Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:29:23 -0500
From: Jlokken@aol.com
Subject: A Call for Dialog

A CALL FOR DIALOG

Gay and Lesbian Christians and the Ministry of the Church



     Lutherans Concerned/North America presents the following paper as an
offering of love and a resource for understanding. It is the product of more
than two years of work on the part of our Task Force on Theology, and has had
the benefit of much theological study, criticism and evaluation by many
pastors and lay persons across the continent. We offer A Call for Dialog in
commitment to a church we will not abandon, as it labors to perfect its
understanding of and ministry with lesbian and gay people. We offer this
document also to our brothers and sisters in the lesbian and gay community:
those within the church; those who have left, feeling the cold wind of
alienation; and those who have never heard the good news of the Gospel. 

     This paper is not the final word spoken by Lutherans Concerned to the
church, but represents our experience and the best of our current theological
reflection on issues in these times of rapid change. As the ministry of the
church in a complex society progresses, some issues will be resolved or
supplanted by new ones. We are above all confident of the grace that is ours
in Christ Jesus. Our call for dialog is a call for our church to become a
place both of reconciliation and of justice, which we believe are inseparable
for the spiritual health of our church and our people. Thanks be to God! 

     John R. Ballew, President
     Lutherans Concerned/North America


     INTRODUCTION

     We, members of Lutherans Concerned/North America, address this paper to
the Lutheran churches, in order to identify and clarify the issues of
homosexuality as we see them, and to call our churches to an intentional
dialog on the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian persons 

     Most discussions in Christian circles about homosexuality have been
conducted in muddy waters, stirred by the strong emotions which the issues
evoke. There is much fear, confusion and avoidance. Objections and alarms
within the church have unclear connections to faith or theology.
Homosexuality
is often regarded as one of the most divisive issues to face the church in
this generation. 

     Both the ministry of Lutherans Concerned and the contributions of this
paper are offered as an invitation to bring light, clarity and reconciliation
to the dialog. Unfortunately, there has been little Lutheran theological
reflection on these critical issues. In recent years the church bodies, in
their social statements or convention resolutions, have included material on
homosexuality that affects the lives of thousands of lesbian and gay
Lutherans. We are grieved that the churches have adopted authoritative
statements about a significant minority of people within their midst, with
little significant or intentional participation of the people whose lives are
involved. 

     It is from the perspective of these persons that we speak. We are not
outsiders. Lutherans Concerned includes lesbian, gay and bisexual persons, as
well as non-gay parents, friends and pastors, who are active members of the
Lutheran Churches. We speak as sisters and brothers to our churches about the
faith and the ministry of the church in the world, as these relate to lesbian
and gay persons. We speak in the spirit of love for our church, for the
growth
of the whole Body of Christ, and for the integrity of its ministry to all
persons. 


     PART ONE
     Gay and Lesbian Persons in the Church

     Homosexuality personally affects the lives of tens of thousands of
persons in our churches. There are no hard sociological data to tell us how
many gay and lesbian members there are in Lutheran churches,(1) but that
number may parallel the estimate often made of the whole society: between
five
and ten percent of the population. 

     In our churches, then, it may be that as many as one person in ten is
lesbian or gay, and that one family in four is directly involved, because a
child, sibling, parent or spouse is homosexual. 

     However, it is typical for gay and lesbian people to be invisible in the
church and general society. Indeed, most of them feel compelled to maintain
their invisibility to remain in the church. Consequently, in contrast to the
increasingly open discussion of gay and lesbian issues in the public arena,
denial and avoidance have been the general rule within the walls of the
church. Many clergy insist they don't have "that problem" in their
congregations. Others dismiss the issue, saying they are not interested in
what people do in their private lives. Both attitudes are symptoms of an
inability to face the issues honestly and to relate pastorally to gay and
lesbian members. 

     Lesbians and gays recognize this denial and avoidance as a conspiracy of
silence--a pervasive, long-standing pretense which isolates, alienates, and
in
the end, drives many away from the church. 

     With few exceptions gay and lesbian persons are not welcome in the
church, neither as clergy, other church professionals, nor as laity. Members
of Lutherans Concerned have heard countless stories that begin, "I used to be
Lutheran, until . . ."--stories which recall the pain and rejection many have
experienced in the church because of their sexuality. It is only as they hide
their sexual orientation and remain silent about the joys and pains of their
personal lives and relationships that lesbians and gay men are present in our
pews and at our altars. Thousands choose to stay away. 

     We recognize that an encounter with homosexual persons is fearful both
for the church and for much of society. Thus, our mutual agenda must, above
all, find ways to lay down the arsenals of fear. Because the issue of gay and
lesbian persons in the churches has been so enmeshed in a whole fabric of
fears enshrouding our society--fears about family, economic security, nuclear
war, personal identity, etc.--we have not been able to speak honestly with
one
another in the spirit of love. 

     Gays and lesbians are afraid. Many live in fear of exposure. Most live
in fear of losing jobs and housing, and live under the threatening shadow of
the betrayal of confidence--by a friend, a family member, a colleague, a
pastor. Ultimately, there is the ever-present fear of rejection. Tragically,
they are afraid of the very people from whom they most desire
support--parents
and family. Horror stories of shock and aversion therapy and family ostracism
are too common. And for many, the church has intensified this reign of fear
with a divine sanction in words of direct personal condemnation. 

