High view of the Bible, another thought

Another thing occurs to me.

I have heard many people who have a low view of the Bible say, "That's a prescientific understanding" or "today we know more about that" or "They just didn't understand that in the ancient world but today we know better." The implication is that today with our scientific minds we are smarter, better informed, and wiser than the people in biblical times.

I don't believe that. Certainly we know some scientific things that people in ancient Israel didn't know, but in just about every important area I think they were at least as wise as we are. Probably wiser since they didn't have cable TV, cars, ipods, or fast food. They spent a lot of time talking and listening and thinking and living. We spend a lot of time watching other people live. Think about it. So when the writers in the Bible say something about life, or tell a story that gets at some facet of the meaning of it all, I pay attention. Maybe it's quaint and prescientific, but guess what -- when I'm wondering about what time it's legal for me to be hunting tomorrow morning I don't ask, "What time will the earth rotate to the degree that enough of my location will be exposed to the rays of the sun so that it's light enough for me to hunt?" I ask, "When is sunrise tomorrow?" In many ways, those poor benighted people in ancient times were much more in touch with the world around them than we are today. For example, can you tell me without looking it up whether the moon is waxing or waning right now? Nobody in ancient times would have been unaware of that cycle.

So I don't feel so bad when the Bible describes things from the point of view of someone who didn't understand the complexities of elliptical orbits or the periodic table. Truth is, most of us today don't understand that so well either, and even if we do we don't live there much.

I value science and scientific knowledge. But I don't want to put my scientific knowledge -- such as it is -- above the Bible's ability to tell me about my life.

What do we assume about the Bible?

The last thing I want to do is shake my finger at someone else and say, "Your conduct is sinful." I certainly have enough sins in my own life to keep me occupied. So unlike some of the people in this very large argument the ELCA is having, I don't get into detailed arguments about the difficulties homosexual people face -- either persecution or increased risk of STD's and shorter lifespan, etc. I also don't get much into the nature / nurture thing because I don't think that settles anything. I didn't choose to be diabetic but here I am, and I have to deal with it. It's more complicated than just nature / nurture, and I know some people argue as though "it's really a choice" or "they're born this way" would settle the whole matter. We all choose to some extent how we act on our sexual urges and needs, but I don't know of anyone who set out to choose a certain set of urges. In the end I don't think that takes us anywhere helpful.

For me the discussion is how we read the Bible. Here's what I assume when I read the Bible: I assume that the Bible was written by human authors who were fallible like you and me; that their cultural context and the struggles in which they were living determined a lot of what they wrote; that they translated from one language to another, sometimes with less concern about faithfulness to the original language and more about making a point to the audience that would receive their translation; that some of what made its way into the Bible is mythological and some is maybe even plain fiction; AND I believe that the whole process was carefully overseen by the Holy Spirit, shaping and forming a book such that every word is expressly intended by God to be there, to be useful, to be in the deepest sense of the word true. I believe all of it is there because God wanted it there, and not just for someone back in 955 bc. Do I believe it's wrong to eat shellfish? No, we just went to Red Lobster -- Julie had shrimp and I was snitching off her plate. But the New Testament clearly redirects those dietary laws. Is it important for us to know about those? Yes, I think the principles involved provide a powerful way for us to understand some of our own cultural laws and how they may or may not reflect God's desire for us. When what I want is contrary to the Bible, I admit sometimes I close my eyes and do what I want -- but so often I have done what seems right to me and later reaped the negative consequences, that these days I'm more inclined to believe God when he says, "Don't do that" even if I don't understand why.

So the principle for me becomes this: Whatever I'm going to do, either in my personal life as a believer or in my role as a church leader, I expect myself to be able to make a clear argument from the Bible for my actions. When other people try to change my policies or my practices, I expect the same thing of them. So when the ELCA went to change policies, I expect a decisive biblical argument in favor of those changes. So far I have read lots of attempts but none that seems to provide the needed leverage to require change. This is precisely why I think this is different than the arguments in the 60's for the ordination of women -- there were clear biblical arguments in favor of that move. I don't find the same thing with regard to homosexuality. The more I study the cultures of the time, the more I see that homosexuality was NOT always condemned in the biblical world -- many of the cultures around Israel were very enthusiastic about certain practices of homosexuality, whether the Canaanite temples or the Greek poets or the Roman senate. Much of what was present in those cultures was adopted wholesale into Israelite, Jewish, or Christian thought and practice, but somehow homosexual practice was never accepted as something good, and the Bible lays out clear proscriptions against that conduct. So whether I understand just why or not, I believe that God warns against these behaviors for a reason.

