Comments on ELCA Draft Social Statement on Sexuality
Christ the King Lutheran Church, Houston Texas
Sexuality Work Group
[1-5 scale: 1 = not very well; 5 = very well]
1. How well does the Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality provide a useful and adequate framework to help this church discern what it means to live faithfully with our neighbors in the increasingly complex sphere of human sexuality? [3]
The Draft’s emphasis on trust as a foundational concept for the Sexuality study is healthy and it is well-grounded in the Lutheran understanding of Christian faith. Unfortunately, the Draft is too long and elliptical, which detracts from its force as a Social Statement. The sheer length of the Draft, including the ambitious scope of the subject matter and the abstract and elliptical content of many sections, was a serious obstacle to focused and thoughtful deliberation among the members of our congregation. The ELCA Task Force should prayerfully strive to produce a more modest, more focused final document.
In this respect, the Task Force should consider two questions to guide the final document. First, what is meant by “sexuality”? This critical term is not defined in the current Draft, and that ambiguity contributes to the overly ambitious scope of the document. Second, why does the ELCA feel called to issue such a social statement? This question arose at the outset of our congregational deliberations, and the more we attempted to master the many and varied aspects of the Draft, the more resonant the question became.
We suggest that a Social Statement should be a statement about what Lutherans do believe – not a vehicle for Lutherans to decide what they believe about difficult social questions. This Draft appears overly long and labored, in places, because it sometimes aspires to the second role rather than the first. We are called to be a community of moral deliberation, but a Social Statement ideally reflects the product of such deliberation rather than a call to that deliberation. The Task Force might consider focusing on areas of real consensus, streamlining the subject matter and content of the final Statement, to speak forcefully about those aspects of sexuality upon which there is consensus. A separate section could acknowledge areas of continuing discernment with a call for further deliberation.
The Draft identifies the “first” function of this Social Statement as a teaching document (l. 45). As such, it may serve important purposes and it may provide a wealth of material and perspective to facilitate moral deliberation, but it is unclear that a Social Statement should have that goal as its primary function. The Task Force might consider a narrower, more focused final document as a Social Statement, to be accompanied by documents providing greater depth and context that are distinctly designed as teaching resources.
Among the purposes of the Draft set forth at the end of the Introduction, our congregation seemed to discern two purposes as being the most important: (1) “renew this church’s commitment to address society in the confidence that God is at work bringing redemption to the whole creation” (l. 78-79) by speaking forcefully in areas where consensus exists; and (2) provide a framework for reasoned moral deliberation on questions of sexuality that society presses upon the church, in order that we may live out our faith in the world (which distills the objectives at l. 72-77). Those two goals answer the question, “why”? The Task Force should structure the final document in light of those two objectives.
2. How helpful is each sub-section in Section II in explaining how Lutherans approach ethics?
2(a). Incarnation, justification and serving the neighbor [4]
2(b). Sexual ethics shaped by God’s mercy and compassion [3]
2(c). Living as a people of hope [4]
2(d). Scripture and moral discernment [3]
Specific strength?
Part II provides a valuable framework for the sexuality study based on Lutheran tradition, although it seems overly pedagogical at times. Perhaps the greatest strength of Part II is its emphasis on humility about questions of sexual ethics, as well as its reaffirmation of the ultimate importance of grace and the universality of God’s love for all His children. These tenets are classically Lutheran and provide an inclusive framework for discussion. The Task Force should embrace this humility and reaffirm it throughout the document when confronting difficult questions of sexual ethics.
Section 2(a) is the strongest section in Part II; Sections 2(b) and 2(c) contain valuable ideas but add too much complexity by injecting themes that do not bear directly on the subject matter of this Social Statement.
Add to Section II?
The Task Force should combine these three sections into a single unified statement about the core theological principles that guide the Lutheran understanding of sexuality, and it should strip away theological discussion that does not speak to the question of sexuality. That core mission (especially l. 102-207 and l. 354-387) should guide this Statement.
