Moral Diversity?

The Synod of Saints has drawn our attention once again to the homosexual issue as it plays out in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). This denomination has gained a large amount of national press over the years for their inner conflict on the homosexual question and this year is no different. The only media coverage of the ELCA 2007 national assembly regarded their action to excise ELCA prohibitions on homosexual conduct by ordained ministers. As the Chicago Tribune reported it "A national assembly of Evangelical Lutherans urged its bishops this weekend to refrain from defrocking gay and lesbian ministers who violate a celibacy rule, but rejected measures that would have permitted ordaining gays churchwide." The article goes on to report that proponents of the homosexual agenda described the pain of having to choose between ministry and a life-long partner.

Mr. Modern is like all of us, sympathetic to human pain and is willing to extend the benefit of a doubt even when the pain seems embellished with tears of the croc. But this kind of pain is absurd. It is outrage over the pain of sanctification; the fury of an alcholic who feels the pain of sobriety or the rage of a slanderer who feels the cruel torment of having to control their tongue. The argument pre-supposes that homosexuality is a virtue, a positive good, and that to choose between mutually exclusive virtues (ministry and homosexual behavior) is simply not fair.

The argument really rests on a foundation of genetic diversity. The homosexual, they will say, is homosexual by virtue of genetic composition - a simple variation on the more prevalent genetics of the heterosexual. The logic of such thinking goes something like this. Premise: Human identity is defined by ones genetic makeup. Premise: It is immoral to ask others to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their fundamental identity. Premise: Homosexuality is embedded in the human genetic structure. Conclusion: It is immoral to ask homosexuals to behave in non-homosexual ways. The locus of complete human autonomy is thereby found in the genes. Any behavior with a genetic source becomes a zone of morality-free license. The real fly in the ointment however is that all behavior is genetically sourced. The Bible forbids lust in the heart of the 19 year old male heterosexual and it forbids adultry although the genetic drive is universally acknowledged. The Bible also clearly forbids homosexual conduct regardless of whether or not a genetic component is in play (and Mr. Modern is of the opinion that there probably is since Mr. Modern embraces the Reformed position on "total depravity").

The Chicago Tribune article concludes with this final sentence: "The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in St. Louis, believes the Bible is literally true and does not ordain gays." The use of the term"literally" is worth noting. First Corinthians 6:9-10 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to read this non-literally as "homosexuality is a non-wicked positive good in the eyes of God"? The Missouri-Synod position does not require belief in a literally true Bible - any belief will do. A belief that is obviously lacking in the ELCA.