     Non-gay persons are afraid, too. They worry that homosexuality is
somehow contagious, and thus fear the influence of gay and lesbian church
professionals, teachers, or other leaders. The sudden AIDS epidemic has
brought the new fear that gay people might spread disease within the church.
Many are afraid to be seen publicly with a gay man or lesbian for fear of
guilt by association. Parents of gays and lesbians fear the rejection of
their
friends and acquaintances if the "family secret" is known. Many live with a
haunting, uninformed sense of failure as parents. 

     The church has its institutional fears as well. There are fears that if
it appears too friendly to and accepting of gay and lesbian people, the more
conservative constituency will withhold funds or leave the church, or that it
will not be effective in attracting new members. Ironically, it is apparently
of less concern to the church that thousands of gay men, lesbians and their
supportive families are permanently alienated from the church, or that
religious lesbians or gays are left hungering for spiritual support. 

     In all these fears, the truth about life becomes distorted and the
ministry of the church is truncated. 

     Masking the true self. For gay and lesbian persons, that experience of
distortion is manifested in the hypocrisy most of them feel compelled to
maintain in the church, with a fagade or mask of being heterosexual or of
being asexual. 

     This distortion produces a spiritual and psychological bifurcation.
There is a sense of two selves wedged apart by feelings of guilt, self-hate,
rejection, alienation, or anger. The duplicity of necessary lies has deprived
many of their integrity and dignity. The overwhelming experience of lesbian
and gay persons is that there is a significant part of their lives which they
must never reveal in the church. Gay and lesbian persons find it fearful and
difficult to remove the mask. The genuine need for honest self-disclosure is
unmet. 

     Poor counsel. With some notable exceptions, when gay and lesbian persons
have sought the counsel of the church, it has been poor and ill-informed.
Self-disclosure, in some cases, has brought about the denial of the
sacraments, public humiliation, accusations, and abuses of both confessional
confidentiality and of the office of the keys. Gays and lesbians have often
been advised that they are already rejected by God--damned--or have been
pressured toward involuntary celibacy. 

     Loss of faith. Because of the condemnation of the church, many
experience spiritual death, becoming cynical, irreligious and unbelieving.
Rather than providing a ministry of compassion, clergy have attempted to
interpose moralistic conditions between the homosexual Christian and the
unconditional love of God. Law, rather than Gospel, has predominated in much
of the counsel of the church, which communicates that the church is unwilling
to listen or to learn what has been the experience of gay and lesbian people.
Too few clergy and church leaders are familiar with any of the contemporary
literature on the issues to provide meaningful and appropriate pastoral
counsel. 

     Lack of due process. The church must re-examine its own ethical behavior
in dealing with its lesbian or gay professionals. Reports come to us of
breaches of confidence, betrayal of trust, arbitrary legalism, duplicity and
secrecy, and the total absence of due process or justice. Church
professionals
have been dismissed or removed without evidence, without a hearing, without
pastoral counsel, without access to peer support. Rumors and allegations have
supplanted due process. The needs, competence and personal integrity of those
with a vocation to serve the church have been arbitrarily ignored. 

     While the Lutheran church bodies in public statements have spoken on
behalf of the civil rights of gay and lesbian people in the public arena,
within the church itself elementary standards of justice have been violated.
This hypocrisy of the church is felt most painfully by its own believers, and
stands as a major obstacle to the effective witness of the Gospel among
unchurched gays and lesbians, as well as with those who have lapsed. 

     Absence of serious study. Especially disappointing is the lack of
pastoral and theological discussion in the Lutheran community on
homosexuality. In a tradition that has prided itself on theological vigor and
lively debate, these issues have been largely neglected or avoided.
Theological papers, requested of seminary faculty, have been kept quiet,
remaining unpublished and unavailable. Lutheran ethicists or biblical
scholars
are not writing on these issues. There is little evidence that the Lutheran
academic community has seriously engaged the enormous quantity of research
and
writing done in the social sciences in the last fifteen years. 

     We are particularly saddened and angered that church body statements,
pastoral letters and guidelines have been drafted with little reference to or
inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the process. There should be no
further
discussions of issues relating to homosexuality without including gay and
lesbian Lutherans as full participants in research, hearings, and study. We
affirm the principle identified in the work of the Commission on the New
Lutheran Church: "Whenever possible, the people most directly affected by a
decision shall be the principal parties responsible for decisions and
implementation, with other expressions facilitating and assisting that
group."(2) 

     Progress. Though our task in this paper is to outline our major concerns
for dialog, we also want to acknowledge those ways in which the church is
showing a new openness to lesbians and gays. Through the Reconciled in Christ
Program of Lutherans Concerned/North America, more and more congregations are
publicly and intentionally making known their welcome to gay and lesbian
persons. In a few synods and districts, conversations have begun between
bishops and their lesbian and gay constituents. Enlightened pastors provide
individual support to gay and lesbian members and their families. We applaud
this progress. 

     However, for the sake of the Gospel and for the unity of the Body of
Christ, we press with urgency for dialog on these issues. There remain many
gays and lesbians, brothers and sisters within the Lutheran family, who have
been greatly hurt by the continuing fear, denial and avoidance they
experience. As St. Paul reminds us, "If one member suffers, all suffer
together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the
body
of Christ and individually members of it." (1 Corinthians 12:26-27). For the
church to speak and act with utter disregard for the life experience, faith
and conscience of any believer is ultimately a further grieving of Christ our
Lord, who suffered for all. 




     PART TWO
     Theological Issues

     Several major theological strands are intertwined in considering human
sexuality--concepts of creation and fall, redemption and grace, of Christian
maturity and freedom in the Spirit. In discussing the issues pertinent to
homosexuality, however, two opposite viewpoints stand in marked contrast to
one another. These irreconcilable viewpoints are most sharply focused by
different presuppositions about the creation itself, in "First Article"
theology. 