I have absolutely no desire to preach on this or even to think about who may or may not be gay. With some it's pretty obvious, with others it's quite hidden. I don't care. They're people who I am called to love, and I don't judge or avoid someone because of what might be true about their sexuality any more than I avoid someone because they smoke, drop a few nickels at the casino, overeat, or spend money foolishly. If God wants to take them to task for those behaviors he'll do that. If they ask my opinion or what the Bible says about those things, I can try to point them that direction. But I don't spend my time sorting people out into "sinner" and "saint" categories -- I know that each one who knows Jesus belongs in both.

Questions?

NOTE: The entry below does NOT mean that I simply accept what the Bible says without thinking, asking hard questions, etc. It means simply that my assumptions change. Instead of assuming if something doesn't make sense that it must just be something that applies only to the ancient world, or assuming that Paul, Isaiah, David, or whoever didn't know enough to address the issue, my assumption becomes that this is God's word and I need to keep digging to learn to understand and apply it. Part of that digging is asking hard questions, having the hard wrestling matches with God. But I don't stand over the Bible to judge which parts of it are valid and which are not.

I was in a class in seminary where one of those questions came up. We were dealing with an unpleasant text in Genesis, studying under a professor who was well known as one who subscribed to what is known as "source criticism" -- that is, you try to figure out who wrote something, where it came from, how it was edited or changed in the process, etc., and then you can critique how it may or may not apply today. In effect what happens is often that source criticism dismisses a lot of texts because they've been changed, edited, etc. (Or at least that is the source critic's assumption.) A student in this class put forth a theory about the text, stating how it had probably been edited and borrowed from another, older text and how the unpleasant details had probably been added in for a particular agenda of the editor's. The effect of the student's argument was that this text should not be read in all its unpleasantness.

The professor surprised us all by answering, "That might be, but it's still in the book. It's in the Bible, wherever it came from, and you have to deal with it." I gained a lot of respect for that professor that day.

Highs and lows

We had a pastoral forum at Central last night to talk through some of these issues. We have a congregational vote scheduled for November 8th re. terminating our relationship with the ELCA, so it's important for people to have some way to discuss things and hear some of the reasoning behind this decision.

As I listened to a couple hours of opinions, debate, lament, and questions last night one thing more than any other became clear (not for the first time) to me.

This issue is, as I have said before, NOT about discrimination. It is about whether one takes a low or high view of the Bible.

Simply put, a low view of the Bible means that I see it as a tool I use, a document I can judge and evaluate. If something strikes me wrong I look hard at it and figure out why it doesn't apply, why it is limited by the ancient world's ignorance or the prejudices of the particular author who wrote it. I study how it was all put together to better understand some of the odd sayings and wonder how they got included. Paul's comments about women, for example, are the product of his misogyny. Laws against various sexual practices are the quaint social rules of a primitive people. Somewhere in the book there may be hidden an authentic message from God, but you have to hunt for it among all the clutter from the ancient world and the various human authors.

A high view of the Bible, on the other hand, means that the book reads me. The Bible is not a tool I use, it is the standard by which I judge my conduct. It is the book that reveals to me who God is, who I am, what my condition is. When I go to read it I don't have to hunt for God's hidden message, but rather the Spirit of God who inspired it in the first place is right there speaking through the written word. Every word in it is precious. Certainly I understand that there is context -- the laws against eating pork, for example, are maybe something peculiar to that time or that part of the world. But when I run up against something I don't understand I cannot dismiss it or say that it doesn't apply. Instead, I look to see if that rule or that principle or that concept has been dealt with elsewhere in the Bible, and I let the Bible interpret itself.

It's not that complicated

I've been thinking this morning that maybe I'm giving the wrong impression here. It is not that difficult to have a biblical view and practice on these issues.

I want you to understand that there ARE careful, sophisticated arguments both from scripture and from the Lutheran tradition for a clear, biblical, loving stance on these matters. But not everyone needs to know about the left hand work of God, the third use of the law or the interactions between Luther and Karlstadt. So what does it come down to?