3. How helpful is each sub-section in Section III at interpreting why Lutherans regard our sexuality as one of the continuing blessings of God’s good creation while acknowledging the complexities and difficulties that people experience in the sexual dimension of their lives?
3(a). The complexity of individual sexuality [3]
3(b). The social character of sexuality [3]
Specific strength?
The central message seems to be that sexuality is intrinsic to what it means to be human, both biologically and culturally, and this aspect of our humanity has real consequences. That basic message could easily be incorporated in a simpler and shorter fashion, at the start of Section IV. This simplification would strengthen the final document by adding focus and removing non-essential text.
4. How helpful is each sub-section in Section IV in exploring matters of sexuality and relationships?
4(a). Strong families: a ground and source of trust [3] – The discussion of family structure is really distinct from the issue of sexuality, and adds little to the subject of this Draft. Certain passages here can be used elsewhere (e.g., sexual abuse), but in general the section distracts from the core mission of the Draft.
4(b). Protecting children and youth in and for trusting relationships [4] – This section is excellent and well-suited to the core mission of the Draft.
4(c). Sexuality and self [4] – This section is strongest in its connection between the Christian understanding of our bodies as temples and questions of sexuality. Its acknowledgment that sexuality is an intrinsic part of every human being, at every stage of life, is an important component. It provides a valuable foundation for the discussions that follow regarding different aspects of sexuality. But it deviates from the core mission of the Draft in focusing on body image and related social and cultural pressures; these messages may be important, but they dilute the force of this Draft.
4(d). Gender and friendships [3] – This section is poorly conceived. Discussion of “friendship” is off the point, and adds little to the core mission of the Draft. Further, it is an awkward framework to address the very real concerns about sexual exploitation of friendship and acquaintance. Those topics are better addressed by direct, definitive statements that sexual exploitation (whether by abuse of friendships, abuse of professional power and employment positions, or abuse of the pastoral role) are fundamentally antithetical to the church’s understanding of sexuality grounded in trust. Those statements are important and suit the core mission, but can be framed more directly than the current Draft.
4(e). Commitment and sexuality [4] – This section is well-done and provides a thoughtful expression of the concept of trust and its implications for the often messy and confusing reality of sexual conduct. More grounding in our theological understanding would make the section even stronger, but otherwise, this section is excellent.
4(f). Marriage [4] – Again, this section is very well-done and relates the importance of marriage to our theological understanding and the core value of trust. The passage on spousal abuse is very appropriate in this section and well-grounded in the core principles, but could be expanded further (perhaps incorporating text from other portions of the Draft that are not essential to the core mission).
The allusions to civil law, while not objectionable on their own terms, deviate from the core mission of this Draft. Including them in this discussion dilutes the force of this section of the Draft; it also undermines the argument in a subsequent section (l. 1151-55) that the terms of civil marriage are “the prerogative of the state, which is the realm in which civil marriage and the laws governing it exist.”
4(g). Relationships involving intimate sexual relations outside of marriage [4] – This section is also very well-done, reaffirming what has been said about the importance of marriage while recognizing the reality of modern cohabitation patterns and the challenges they pose to the church. It would be useful to incorporate more explicitly the emphasis on trust as a faith-based foundation for our understanding of sexuality into this section of the Draft as well.
4(h). Same gender committed relationships [4] – This section of the Draft, obviously the most controversial and challenging, withstands scrutiny and reflection quite well. While it may be disappointing to those who prefer a definitive answer to difficult questions surrounding homosexual relationships (from either side of the debate), it emerges after study and reflection as a wise statement. The Draft faithfully recounts the history of the Lutheran church in dealing with the issue, the lack of a consensus, and the theological principles that guide our church in response. Given the reality of the lack of consensus that exists within the ELCA on this question, this Section is a faithful and accurate statement of what Lutherans do, in fact, believe as a collective body on this question. Whether it is a faithful and accurate statement of what Lutherans should believe is a more controversial and difficult question.