     One point of view argues that there is one normative heterosexual
orientation operative in human beings--a pre-scientific view which prevails
in
biblical and church historical literature. Heterosexuality alone is divinely
willed, thus any variation from it, such as the homosexual orientation, is a
reflection of the flawed, broken nature of the world after the Fall. 

     The other point of view regards the creation as more mysteriously
diverse in matters of sexual orientation--a reality which contemporary
scientific research is continuing to elucidate. Orientations such as bisexual
and homosexual have a causality totally apart from the willful disobedience
of
the human family (the Fall) or the choice of any individual, and are to be
understood as still another facet of the complexity of God's created order. 

     The distinction between these two views is central to the discussion of
the appropriate pastoral ministry of the church to gay and lesbian persons.
If
the gender orientation of gay and lesbian persons is regarded as essentially
flawed and sinful, the thrust of the church's ministry must be to bring God's
forgiveness to these specially burdened sinners and to assist them in
overcoming their sinful inclinations and behavior. 

     On the other hand, if the capacity for love and affection is the gift of
God to those of homosexual orientation, then the ministry of the church must
be to assist gay and lesbian persons in finding wholeness and dignity in
themselves, to offer them full acceptance in the life of the Christian
community, to aid them in developing relationships of love and fidelity, and
to address the injustices of the church and society towards these people 

     These two alternative views are incompatible, and we reject efforts to
construct a confused middle ground. 

     As members of Lutherans Concerned/North America, we affirm the second
alternative in the debate. To clarify our argument for the full acceptance of
all people, regardless of sexual and affectional orientation, and to provide
for an arena of discussion with our churches, we present the following
theses: 

I.   Human sexuality, without distinction based on sexual orientation, is a
gift of God, not only for procreation, but also for learning and expressing
love and affection. 

     Sexuality exists, of course, for the biological continuation of the
species. But in the human family God has fused this gift with the unique
vocation to and capacity for mutual love. The capacity to love--the impulse
to
reach out beyond ourselves toward others--has its grounding in our sexuality.
Indeed, it is only as mutuality of love is attained that the gift of
children,
who need a nurturing and affectionate environment in which to grow, comes to
its intended fruition. 

     Mutuality of love is central to human sexuality, apart from procreation,
and contributes to the fullness of God-given personality. For this reason,
the
church supports heterosexual relationships in which procreation is not
expected--couples who choose not to have children; marriage among the
elderly,
the infertile or the physically challenged. 

     Human sexuality is the good gift in which our ability to love finds its
home. Human love is never disembodied. Human beings incarnate love in
touching
and embracing, in exchanging the wisdom of the mind and the laughter of the
heart, in making love, and in sharing one another's tears and sufferings. We
affirm the right and vocation of all people, as a matter of justice, to give
and receive love and affection. 

II.   Human sexuality manifests itself in a variety of gender orientations,
from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual. 

     Only very recently the scientific community began to discover and
disclose the variety of gender orientations among human beings. The terms
"homosexual" and "homosexuality" are inventions of the nineteenth century.(3)
Not until the work of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research in the
mid-twentieth century was there empirical evidence of a continuum of sexual
orientation.(4) 

     The widespread acceptance in the social sciences of the findings of the
Kinsey associates impels both church and society to a radical re-evaluation
of
gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. Theories abound as to how human sexual
orientation is formed; but the implications cannot be ignored; human are not
all heterosexual. 

          The work of Kinsey and others has also underscored the fact that
human sexual orientation, heterosexual or homosexual, is neither a matter of
choice nor subject to any radical change in adult life. In whatever ways
human
sexual orientation comes into being--in the mystery of human genetic makeup
or
in early childhood development or both--it occurs very early in life. 

     This has been affirmed again and again by gay and lesbian people, many
of whom indicate that from an early age on they sensed they were "different,"
though it may not have been until their adult years that they understood and
accepted that difference. Universally, lesbian and gay people have told us
that they had no choice about their orientation. In fact, many Christian gay
and lesbian and bisexual persons, with tremendous spiritual and emotional
resolve, have tried to choose otherwise before coming to accept the givenness
of their orientation. 

III.   All sexual orientations are gifts of God, and are to be honored as
such. 

     As John Boswell has shown in his definitive study of homosexuality and
Christianity, there have been major periods in the history of the church,
prior to the twelfth century, when there was considerable acceptance of
same-gender love in the Christian community.(5) The contemporary church is
the
heir of a heterosexual bias which gained ascendancy in the general rise of
social intolerance in the thirteenth century. This bias became articulated in
late medieval tradition of "natural law" and later in the Reformation concept
of the "orders of creation." This bias is echoed in all the current Lutheran
statements on human sexuality. 

     This is clearly the arena in which we challenge the church to seek fresh
theological insight. The variety of human sexual orientations is a given
reality. On the basis of empirical evidence, it is to be seen as a part of
the
created order. It is natural. 

     There is no evidence that same-gender love and affection are inherently
different from or inferior to heterosexual love and affection. To love at all
is to love beyond oneself. To risk seeking the love of another is fraught
with
the same difficulties and bears the same responsibilities, regardless of the
gender of that person. We reject the contention that same-gender love is
inherently narcissistic, since it is the otherness of an individual's
personality and capacity for love, not the otherness of gender, which draws
one out of oneself and gives love its caring and giving character. 