Simply put, let Jesus (as he is in Scripture, not in your imagination) be all in all.

And following his footsteps, do these things:

• Love your neighbor in the same ways Jesus loved, no matter who or what they are.
• Never mix love of the sinner with affirmation of the sin, for yourself or for others. Keep both elements in tension.
• Do not set aside the scriptures for anything. Jesus didn't.
• Act with humility and patience, knowing that God is working both in you and in the world around you.
• If you have to make a choice between following Jesus and pleasing people, follow Jesus. Every time.

Dr. Timothy Wengert and a biblical argument for the ELCA

Dr. Timothy Wengert of Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia has made a valiant effort at a biblical argument in favor of the ELCA's action. You can read his reflections here.

At first glance, Dr. Wengert has a powerful argument. He deals with the relevant texts, in a fashion, and he consistently focuses on the heart of Jesus' message, namely the commands to love God and love neighbor. He asserts time and again that the decision of the ELCA Assembly is in fact a decision rooted in Scripture. I encourage you to carefully read his reflections (they are long but very readable) before going on as I want to take a detailed look at his arguments.

Okay, you're back? Good.

First, let's look at what Dr. Wengert gets right. He says -- and he is absolutely correct -- that "the calls for justice toward gays and lesbians in committed relationships and the recitation of examples of healthy same-gender relations, as important as these are to some folk, finally do not in themselves constitute a complete standard for changing church policy, since even calls for justice must for Christians be grounded in and normed by sound interpretations of Scripture as God’s Word for us." This is true. Our desire for justice must be rooted in scripture. Our norms about what conduct is and is not acceptable in the body of Christ must be rooted in scripture. Now we have to ask the question, does he make a convincing scriptural case for this change in policy?

Dr. Wengert acknowledges that his scriptural argument is "an argument from the law." But he argues in a particular fashion. Lutherans have long had specific ways of dealing with the law. How does Dr. Wengert use the law?

The second thing Dr. Wengert gets correct is that "Christians are free by faith to serve the neighbor." Because we are justified by grace alone through faith in Jesus, we are set free to serve others without doing so to try to get right with God. In other words, because God has done everything needful at the cross, we are now truly free to care for the neighbor not out of selfish motives but following the example of Jesus, out of selfless love for the other.

Now Wengert begins a little sleight of hand. He directs us back to Jesus' two great commandments, first to love God and second to love the neighbor. Picking up on Jesus' comment, "On these [two commandments] hang all the law and the prophets," he changes direction. Now comes the crux of Wengert's argument. He says, "The debate over sexuality in the ELCA in some ways “hangs” on these words of Jesus. The ELCA with its decisions at the churchwide assembly is now stating that in this passage Jesus gave us a key to understand the Scriptures, that is, a lens through which we may interpret every other command in Scripture. Every command in Scripture must be focused by this question: “How does following this commandment enhance love for God and neighbor?” By asking this question of every other scriptural command, one remains truly faithful to Scripture."

Notice that Wengert's argument here has two serious problems.

First, he focuses not on the redemptive work of Jesus' death and resurrection. Nor does he focus (as Scripture does) on the person of Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Instead, Wengert chooses these two commands as the critical lens through which we must view all of scripture. No more vicarious atonement (meaning you are saved by Jesus' death on the cross). No more victorious Christ rising from the tomb, setting his followers free from bondage to death and hell. Instead, we have simply a command to love, that helps us interpret every other "have to" command in the Bible. What Wengert has done, in classic Lutheran theology, is move from the first and second uses of the law, to adopt a "third use." We'll come back to this later.

The second problem Wengert has here is just as basic as the first. He assumes that we know what love is apart from the witness of the Bible. If we just love one another, he says, we will know how to follow the commandments. But what is love, apart from Jesus? The Bible defines love this way: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10). Not even the Bible can define love apart from the death and resurrection of Jesus!

What about this "third use" that Wengert adopts? What does that mean? If you've read the previous post on the left and right hand work of God, this will be easier. Luther and those who follow his sense of what the Bible teaches talk about different "uses" of the law. The first use of the law corresponds to what we described earlier as the "left hand" of God. The law, used in this "first" way, helps us to organize an orderly society, provides guidelines for social and civil structures, and provides punishment for those who violate that civil order. Speed limits, court systems, and laws against shoplifting and murder are examples of this first use of the law.

