and 30's.

Is her interpretation of scripture wrong? Does her “uneducatedness” disqualify her from reading and interpreting scripture? No. Not by a long shot. She can read the words on the page and apply them to her life. She doesn’t need a man or woman with a PhD in Theology or New Testament studies or Old Testament studies to tell her what she is reading. The Holy Spirit can lead her and guide her very well, thank you.

Such is the argument that Luther used when developing his thoughts on the “plain” reading of Scripture. I simply cannot believe that biblical scholars have it all right. I cannot accept that they know the “truest” interpretation of Scripture. If we accept that they indeed do, then we have returned to the scholasticism that Luther fought so hard to get away from. The interpretation of Scripture is literally controlled by a few and not by the whole of the church to give it accountability.

Of course, one might just argue with me here. One might say that indeed, we should listen to Biblical scholars who have invested tons of time, money, and energy doing research into such matters. These scholars know their stuff as does an engineer or scientist or other academic. We should give them credence.

(Tongue firmly planted in cheek.) O.K. Which scholars do you want to listen to? You bring your list, and I’ll bring mine. To paraphrase Martin Luther when he stood at the Diet of Worms, “I do not believe in the authority of [biblical scholars] by themselves, for it is plain they have often erred and contradicted each other.” Which they have, are doing, and will continue to do.

Because I know this fact, I cannot and will not trust biblical interpretation to scholars alone. Their interpretation must be measured along with the “plain” reading of the text. And where the two disagree, I will continue to argue that the “plain” reading should carry more weight.

In my estimation, the plain reading of the text unequivocally shows that engaging in homosexual intercourse is “verboten”. It is a sin, and white-washing it doesn’t hold with me.

Now, let me be abundantly clear. This does not mean that I condemn homosexuals. Not in the least. In fact, if you were to come up to me and say, “God hates fags.” I would argue with you vehemently. Homosexuals are children of God just like you and I. I don’t believe homosexuals can “turn their attractions off” any more than I as a male can turn off my attractions to women.

In fact, as a personal admission, I am guilty of adultery on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. Matthew 5:27-28 reads, “27You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Oops. Luckily for me, this is not a public sin. It’s a private one, and as much as I would like to stop it, the testosterone levels in my blood won’t allow me to. Doesn’t make it any less a sin, and I don’t expect it to be white-washed. It’s still sinful behavior of which I need forgiveness.

Likewise, I believe that homosexual intercourse is sinful behavior. Perhaps one cannot stop doing it and simply become celibate. As Paul says in chapter 7 of the book of Romans, “18For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” If so, then this person continues to need to ask for forgiveness. It’s just that plain and simple–at least in my mind.

One further note on this issue. Despite my stance in regards to Scripture, there is still a part of me that has wrestled with whether or not it is indeed O.K. for a practicing homosexual to preach the Gospel. Indeed, any sinner can preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, and yes, that means even one living in sin. Doesn’t make it right–it’s just the facts.

However, is such a decision good for the church? I will give you my final answer to this question as I quote two snippets from the book of Galatians. It was in reading these verses that I finally solidified my position in regards to the decision to ordain practicing homosexuals in life-long, committed, monogamous relationships. I will include their titles as presented in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

The Works of the Flesh

16Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The Fruit of the Spirit

22By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

I ask you in all honesty. Which of these works/fruits have been present most in this debate over this issue? Which things have become manifest in our congregations, Synod Assemblies, and the National Church? Think that over very hard.

Where to Go From Here

For those of you who applaud the ELCA National Assembly’s decision in August of 2009, you may want to stop here because this next segment is my own wrestling with how one stays in a church when that church has chosen to do something that one disagrees with. Of course, you might want to take a gander anyway just in case the future holds a sudden reversal of the church-wide’s decision at some point in the future.

It my surprise some that I do not advocate leaving the ELCA. Furthermore, I do not support removing Congregational Mission Support from the Synod offices and National Church offices. That might sound strange, but there are deep seeded biblical reasons for my stance. And they stem from God’s relationship with us.

How does God relate to us? Well, the “plain” reading of Scripture indicates two ways.

First, in much of the Old Testament, you have a continuous cycle. God establishes a covenant with humankind. God promises to act a certain way as long as His people act a certain way. Generally, folks accept the covenant freely. However, people can never, and I mean never, hold up their end of the covenant. God is always faithful. Mankind never is.

Therefore, when people break the covenant, God sends punishment. Time and again in the OT, this pattern fulfills itself. From Genesis chapter 3 when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, to the book of Judges, to the establishment of the monarchy, when the people sinned, God sent punishment.