     Same-gender orientation equally well enables a person to love, and so
fulfill God's purpose both for sexuality and for relationship. By condemning
their homosexual orientation and natural feelings of affection, the church
has
impaired the emotional lives of thousands. By affirming all people in their
sexual orientation, the church will liberate them for the full and
appropriate
expression of love. 

     Same-gender sexuality and affection is not a pathology or disease. In
fact, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological
Association removed homosexuality from their classifications of mental
disorders more than a decade ago.(6) Homosexuality, therefore, cannot be
compared with pathologies like alcoholism. To be lesbian or gay means to have
a normal potential for love and affection. 

     If there is any real affliction for the gay or lesbian person, it is
homophobia--the unreasonable fear of homosexual impulses--which is created by
society and, regrettably, internalized by many gay and lesbian persons. It is
homophobia, not the homosexual orientation, that can be the stumbling block
for gay and lesbian people in their search for love, affection, affirmation
and personal wholeness. 

     We affirm, as a matter of justice, that all persons are to be supported
in their sexual orientations and encouraged in the development of their
capacity for love as grounded in their sexuality. 

IV.   Love is the criterion by which our sexuality is judged, not vice versa.


     We want to make very clear our understanding of the priority and primacy
of love in all matters of human sexuality. Love is at the very heart of the
Gospel, and love is the only appropriate norm by which all sexuality may be
judged. It is contrary to the Gospel, moreover, to condemn love because of a
particular sexual orientation. It is particularly offensive to hear people in
the church condemn love, affection, mutuality and caring that occurs between
people simply because they are of the same gender. Implied in this
condemnation is the belief that gay and lesbian people are incapable of,
perverse in, or undeserving of love, an untruth which must be laid to rest
once and for all. 

     As with heterosexual relationships, same-sex relationships have the
potential for love and sharing, and are subject to the same ancient enemies
of
selfishness, manipulation, and abuse. In the name of love we condemn all
perversions of sexuality manifested in sexism, rape, child and spouse abuse,
adultery, prostitution and the like. Sins of sex are failures in love--a
criterion that applies to everyone. Likewise, in the name of love, we affirm
all relationships in which persons mutually seek the welfare and growth of
the
other. 

V.   While sexual orientation may be distinguished from sexual expression, we
reject the argument that would divide the two in order to condone the one
while condemning the other. 

     Some in the church have attempted to come to terms with the work of
Kinsey and others in the social sciences who describe the variety of sexual
orientations(7) by making a clean distinction between homosexual orientation
and homosexual behavior, and have argued that the sin is not in the
orientation but in the behavior: it is not wrong to be gay or lesbian, but it
is sin to give any expression to that orientation. This kind of distinction
becomes apparent among those whose concern is to expose "practicing"
homosexuals. 

     We regard the separation of orientation and affectional expression in
this way to be specious. It denies the integration of human sexuality into
the
total personality, and the wholeness of human life in the context of a loving
relationship. 

     In speaking of human sexuality, including homosexuality, we mean much
more than the capacity for genital stimulus and response. To be sexual,
including to be lesbian or gay, involves an affectional capacity woven into
the fabric of the whole personality. To forbid a person any expression of
affection, intimacy and sexuality toward another to whom he or she is
naturally disposed constitutes a denial of that person's humanity. The
implication of such a view is that of a sadistic God who disposes some to a
propensity for affection and expression with the same gender, but also
forbids
any realization or wholeness through such affection, expression or
relationship. 

     The choice for same-gender oriented persons is not between homosexual
expression of affection and heterosexual expression. It is between homosexual
expression and no satisfying, relational intimacy whatever. The specious
separation of orientation and behavior has only added to the emotional
dysfunctionality of dedicated Christian homosexuals, taught they cannot
please
God and live out the affectional component of their lives as others do. 

     The change of orientation is not a gift given to most homosexuals, nor
in most cases a therapeutic option. The claims of certain ministries that
they
can create "ex-homosexuals" have been widely shown to be spurious,(8) and
have
caused unspeakable harm to persons who have already suffered enormously.
Furthermore, such claims and hopes distract the church, if it is serious
about
ministry to and with homosexual persons, from meaningful dialog with informed
and experienced professionals and counselors. 

     Celibacy is a gift given by the Spirit only to a few. It is not a
commandment of God, nor can it be assigned by the church to those who do not
have it, as Luther and the Confessions make clear.(9) Any expectation of the
church regarding celibacy must account for the relational/affectional needs
of
every person, not simply the suppression of genital gratification. 

     We affirm the right of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, to
live a life of wholeness and intimacy, the enjoyment of relationships of love
and companionship, and the sexual expression of their personhood. It is
illegitimate to attempt to sever sexual orientation from sexual behavior. To
do so is to sever the person. 




     PART THREE
     Biblical Issues

     In examining gay and lesbian sexuality in the light of biblical
theology, the church has most often confined its study to six texts
traditionally accepted as disapprobations of homosexuality (Genesis 19:1-13;
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy
1:8-11).(10) However, in recent years, a number of scholars have given fresh
attention to these texts and added substantially to the literature available
about them. We summarize here their specific insights which identify major
issues for our dialog with the church--issues of translation, exegetical and
contextual interpretation, and the silences of the Bible. 

     Ambiguities and translations. Scholars have shown us that the
ambiguities in certain biblical texts render most prevailing translations
questionable. It is uncertain what is meant, for example, at 1 Corinthians
6:9
by malakoi and, also at 1 Timothy 1:10, by arsenokoitai. Walter Wink(11)
underscores that "it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or
promiscuity and  sex for hire'." The RSV rendering of these two terms as the
single word "homosexual" has appropriately been criticized as an unwarranted
conflation of the two ambiguous Greek words. 