The second use of the law goes along with the "right hand" work of God, the work by which God brings us to faith in Jesus Christ. The law convicts us of our sin, making us see that we fall short of the glory of God, that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. The law kills me in my sinfulness and at the cross of Jesus, God brings me to new life. (See Paul's argument in Romans 7.) This use of the law condemns me, makes me face my own sinfulness and drives me to the cross for forgiveness.

What about the third use of the law?

Lutheran theologians have been debating for almost 500 years whether there really is a "third use." Luther never really settled the debate, but most Lutherans who follow Martin Luther's teachings strictly say that the two uses are enough. It was Luther's close friend Philip Melanchthon who seemed keen on a third use of the law -- that once a person is saved, the law becomes a guide to Christian behavior. (Those who follow Luther but not so much Melanchthon make the claim that even after I am redeemed, my "good works" are either trying to live in good order with others, aka first use, or else they are part of my repentance in response to conviction of sin, aka second use.)

Why is this important in this context? Wengert's whole argument is a "third use" argument. He sees the law not as a "left hand" work of God to build an orderly society, nor as a tool God uses to show me my sin and drive me to the cross of Jesus. Instead Wengert's whole argument hinges on the idea that Christians use the law as a guideline to know how to be good to one another. Wengert cannot talk about the second use of the law because he knows that if he does, he will have to acknowledge that the Bible condemns homosexuality along with every other sin we commit, and his argument in favor of the ELCA's changes would fall apart.

So maybe you've been waiting for that shoe to drop, wondering how Wengert will deal with those texts we've been discussing, the texts that specifically mention homosexuality.

To sum it up, Wengert's argument is, "those texts don't apply." By quoting Martin Luther out of context, from a disagreement with his former colleague Karlstadt, Wengert makes it seem like Luther dismissed certain sins. Without a lengthy history lesson, suffice it to say that Luther did not say anything about certain biblical sins not applying to us anymore. Rather, he said that the structure of Jewish life (the Sabbath requirements, and the complex system of tithes among other things) was not to be applied wholesale to Christians. Note that this argument deals with the Old Testament texts mentioning homosexuality, but does nothing to remove the New Testament proscriptions of homosexual activity.

But Wengert soldiers on, echoing Mel White's arguments that the New Testament texts do not apply to homosexual activity within a committed relationship in our day, but only to certain abusive or idolatrous relationships. His foundation for rejecting Paul's argument in Romans 1 is shaky at best. But if he is simply arguing for a "third use" of the law -- how can we as Christians be good now that we're saved -- perhaps that is all he needs. His words about context and Jesus' two great commandments divert attention from the fact that this is a third use argument. But under the second use of the law, we indeed -- all of us -- stand condemned for our sins, including homosexual activity.

In the end, Wengert's arguments are a vain attempt to make a Lutheran biblical argument for declaring homosexual activity within a committed relationship as a non-sin. He ends up making a very impressive argument but at the cost of negating the death and resurrection of Christ, compromising a Lutheran understanding of the law, and leaving us to define love however we think it should best be defined.

The cost of buying his argument is just too high.

Churches, politics, and sex

The longer these debates go on the more I realize that no matter what congregations decide about their affiliation with the ELCA, ministries will be decimated because of this debate. There is no good way to talk about church, politics, and sex when people are so divided. I'm really looking forward to a day (please God let it be soon) that this blog can go back to focusing on what it means to follow Jesus.

At the moment, though, there is a deep debate about what is authoritative in the lives of those who want to follow Jesus. And people are making claims about Jesus that have to be tested -- so how do we test these claims when people have radically different ideas what Jesus stands for? If we cannot seek to know Jesus through the Bible, we have no access to him. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Jesus is present as I am typing and you are reading; I believe his Spirit speaks to our hearts and reveals him to us. But I can't trust the impressions of my heart and you can't trust the words I type unless we have some greater authority that allows us to test the truth. Many people today want to elevate scientific studies or their personal experience to the level of absolute truth. But those things are no more trustworthy than a person's own emotions. Science is too often skewed by our lack of understanding, by agenda-driven studies, or by people selectively reporting what the actual "findings" are. Personal experience is just that, personal, and while it may be compelling, without interpretation that relies on something absolute, experience cannot rise to the level of truth. The Christian church for centuries has driven a stake into the ground of scripture and says, "Here we will stand. This is authoritative. This is trustworthy. This is the word against which we will test our belief and our practice."