Our congregational discussions on this topic reflect a range of deeply held beliefs, some of which are in direct conflict. We have learned from experience that it is possible to – although not easy – to have calm, thoughtful, prayerful and civil conversations across this range of understanding. To that end, we applaud the Draft’s statement of “the foundational Lutheran understanding that the baptized are called to reflect God’s love in service to the neighbor” (l. 1121-22), that the Lutheran church “calls for mutual respect in relationships and for guidance that seeks the good of each individual and of the community” (l. 1129-30), that congregations are called “to welcome, care for and support same-gender-oriented people and their families and to advocate for their legal protection” (l. 1134-35), and that “this church has a pastoral responsibility to all children of God” (l. 1137). These are powerful statements, affirming our unity on ultimate questions of profound importance.
4(i). The necessity of mercy, always [3] – This section of the Draft adds nothing of substance, and it does not even deal explicitly with the nominal subject of the section – “the necessity of mercy, always.” This section could be eliminated entirely, and any statements deemed to be essential can be included in the substantive sections of the Draft to which they relate. If it is deemed essential to make a statement on mercy and forgiveness as it relates to trust and sexuality, that should be made much more explicit than the current Draft.
5. How helpful is each sub-section in Section V in understanding matters of sexuality related to life in society?
5(a). Our calling to establish the kind of social trust the world urgently needs [2] – This section is outside the core mission of the Draft and it does not speak to questions of “sexuality” in any meaningful sense. Social trust is an important value and the quest for social justice and good social and cultural institutions is a Christian calling, but these issues are not distinctively related to the church’s understanding of sexuality and the effort to extend this Social Statement to these issues should be reconsidered.
To be sure, there are some passages in this section that are material to issues of sexuality, and those passages should be incorporated into the relevant section of the final Statement. For example, the statement that “[t]his church must also attend to the cry for just laws and just treatment within and outside the ELCA by those with varied sexual identifies” (l. 1266-67) is an important and relevant statement, but it should be incorporated into the section on same-gender relationships. Similarly, the statements of support for secular law on sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual threats, and domestic violence (l. 1275-79) are sound and relevant, but should be incorporated into relevant sections of the Draft. Doing so will strengthen those specific sections while maintaining the focus of this Statement on its core mission.
5(b). Our calling to confront distrust, abuse, and idolatry as sources of harm [4] – This section is a superb statement against the commercialization of sexuality. It should be explicitly presented as such, rather than an abstract discussion of “idolatry,” and the more general discussions of social trust at the end of the section should be limited to maximize the focus on commercialization of sexuality. The introductory section to Part V should be condensed substantially and incorporated into this discussion.
5(c) The mission and ministry of this church [4] – This section is a strong statement about the mission of the church in this area, but it is virtually lost at the end of Part V. It would be more effective if relocated as part of the Conclusion, following the acknowledgement of areas of disagreement and the need for further moral deliberation with a powerful statement of consensus and the need for strong and effective action in the mission of the ELCA.
The Conclusion is a balanced and faithful statement about the task of moral discernment and the place of this Social Statement in that ongoing task. As noted in the prior section, however, the Conclusion would be stronger if the section on the mission of the church (currently Section V.C) were incorporated into the Conclusion as a powerful affirmation of the areas of consensus within the ELCA about the mission of the church.
The usefulness of the Statement would be strengthened by a clear answer to the question “Why is this Statement necessary/important?” We found that our congregational conversations suffered as people attempted to fill this gap for themselves. For some individuals, the lack of a clearly stated purpose/reason for the document seemed to breed a degree of mistrust or suspicion.
The Task Force has made tremendous progress in addressing details across a range of complex and difficult questions. The challenge now is to distill this detail into a more coherent and bold final text, that draws attention in a compelling manner to the common ground. No document – of any length – will address every issue relating to our understanding of human sexuality. Our journey to seek understanding will continue. It is healthy to admit, with full humility, that there is much we do not know and cannot understand, there are questions we cannot answer. And where we know there are distinct, deeply held differences of view, our ongoing dialogue can be guided and informed by continually asking ourselves “What would Christ do or say?”
No.