     John Boswell has cited evidence that malakoi was for many years thought
to refer to masturbation, but to Paul it may have referred to the morally
loose in a general sense.(12) Arsenokoitai, in the Pauline literature, may
mean "male prostitutes," but Robin Scroggs' exhaustive examination of the
texts and of sexual practices contemporaneous with the apostle demonstrates
that Paul may be proscribing pedophilia and prostitution.(13) Scroggs has
noted that the term "has no recoverable history prior to Paul's use of it,"
and that it "does not appear after 1 Corinthians with any frequency." He
argues from research sources that arsenokoitai is rooted in the rabbinic term
mishav zakur. "A very specific dimension of pederasty is being denounced
here," he concludes, the passive role of the "effeminate call boy" and the
active role of his adult suitor or "customer."(14) 

     Textual misappropriation. Some texts have been misappropriated beyond
what honest contextual interpretation will bear. While in recent centuries
the
story of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 has been used to condemn homosexuality,
there is nothing in the scriptures to support this. In all other biblical
texts, the sin of the people of Sodom is general wickedness, selfishness and
pride, xenophobia and inhospitality. Nothing in the biblical utilization of
the Sodom story indicates that the sin is homosexual love, promiscuity or
even
lust.(15) 

     Contemporary readers cannot help but view the incident as an attempted
gang rape directed against male strangers, a phenomenon not unknown in the
brutality of ancient tribal or national conflicts. The incident's literary
relationship with Judges 19:15-20:6 is unmistakable. The intent of violent
humiliation and murder, the suppression of the foreigner, and the attitude of
xenophobia are quite transparent in these passages, qualifying them as
pertinent to the contemporary discussion of rape, sexual violence, and male
aggression and the objectification and depersonalization of women (Genesis
19:7-8); but they are not pertinent to the discussion of appropriate
expressions of sexuality and love. The condemnation of the male townsmen,
Genesis 19:6, is no more helpful in the discussion of same-gender love and
sexuality than is the immediately following verse in understanding
appropriate
heterosexual relationships. Thus, we concur with scholars who would put
Genesis 19 to rest as a text applicable to the discussion. 

     The ancient social and cultural context. Crucial to the proper use of a
biblical text is its original social context. We caution against utilizing
isolated biblical pericopes in an attempt to construct a generalized biblical
sexual ethic. For example, the same two texts which narrate the evil of
sexual
violence directed against males--homicidal gang rape--condone the
recreational
sexual use of women (Genesis 19:8 and Judges 19:23-25), as an appeasement for
male hostility. 

     If Scroggs is correct in his analysis of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy
1:10, then Paul offers no generalized condemnation of homosexual love or
behavior, but of "a very specific dimension of pederasty." The same
disapproval of this form of pederasty, he indicates, is found throughout "the
entire literature of the Greco-Roman world."(16) Because it is a very
specific
condemnation, we believe the conventional generalized application of these
texts to other expressions of gay and lesbian sexuality is unsupportable. 

     Thus the major issue not to be overlooked is the enormous cultural and
sociological gulf between Christians in the contemporary world and ancient
societies, especially the Old Testament Hebrew community. The sexual values
of
the Old Testament presuppose and accept a misogyny and patriarchalism
virtually unthinkable today. Wink has noted that "social regulations
regarding
adultery, incest, rape, and prostitution are, in the Old Testament,
determined
largely by consideration of the males' property rights over women."(17) 

     Polygamy is the model for sexuality and marriage in the Old Testament.
Procreation and the growth and strength of the tribe, not relationship and
love, are given the highest concern in matters of sexual behavior. Cultic, or
ritual, idolatrous sexual practices are an ancient concern which has little
relevance to the discussion of relational and loving sexual ethics today. 

     It is likewise evident that the condemnation of two men lying together,
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, is inextricably linked with cultural norms that
promulgated and protected the superiority and privilege of males as a class,
thought to be compromised by same-gender acts. As part of the Holiness Code,
Wink underscores, the two Levitical passages reject male homosexual activity
as an abomination, toevah, a rejection which was cultic, not moral. Biblical
literature is also dependent upon the "Hebrew pre-scientific understanding
...
that male semen contained the whole of nascent life."(18) 

     Taken as a whole, the sexual material in the Bible is disappointingly
ambiguous. It is an illegitimate use of scripture to selectively apply Old
Testament mandates directly to Christians today. It is questionable to
appropriate one or two pieces of an ancient cultic tradition which, as
Boswell
reminds us, also provides the death penalty for "incest, bestiality,
blasphemy, soothsaying, violation of the Sabbath laws, intercourse with a
betrothed virgin, cursing one's parents, sorcery, and filial
disobedience."(19) 

     The context of the Gospel. Countless texts in Romans, Galatians and
elsewhere demonstrate that the embrace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ requires
the relinquishment of the Old Covenant for life and salvation. While the Law
permanently stands, its place in the lives of Christians is no longer that of
moral guardian (Luke 16:16; Romans 3:21-23; Galatians 3:21-28; Hebrews
7:18-19). It is theologically dishonest to superimpose inconsistently the Law
as a moral code over a theology of justification and Christian freedom. We
repudiate such selective fundamentalism and the abandonment of the Gospel
itself to such manipulation. 