So on to the next set of biblical passages and what they mean for the current debate about biblical authority and the ELCA's decisions regarding homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 comes in the middle of Paul's first letter to the Christians in the city of Corinth. These Christians were divided just about every way you can think of, and this letter deals directly with those divisions. Finally in some exasperation Paul, after talking specifically about some of their unsavory behaviors, tells them what they should not be doing -- and then proceeds to instruct them on the Christian life and what it ought to look like. Right in this transition we find two Greek words that have been the source of much argument in the debates about homosexuality. (These words are also used in 1 Timothy 1:10.) The two Greek words are "malakois" and "arsenokoitai". The root word "koi" refers to sexual intercourse -- we get the English word "coitus" from this root. But Paul says that these two behaviors are things that can exclude people from God's kingdom. What do the words mean?

Scholars have gone round and round about exact translations. Mel White claims that the words refer to dirty old men abusing soft young boys; other scholars have more generalized opinions.

What saddens me is that each "scholar" in the debate seems to spin these terms in a direction that will bolster his or her argument, whatever it is. At the baseline, at the very least these terms refer in some sense to the two partners in a male-to-male sexual encounter. These two passages of scripture include both the active and the passive activity of homosexual intercourse as actions that have the potential to keep one out of God's kingdom, according to 1 Corinthians 6.

1 Timothy 1:10 is an intriguing passage for another reason. Many who favor the ELCA's changes have argued that the condemnation of homosexual activity is a purely Old Testament thing. (I'm not sure how they deal with these two New Testament passages, let alone Romans 1!) But Paul in 1 Timothy 1 is not at all willing to set aside the Law. Though he does not seem so concerned about ritual requirements about food or fabrics, this list of activities is serious. He says that these activities (take time to read the whole list) contradict "the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God." In other words, these activities stand over against the gospel itself. The Apostle Paul would totally reject the claim that those who follow Jesus can now reject and ignore the law.

The only way we can get around the law is to claim that some parts of the Bible don't apply in this debate. Nearly all the arguments against the biblical condemnation of homosexual activity rest on this basic idea -- the Bible doesn't apply to this situation. What we need to do is read the Bible carefully and understand what to do with that law. It is not a baseball bat for us to use to condemn each other. It is not something for us to throw away and ignore. We need to dig into the Bible and learn how to deal with this law just as Jesus does -- graciously, mercifully, recognizing that heaven and earth will pass away before the least stroke of the pen in the law begins to fade.

Romans 2

One of the interesting twists in this debate: The number of people in favor of the ELCA's changes who leap quickly to Romans 2, especially the first few verses that speak against judging another since we are all guilty. The implication that they draw out is that since we are sinners and are admonished not to judge, we should disregard Paul's argument and his list of sins in Romans 1.

The trouble with this stance is that it nullifies the good news of Jesus. If we do not recognize our sin, we will not recognize our need for a Savior. So in effect these people who claim to be all about acceptance and good will are instead advocating an "I'm okay -- You're okay" gospel that changes nothing.

A parable:

There was once a man who had been tied up with ropes as a child. He developed a pathological fear of ropes. Later in life the man was at sea and his boat went down. He floundered in the turbulent waters, crying out for help. A nearby boat drew up and threw a rope to the man, but he flailed and screamed in even greater terror. The man who had thrown the rope said, "Grab the rope! Grab the rope!" but the drowning man knocked the rope away time and again.

So it is with those who fear judgment. They may react so negatively to the whole idea of God's word naming sin that they push away the very thing that can save them. Some may say that they are simply trying to protect others from being judged. Would you cut someone else off from the grace of God? Telling a critically ill person that they'll be fine is not love, it is hateful.

God's hands

Okay, this one might get a little difficult. Not because the concept is hard, but because we don't usually think this way. This theology of the right hand / left hand of God is one of Lutheranism's unique contributions to the world. Most churches don't believe this, or at least they don't express it in quite the same way.

What am I talking about? Martin Luther in reading the Bible came to the conclusion that there are two very different ways that God works in the world.