It’s not surprising that this tends to be the default response for many of us as humankind. When we believe we have been wronged, we dole out punishment. When children disobey their boundaries, we dole out time outs or spankings. When someone says something unflattering about us or starts a rumor about us, we shun that person or even start rumors ourselves or bad mouth the one who wronged us.

Now, let me say that I believe that there are appropriate times to dole out punishment. Scripture is very clear about this. There are times when the line in the sand must be drawn, but punishment never, and I mean it strongly, ever should be used to intentionally hurt or harm someone. Punishment must be carried out in love.

At this point, one could argue that local congregations and folks should “punish” the larger church for its decision by withholding offerings, refusing to volunteer, or by dropping out completely. I respect that this is an option, and if there are those who wish to do so on an individual basis, I do not begrudge them their choice.

I personally have to ask the question of whether or not such things hurts or harms the church and the people in it. There is no doubt in my mind that it does, and that’s unfortunate. Yet, I am also aware of the fact that there really hasn’t been another alternative offered for folks to not only voice their disapproval but to take action against a decision they feel was wrong. Therefore, when folks feel like they have no alternative, they take the only course of action that seems open to them.

However, I propose that there is another way based upon how God changed. That statement might surprise you, but I have come to truly believe that God changed His approach to how He chose to handle humankind. If you read the New Testament, you will notice that this cycle of retribution no longer holds sway. Honestly. God decided to stop punishing us for the decisions we make on earth.

Look at the parable of the Prodigal Son(s). Look at how the father (who nearly everyone agrees represents God) acts. When the youngest son comes to him and demands his inheritance early, what does the father do? Mind you, this is the equivalent of the younger son going up to the father and saying, “Dad, I wish you were dead. All I want out of you is your money.” How does the dad handle him?

Does the dad kick him out of the family and household? Does he tell him get out and never come back? Does he disrespect his son the way he was disrespected? Does he cut him off completely? No. Surprisingly, radically, the father gives his youngest son his portion of the inheritance. The father doesn’t withhold, he gives. Interesting, don’t you think?

Now that I am a father, I have come to appreciate the wisdom that father’s tend to have. I’ve a pretty good idea that the father in Jesus’ parable knew what was going to happen. You don’t give an immature kid tons of money and expect him to make wise decisions. Why do you think so many professional athletes end up in trouble when handed enormous amounts of money? Why do you think many of them end up broke shortly after they retire?

The same thing that happens to them happened to this youngest son. He made some very poor investment choices, squandering his money. He ends up sitting in a pig sty longing to eat pig slop. It is at his lowest that he “comes to himself.” He wakes up. He matures and realizes he is wrong. Knowing his father’s servants are treated better than him, he decides to go back to dad, repent, and ask for a job. He’s not necessarily hopeful that this will occur because of the way he treated dad, but he’s going to give it a shot.

What happens next is over and above expectations. Not only does the father welcome him back, but dad runs to meet him, returns him to the status of a son, and throws him a party.

Of course, this causes quite the stir with the eldest son who has been faithful, dutiful, and responsible. The eldest then becomes disobedient by refusing to attend dad’s party. So, once again, the father has a choice, does he discipline his eldest? Does he let him stew in his own juices and get over it? No. The father comes out and invites his eldest to the party. This father wants all his children to attend, and he’s going to go above and beyond the call of duty to show them both love.

It’s a quite different approach to handling someone you disagree with; of handling someone who slaps you in the face; who makes a decision you believe is completely and utterly wrong. It’s trying to love someone to change instead of forcing the other to mend their ways. And the question is, “Which is most effective for true, lasting change?”

I know that no amount of badgering will change anyone else’s mind regarding this particular issue. I have never met anyone who has made up their mind who has actually changed their stance. Never. Not once. All I can do is state my position and then act as Christ calls me to act. If the Father loves me with a reckless love that refuses to cut me off that gives beyond measure, I will attempt to do the same. All I can hope is that those I believe are wrong will “come to themselves” and eventually repent. Then, it is up to me to treat them with respect, dignity, and love.

Such is my response to those who made this decision. Love without abandon and hope that they “come to themselves.”
Does this mean that this decision will ever be reversed? I don’t know. I do know that there is some serious soul searching in the ELCA right now. I do know that our own Synod Office has already had to cut staff and take other budget cutting matters because of a downturn in income. I also know that the National Offices are in the same boat. I know that there are new Denominations currently forming that will split the church. How big a split this will eventually be, I do not know.