     The silences of the Bible. Perhaps the most perplexing of the biblical
issues are the silences about many of our contemporary concerns regarding
sexuality. The Gospels are utterly silent about homosexuality. No concise and
unequivocal texts are available which speak, for example, to abortion; birth
control; loving relationships between gays, lesbians, or unmarried
heterosexuals; or sexual violence within marriage. 

     Furthermore, the Bible is silent about sexual or gender orientation and
its causation. As we have noted, biblical literature appears to presuppose
that homosexual behavior is willfully chosen by heterosexually-oriented
persons. 

     In Romans 1:26-27, considered to be the major New Testament text on
homosexuality, scholars readily agree that Paul did not understand any
distinction between "orientation" and "behavior."(20) If he thought that
virtually all human beings are naturally heterosexual, then his denunciation
of same-gender sexual expression as a willful, unnatural disobedience and
departure from heterosexual human nature would have a logical consistency. If
such is the case, however, as Scroggs, Boswell, Edwards, Wink and others have
noted, Paul's ignorance of gender orientations is at least equal to the
Bible's pre-scientific ignorance of ovulation and menstruation, which renders
his reasoning quite precarious in establishing clear answers to other
contemporary questions.(21) 

     Boswell has also shown that the church's development in later centuries
of concepts of "natural law" cannot legitimately be read back into Pauline
texts.(22) "For Paul, `nature' was not a question of universal law or truth,
but rather a matter of the character of some person or groups of persons, a
character which was largely ethnic and entirely human.... `Nature' is not a
moral force for Paul." 

     A convincing interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is made more difficult by
Paul's silence about faith and matters of ethical behavior of believing,
baptized homosexual persons--who are not idolatrous pagan unbelievers. Paul
writes about same-gender behavior only in the third person as people entirely
outside of the Christian community. George Edwards, in elucidating the
dependence of Romans 1 upon Wisdom 13-15, cogently argues that Paul presents
"not thoughts that proceed from his own understanding of divine justice but
those of Jewish tradition looking out in a customary way on gentile
depravity."(23) 

     With the support of other exegetes, Edwards demonstrates that Paul
includes attacks upon gentile (non-believer) sinners, and upon unnatural
homosexual sins in particular, "in a rhetorical context . . . in order to
turn
the accusation against the accuser" in Romans 2.(24) It is clear that the
particular reference to unnatural homosexual lust--as distinct from
same-gender love--is not singled out for moral reprehension as the most
odious
depravity, but is used precisely for the opposite effect: to engage, "to set
up (for indictment) the chauvinistic reader" explicitly addressed, in the
second person, in Romans 2. Thus Paul demonstrates the universally flawed
nature of all human behavior (1:18, 3:23) condemned before the wrath of God
and in need of divine grace. 

     A careful examination of the specifics of Pauline disapprobation must
include a clear understanding of idolatry, which the apostle uses, Romans
1:18-32, in a most general judgment of gentile depravity. The word for idol,
eidolon, has its roots in the concept of "shadow"; an idol or false god,
Wisdom 13-14, is spurious, an imitation, not genuine.(25) Paul's theological
persuasion may be understood that lust (whether heterosexual or homosexual)
is
a "shadow" of love, and that lustful behavior is not an authentic expression
of genuine love. 

     As we have said, love is the only appropriate norm by which all
sexuality may be judged. But again, in this passage, Paul is silent about the
genuine love that is expressed between people who are of the same gender. 




     PART FOUR
     The Ministry of Reconciliation

     Far more important for the Christian community than the critical
examination of the foregoing six texts is the reconsideration of the Bible as
a whole in order to formulate--with the broadest possible understanding of
gay
and lesbian people--a theology that provides genuine counsel and concern. The
best of the evangelical tradition should be brought to the discussion: our
understanding of faith and grace, the centrality of incarnational love in
Jesus Christ, the place of the conscience in spiritual formation, and the
role
of Christian freedom. 

     Too often the Bible--especially these six passages--has been used by
many in the church as an instrument which opens a gulf of estrangement
between
heterosexual and homosexual people. In the traditional application of the
law--in unexamined condemnation of gays and lesbians--we do not suggest that
the church intentionally has misused the Bible or misunderstood the heart of
the message. But the Bible is indeed misused if the church fails to
understand
the heart of the homosexual person. 

     The church bears a profound responsibility to use scripture and theology
as the bridge to overcome the apparent distances which separate homosexual
and
heterosexual people--especially within the household of faith. Alienation
will
end, controversy and division will cease, only in a true ministry of
reconciliation, which is the heart of the Gospel (Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians
5:18-19). It is only in Christ that we have a perfect model for this
reconciliation: 

          For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down
the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new person
in
place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one
body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end ... for
through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. (Ephesians
2:13-18) 

     The scripture provides the Christian community with evidence that
reconciliation is both possible and imperative, as it ministers in the midst
of divisive issues and disputes. Joseph Weber makes clear that Paul faced
disputes and tensions over fundamental theological issues in the church at
Rome, but in Christ, "no one should despise a brother or sister because of
these differences of opinion."(26) Reconciliation takes precedence over
disputes (Romans 14:1-10). 

     How this reconciliation is effected pastorally has very much to do with
dealing with moral issues from a biblical perspective. The law which accuses
speaks to all--to heterosexual and homosexual alike (Romans 3:20). But Christ
is the end of the law (Galatians 5:4-6); Acts 13:39; Ephesians 2:15). His
grace is offered without distinction (Acts 15:8-9; Romans 10:12). Most
importantly, the law is best summarized in love; love is the fulfilling of
the
law (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14). 