First is God's right hand. God's "right hand" work is to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection for sinners, saving them from separation from God, bringing them into a life-giving relationship with God through Jesus. Proclaiming this good news happens in two components, "law" and "gospel." Law is the proclamation of our sin. This proclamation convicts us, condemns us, sentences us to death. This is not law as a guideline for behavior, like "you have to eat your broccoli before you can have ice cream" or "you must drive no more than 55 mph". No, this is the law that says, "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." When we hear this law we are cut to the heart because we cannot keep it. Then the good news -- that Jesus Christ died for sinners, for those who cannot keep the law. As we hear the word of Jesus' death and resurrection, we can receive the gift of new life. We are transformed, made new, re-created. This is God's "right hand" work, to restore his broken creation to wholeness. So a preacher might be involved in God's right hand work as she preaches a sermon that convicts hearers of sin and extends the promise of the cross to them. Or a policeman might be involved in God's right hand work as he shares his faith over lunch with a coworker. But if the preacher is embroiled in discussion of administrative detail in a committee meeting, or the policeman is writing speeding tickets, they are no longer directly involved in God's right hand work.

So we move on to God's left hand. God's left hand is God's hidden work, his indirect work. This is the work God does to keep basic order in the world, to create safe and stable societies. According to the Bible, God's left hand work provides a context for his right hand work to take place. So what does God's left hand work look like? It is frustrating and difficult at best. God institutes governments that are imperfect, but that function to keep order. So even Adolph Hitler had structures in place that kept basic order, reduced crime, etc. I'm not saying God approved of Hitler, but God uses whatever government is in place to provide basic protection for people. This is the job of civil structures, of God's left hand. So, as C.S. Lewis said, the whole reason for government is so that a man can go down to the pub in the evening and have a game of darts and a pint, or a married couple can sit home in the quiet evening and eat supper together. It is the space and safety for these basic activities of life that tell us if a government is functioning as it properly should.

Now ... hang on ... here's where it gets a little dicey. What about the church? In the church we have an odd mixture of the right hand and the left hand. We have sermons and we have committee meetings. But even that is not quite fine tuned enough. Take a look at the offering during the worship service. On one level, this is obviously "left hand" stuff. The church needs to pay salaries, bills, mortgage, and give something for the good of the world beyond its walls. Left hand, right? But as I sit in the row and the plate comes down, this offering plate speaks a word of death to me. The Spirit uses this yawning, empty plate which demands my generosity to bring my greed to death. And as I surrender my tithe into the plate and pass it to my neighbor, the Spirit moves in my heart to bring new life to me. It is the gospel in action. So the offering is a good example, perhaps, of both left hand and right hand at once.

How does this all apply to the homosexuality debate and the ELCA?

One of our real problems in this is that we have not thought well about the left hand and right hand in relation to our decision making. For example, one of the arguments for changing the ELCA's policies was that we don't want to be discriminating against anyone. I agree, but let's be clear -- discrimination is left-hand talk. There's no such thing as discrimination under the right hand of God because in relation to the good news of Jesus we all deserve death and are saved by his sacrifice as a free gift. Under God's left hand, concerned with keeping order in society, it is entirely appropriate to talk about discrimination. We want an orderly society where all people have basic rights, where all people feel basically safe. Discrimination threatens that good order, so we minimize it or eliminate it if we are able, recognizing that our systems of civil order are imperfect. So under the left hand I may advocate for equal rights for all people regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation. But under the right hand I may recognize that God's word says certain behaviors are sinful, and I may yearn for the sinner (even if -- especially if -- it's me!) to come to the end of themselves and surrender to Jesus at the cross.

So it is possible to push for same-sex partner life insurance benefits AND to maintain that biblically speaking, homosexuality is sin.

Confused yet?

Let's make it worse. For some individuals -- theoretically speaking here -- a Lutheran might even be in favor of their state passing a law allowing same-sex civil unions in order to encourage good order -- long-term stable relationships -- in society, but at the same time that person may reject the idea of blessing those same-sex unions in the church because this says in effect, "God approves of what you're doing." A person can be in favor of good order on the left hand and also take a hard line on what constitutes sin, biblically speaking, on the right hand. In fact, this is a strong Lutheran position!

Of course, Lutherans (along with other Christians) are going to disagree about the best ways to achieve good order. There's nothing new about that. There are purely civil reasons for rejecting same-sex unions in society. But if we begin to say, "We are all saved by God's grace, so we should accept all behaviors as legitimate" -- that is sloppy thinking that confuses the left hand and the right hand of God's work. This kind of sloppy thinking is everywhere in today's debate. Another example is, "I've got a friend who is gay and he's such a nice guy, we should definitely let him be a pastor." This also confuses the left and right hands of God. We've taken a person who contributes to good order -- a nice guy -- and we have used that left hand criteria as a reason to ordain him to proclaim repentance and forgiveness in Christ without considering what the Bible has to say about the issues of repentance and forgiveness in the life of the proclaimer.

Take this one step further. Some people in this debate have said that it is unfair for preachers to be held to a higher standard -- that since we are all saved by God's grace anyway, preachers shouldn't be held more accountable. But the preacher's most critical function is to publicly enter into the right hand work of God -- the proclamation of the cross. It is absolutely critical that the preacher knows his or her own sin, has been convicted and has come to a place of repentance and forgiveness, so that they can authentically proclaim what it is to surrender to Jesus. When we lower or eliminate the standards for preachers, we water down the proclamation of the gospel. If we soften the law, the gospel gets weak. This is not in any way saying that the preacher must be perfect -- exactly the opposite! But the preacher MUST recognize their own sin and repent before God in order to proclaim the good news of Jesus.

Romans 1

We'll start with the big one -- the text that nearly everyone agrees is the hardest one to get past in discussions on the issue of homosexuality. I'm afraid this gets a little long, but it's a tough passage on a tough issue. We may have to come back to it because I don't think we'll cover everything that needs to be said. In days to come I'll deal with the other passages in the Bible that address homosexuality in some way.

To review the text, click here -- Romans 1:18-32.

I'm relying on two main sources to look at the different claims about this Bible passage. On the side that's arguing for the ELCA's decision in August, I'm tapping into Mel White's document, What the Bible Says -- and Doesn't Say -- about Homosexuality. I found this on the Soulforce website many years ago. Mel digs into the main texts in the Bible that mention homosexuality and gives a detailed interpretation of why each one does not apply to the current debate. To his credit, in his own words Mel wants to "take the Bible seriously." He is seminary educated and has studied the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. On the side that argues against the ELCA's August vote, I'm leaning on Robert Gagnon who teaches at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and has written extensively about the Bible and issues of homosexuality. Gagnon has lots of articles on his website as well, but I'm using his book The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

As you read these arguments, I ask that you think carefully about them. Don't give in to sloppy thinking where your assumptions predetermine your outcome. The different sides in this debate come with very different assumptions about the Bible and the authority and validity it has. Mel White begins reviewing the biblical passages on homosexuality with this statement: "I'm certain that you don't agree with the Bible on a lot of its teaching about sex. And you shouldn't ... Often, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient commands no longer apply to our modern times." Robert Gagnon comes with a very different set of assumptions. "First, there is clear, strong, and credible evidence that the Bible unequivocally defines same-sex intercourse as sin. Second, there exist no valid hermeneutical arguments, derived from either general principles of biblical interpretation or contemporary scientific knowledge and experience, for overriding the Bible's authority on this matter."

So we have three questions, three that I find very helpful any time I deal with a Bible passage. The first is, what does this text say? Second, what does it mean? Third, how does it apply?

In dealing with Romans 1:18-32, Mel White says, "For our discussion, this is the most controversial Biblical passage of them all." He then states that "This verse appears to be clear. Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice." Even Mel White says that this is the plain sense of this passage. This would be an answer to the question, "What does this text say?"

Before moving on, let's hasten to add that Paul mentions many other sins alongside homosexual activity. He includes not just homosexual activity but also "greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip." The list goes on. If you read the passage carefully, Paul is making an argument that all human beings have turned away from God. As they have turned to worship other things rather than acknowledging God, God has turned them over to their sinful impulses. All these observed sins -- even down to disobedience to parents, another item on Paul's list -- are the natural consequence of a self-orientation rather than a God-orientation. Paul concludes this chapter by saying, "They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." (NOTE: I want to be absolutely clear that I totally reject this passage as an excuse for violence against homosexual persons! Such a reading is nothing less than hateful and irresponsible. Read it again and you will find that if you use this passage as an excuse to hate or excuse violence toward homosexuals, you deserve to die yourself. Don't go there. Paul is making an argument for a theological understanding of sin here, not a plea for vigilante violence.)