     Reconciliation summons the Christian community to address the common
issues of humanity, especially in order that it grow in love and that the
model of love is applied to all human relationships. If in love the whole
community responds to the call for dialog, then we will approach one another
without distrust, cynicism or fear; we will support one another in building
relationships of hopefulness, nurture and integrity--authentic expressions of
love rooted in the love of Christ for all. 

     However, a theological impasse is reached in the ministry of the church
because of an inability or unwillingness to recognize the reality of love and
affection between persons of the same gender. The love of the heart which
they
express ought never to be equated arbitrarily with sexual lust, and thus
discounted or disbelieved. The Christian community must reckon with the
validity of such love, even within the biblical literature. The vivid and
endearing stories of the depth of commitment and love of Ruth for Naomi (Ruth
1:6-18) and of Jonathan and David for one another (1 Samuel 20:35-42; 2
Samuel
1:24-26) cannot be overlooked or undervalued. These texts, of course, will
bear no speculation that either of these famous relationships found genital
sexual expression (wholly beside the point), but they must be seen as
important examples of genuine love and lifelong commitment between two women
and between two men--relationships which the Bible neither disapproves nor
attempts to conceal. 

     As always, in the ministry of reconciliation, people of faith will give
primacy to the Gospel in dealing with one another. We are justified by grace
through faith, which places all believers on an equal footing before God
(Acts
15:8-11; Romans 3:23-24). Each must work out one's own salvation (Philippians
2:12-13). For lesbians and gays, the Gospel speaks persuasively because in it
is found the end of terror and fear (John 14:1-3; 1 John 3:19-24). Love, not
fear, defines our relationship with God and thus with one another (1 John
4:16-19). Conscience is a reassurance of faith and love, and those who are
uncertain need only to look deeply inward to see if they have motives of
love. 

     The community of faith will give cognizance to the emerging spiritual
insight of these sisters and brothers who have made a troubling but profound
inward journey: discovering their true and natural sexuality; then wrestling
with, praying about, studying and keeping faith with the word of God as it
speaks to their lives. Their spiritual pilgrimages are not myths of
self-justification but the true witness of people lifted from self-despair by
the recognition of Christ's overwhelming love for them. Like many others who
had not previously heard the Gospel, gay and lesbian Christians share a clear
"conversion experience" in understanding the grace of God which overpowers
the
human predicament (Acts 13:38-43; Romans 11:32-33), welcomes all into a new
covenant (2 Corinthians 3:4-6), and grants new status and new life (2
Corinthians 5:16-19). 

     Indeed, gay and lesbian Christians, like any other Christians who have
had deep encounters with the word of the Gospel, are able to see the word
speaking directly and profoundly to their own experience. Lesbians and gay
men
will be bold enough to offer new insight into the Gospel to the whole
community of Christ. They will claim the biblical word for themselves, in the
experience of hoping and believing the Gospel, of trusting in one's own
conscience, even in the face of opposition: 

          Though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated ... as
you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in
the
face of great opposition. For our appeal does not spring from error or
uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; but just as we have been approved by
God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please people, but
to
please God who tests our hearts. For we never used either words of flattery,
as you know, or a cloak for greed, as God is witness. . . . But we were
gentle
among you, like a nurse taking care of her children. So, being affectionately
desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God
but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. (1
Thessalonians 2:2-8) 

     The ministry of the church, then, which is most evangelical and most
biblical will not be judgmental (Matthew 7:1; Romans 14:4, 10-14), but will
stand with the gay and lesbian believer as brother and sister. 

     Such counsel will understand that, as with all other Christians, lesbian
and gay persons themselves are capable of and entitled to personal moral
discernment (Luke 12:57; Romans 2:14-16; 1 Corinthians 6:3) and to their
faithful understanding of the scriptures (John 5:39-40; Romans 15:4), to
assurance in faith (Hebrews 10:22), to self-acceptance, integrity and dignity
(1 Corinthians 15:10; 1 Timothy 4:4; Romans 14:14). 

     Ultimately, lesbian and gay people within the church will make a great
contribution to the construction of relational ethics and to evangelical
outreach, which we pray will draw many others who are estranged, alienated or
unloved, to Jesus Christ, to the household of faith, and into the
reconciliation which has begun. 

     To these ends, then, we call the church to dialog.

     Lutherans Concerned, in its ministry to individuals, pastors and
congregations, offers its fullest resources for pastoral care and counsel,
study and theological discussion. 

     But we also challenge the synods and districts, church body commissions,
offices and agencies, seminaries, colleges and institutions, and all
congregations, to enter fully and honestly into dialog at every possible
level, with the highest pastoral and evangelical concern, and with all
possible urgency. 

     TASK FORCE ON THEOLOGY
     LUTHERANS CONCERNED/NORTH AMERICA
     October 1985


Endnotes

     1. One statistical measure is found in Merton P. Strommen, et al., A
Study of Generations (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), p. 372. Five thousand
Lutherans ages 15 to 65 were asked if they had "had homosexual intercourse"
within the past year. One percent said "frequently," three percent said
"occasionally," and seven persent gave no response.

     2. See the Report to the 1984 Church Conventions (March 1984), p. 7.

     3. The words "homosexual" and "homosexuality," when coined a century
ago, were used to describe what was then considered a pathology. For this
reason they are unsuitable for the contemporary discussion, except that there
are no better terms where the literary usage requires speaking about both
lesbians and gay men together. We thus acquiesce, with some reservation, to
the continued use of these pejorative terms for the sake of common
recognition
and convenience.

     4. Alfred C. Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1948); and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1953).