So this passage is saying that turning away from God -- which we all do in some form -- results in sinful behavior that can be observed, and if we engage in these behaviors, God will allow us to go our own way and rebel against him. So though God doesn't want me to be greedy, I am in fact greedy and sometimes I behave that way. This is a sign of my imperfect relationship with God, and when I give in to my greedy impulses, God allows me to go that way and suffer the consequences.

This brings up lots of questions, but first let's move on to the question, "What does this mean?"

Mel White's argument is that this passage refers not to homosexuality in general but rather to the sexual orgies -- heterosexual and homosexual -- that were practiced in the pagan temples of Paul's day. Looking at these orgies, Mel says, Paul condemns these sexual actions as idol worship. Mel then answers our third question, "How does this apply?" by saying that "it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of these priests and priestesses that pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, we feel certain that this passage says a lot about God and nothing about homosexuality as we understand it."

Is Mel White correct, that this passage refers only to those caught up in the orgiastic practices of idol worship, not to people in general, and certainly not to homosexual practice as we know it today?

Robert Gagnon takes a very different tack on Romans 1. Looking at the structure of the argument and the language used, he makes the argument that Paul is appealing to the story of creation in Genesis 1-3. Just as one can look around at the created order and see evidence for the existence of God, so one can look at the physical structure of male and female bodies and see evidence that they are meant to be complementary -- both for pleasure and for procreation. Gagnon says that for Paul, the absurdity of worshipping the creation and idols made in the shape of created things is similar to the absurdity of males having intercourse with males or females having intercourse with females. It is plainly outside God's created intention. Or, as Gagnon puts it, "Idolatry and homosexual behavior are in some measure parallel (not just successive) phenomena since both are presented as willful suppressions of the obvious truths about God and God's design in the natural world." Notice that Gagnon is not saying anything about homosexual orientation or feelings, but rather simply about what actions we choose to engage in.

To bolster his argument that this passage is an intentional echo of the creation story, Gagnon points out the parallels between Romans 1:23 and Genesis 1:26 -- both mention the image of God and humans, the likeness of humans, birds, four footed animals, and reptiles. Romans 1:25 also refers to a "lie" (see Genesis 3); Romans 1:27 refers to shame (see Genesis 3:8), and the word "knowledge" is all over this passage, bringing to mind the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in Genesis 2.

What is Paul trying to get at with these textual references? Gagnon puts it this way:

"Both idolatry and same-sex intercourse reject God's verdict that what was made and arranged was 'very good' (Genesis 1:31). Instead of recognizing their indebtedness to the one God in whose image and likeness they were made, humans worshiped statues made in their own image and likeness. Instead of exercising dominion over the animal kingdom, they bowed down not only to images of themselves but also to images of animals. Instead of acknowledging that God had made them 'male and female' and had called on them to copulate and procreate, they denied the transparent complementarity of their sexuality and engaged in sex with the same sex, indulging themselves in irresponsible sexual passion on which stable and productive family structures could not be built. As with Jesus," -- see for example Mark 10:6-9 -- "so with Paul: the creation story in Genesis does not leave room for a legitimate expression of same-sex intercourse."

If Gagnon is correct -- and I think it is difficult to argue that he's wrong about Paul having the creation story in mind as he's writing Romans 1, there are just too many parallels -- then this passage refers not just to idolatrous priests and priestesses, but to all humanity, sinful and broken. Just as gossip and disobedience to parents and murder are evidence of our sinful, broken nature, homosexual activity is part of our brokenness.

How does this apply? In the current debate, the two main issues are 1) the blessing of same sex unions within the church, and 2) the ordination of homosexually active persons. Each of these issues requires that the church pronounce God's blessing on a relationship -- first between God and two persons of the same gender, and second between God and a church and a leader. Can we bless something that is defined in God's word as contrary to God's desire for creation? That goes contrary to the whole idea of what a blessing is.

Clearly, Romans 1:18-32 says that homosexual activity is contrary to God's design. By definition, this puts it (along with all those other items named in the passage) in the category of "sin." The Bible does not say this to judge individuals who are active in homosexual relationships, but the Bible tells these people (and all of us) the truth about ourselves. The goal of God's word is not to condemn us, but to help me understand why I suffer the consequences of my own actions. God's goal is that I would turn back to him, even if I am caught in a sin I cannot escape.

The solution to sin is not to bless what God has declared sin; rather, it is to repent and trust in Jesus for forgiveness.