     5. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay
People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the
Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). The brief
conclusion, pp. 333f., is helpful, but cannot begin to capture the careful
scholarship of the whole work documenting the substantial acceptance of gay
men and lesbians for more than a millennium of Christian history.

     6. In 1974 and 1975 respectively. See Toby Morotta, The Politics of
Homosexuality (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981), p. 324; and Alan P. Bell and
Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), pp. 195-198.

     7. See Bell and Weinberg, op. cit., pp. 13-14, 49-54.

     8. One succinct review of the so-called "ex-gay" ministries and
literature is Ralph Blair, Ex-Gay (New York: HCCC Inc., 1982).

     9. Especially see Article XXIII of the Augsburg Confession and Apology
of the Augsburg Confession, The Book of Concord (Tappert Edition), pp. 51-56,
239-242).

     10. We do not review here the various passages which discuss the
kadeshim, or fertility cult prostitutes, who served in pagan temples. Though
certainly condemned in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24,
15:12, 22:46), they have no bearing on the present issues. The King James
Version's mistranslation of kadeshim as "sodomites" notwithstanding, John
Boswell has made clear (op. cit., pp. 98-99) that "there is no reason to
assume such prostitutes serviced persons of their own sex." Victor Gold in
Now
the Silence Breaks, pp. 14-15, clarifies that since female prostitutes were
condemned as well as male prostitutes, "the issue was not homosexuality or
heterosexuality but sacred prostitution."

     11. Walter Wink, "Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality," Christian
Century (November 7, 1979), p. 1082.

     12. Boswell, op. cit., p. 107.

     13. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983), p. 107.

     14. Ibid., p. 108.

     15. Genesis 13:13, 18:20; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Wisdom
10:7-8, 19:13-14; Ecclesiasticus 16:8; Matthew 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12; 2
Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 1-7. Only these last two indicate anything sexual in the
sin of the Sodomites, and only in the most general terms with no reference to
homosexuality. See also Boswell, pp. 94-95, and George Edwards, Gay/Lesbian
Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984), pp.
48-51.

     16. Scroggs, p. 108.

     17. Wink, p. 1083.

     18. Wink, p. 1082.

     19. Boswell, p. 101, n. 32.

     20. Cf. Wink, p. 1083; Boswell, p. 109; Edwards, p. 88.

     21. See the discussion in Scroggs, pp. 116-117, 123-125.

     22. Boswell, pp. 110-111.

     23. Edwards, p. 86; see also pp. 72-23, 91-93.

     24. Edwards, p. 93. His important demonstration of this rhetorical
device in Romans 1-2 follows, pp. 93-98.

     25. Cf. Earl F. Palmer, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (New York: Harper & Row,
1983), p. 9.

     26. Joseph C. Weber, "Reconciliation Rediscovered," Manna for the
Journey (1:1, 1985), pp. 8-10.


A Selected Bibliography

A Study of Issues Concerning Homosexuality: Report of the Advisory Committee.
New York: Lutheran Church in America Division for Mission in North America,
1986.

Babuscio, John. We Speak for Ourselves. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Batchelor, Edward, Jr., ed. Homosexuality and Ethics. New York: Pilgrim
Press,
1977.

Bell, Alan P. and Martin S. Weinberg. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity
Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People
in
Western Europe From the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth
Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

________. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books, 1994.

Breaking the Silence, Overcoming the Fear: Homophobia Education. New York:
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Program Agency, 1985.

Edwards, George R. Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective. New York:
Pilgrim Press, 1984.

Fairchild, Betty and Nancy Hayward. Now That You Know: What Every Parent
Should Know About Homosexuality. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979. 

Fortunato, John E. Embracing the Exile. New York: Seabury Press, 1982.     

Griffin, Carolyn W., et al. Beyond Acceptance: Parents of Lesbians and Gays
Talk About Their Experiences. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986. 

Harrison, Beverly Wildung. "Misogyny and Homophobia: The Unexplored
Connection," in Making the Connections. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.   

Heywood, Carter. Our Passion for Justice. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984. 

Jung, Patricia Beattie, and Ralph F. Smith. Heterosexism: An Ethical
Challenge. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1993.

Katz, Jonathan. Gay American History. New York: Crowell, 1976.

Moses, A. Elfin, and Robert O. Hawkins, Jr. Counseling Lesbian Women and Gay
Men. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1982.

Nelson, James B. Embodiment. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1978. 

Nelson, Randolph A. "Homosexuality and Social Ethics," Word & World, Vol. 5,
No. 4, Fall 1985, pp. 380-394. St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological
Seminary.

Now the Silence Breaks. National Lutheran Campus Ministry. Six-part guide for
study groups. Chicago: Campus Ministry Communications, 1980.

Nugent, Robert, ed. A Challenge to Love. New York: Crossroad, 1984.   

Scanzoni, Letha and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?
San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.

Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983.

Silverstein, Charles. A Family Matter: A Parents' Guide to Homosexuality. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.

Six Studies on Homosexuality. Winnipeg: Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Division of Social Service, 1985.

Skillrud, Harold C., and Richard L. Schaper. A Guide for Pastoral Care in
Matters Concerning Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Lutheran Church in America
Division for Parish Services and Division for Professional Leadership, 1987. 

Thielicke, Helmut. The Ethics of Sex (trans. John W. Doberstein).
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.

Weinberg, George. Society and the Healthy Homosexual. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1972.

Whitehead, James D. and Evelyn Eaton. "The Shape of Compassion: Reflections
on
Catholics and Homosexuality," in Spirituality Today, Vol. 39, No. 2, Summer
1987, pp. 127-136.