An Open Lettert to LCA Chief Theologian Dr Jeff Silcock. Sexual Orientation Vs Activity. You Haven’t Thought This Through!
A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australia.
I LOVE The Daily Show. It is a comedy/ news show. I love the show*s opening rider…
The show you are about to see is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And its opinions are not fully thought through.
The Lutheran Church of Australia*s Theological think tank, the CTICR, are about to release a paper on homosexuality in the lead up to the National Synod of the Church. They appear to be dragging their feet in releasing the paper in time for it to be adequately reviewed prior to the Synod. An advanced copy of the paper shows that they have every reason to be hesitant about releasing it for public scrutiny.
Indeed, it appears as if it has not been fact checked and the views expressed have certainly not been fully thought through. Unfortunately, the CTICR is not a theological parody. They are real theologians and their opinions have a very real and immediate influence on the lives of the hundreds of gay people who are under the care of the LCA.
I address my critique of the paper in the form of an open letter to the chair of the CTICR, Dr Jeff Silcock.
Let me cut to the chase. When it comes to defining sin, I don’t believe it is theologically valid to separate propensity from activity. As far as I know such a separation has never been attempted in 2000 years of theological thought. Now, only in the last 50 years, the question of homosexuality has forced some theologians who are determined to continue their discrimination against one particular group of people to come up with this brand new category.
Things That Are Sinful By Activity But Not By Propensity.
1. Homosexuality.
2. Umm…. Umm.
Jesus made things pretty clear about the way we are to understand sin. In Matt 15. he said…
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person…
The context of this passage is telling. The disciples asked Jesus about defilement, uncleanness, wrongness, bad stuff that just shouldnt be. Many Hebrews of the day thought that defilement, uncleanness, wrongness came from external things, the things one ate or touched. Jesus changes the focus entirely. He said that the source of this wrongness is internal. The wrongness lies in the heart and so out of the heart flows wrong activity.
This is not an orphan verse. It confirms the thoughts expressed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount where he identifies sin, first and foremost, as the desire that gives birth to the action.
Matt 5. 27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
So, the source and the activity are inseparably linked.
This is also the conclusion that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod came to in their 1978 evaluation of the LCA statement on homosexuality.
Christian tradition has developed a helpful way of understanding sin. The Seven Deadly Sins define sin as that which flows from base desires. The Seven Deadly Sins were not activities… rape, murder, picking one*s nose, or barracking for the Eagles Football Club. The Deadly Sins were desires, inclinations of the heart or propensities … lust, gluttony, pride ,sloth, greed, wrath and envy.
Dr Silcock, I contend that it is theologically invalid to define any sin as an activity alone as if the propensity from which it flows is not also considered sin.
One simple test… Apart from Homosexuality, name another activity that is considered sinful where the propensity from which it flows is not.
I am willing to enlightened but… I can’t think of one.
As I said earlier… Now, only in the last 50 years, the question of homosexuality has forced some theologians who are determined to continue their discrimination against one particular group of people to come up with this brand new category.
Dr Silcock, I was recently talking to a prominent LCA theologian and member of the CTICR. In a moment of surprising honesty he said to me…
Of course the propensity and the activity are both sin. That can’t be denied. But the issue here is a pastoral one rather than a specific theological one.
I pressed this CTICR member on the exact meaning of his statement. He said that although he agrees that propensity and activity are always linked… although the seed always gives birth to the deed and both are deemed sin… it is not very *pastoral* to come out and say so.
What the…?!
There is nothing un-pastoral or uncaring about calling sin, sin or shining a light on the wrong in someones life. In fact, one might say that our most trusted and loved friends are the ones who are willing to sensitively and carefully do precisely that.
- Neil. You seemed to be filled with anger and that aint good. It is sneaking out of you in ways that hurt both you and the people around you. How can I help you work through that?
- Neil. Your pride gets the better of you too often. You put yourself and your own feelings above others, even those closest to you . It does you and them harm. Is there some way we can turn that around?
Dr Silcock, it is a nonsense to suggest that it is un-pastoral to name the wrong in the lives of those we love. And when we name, we name the propensity, the activity and all of their consequences and there is nothing uncaring or un-pastoral about it.
So, why the reference to *pasotral* concern? Why the reluctance to call both the propensity and the activity sin?
Can I hazard a guess?
I think that, with the question of homosexuality, things feel different. It feels harsh to you to call someones sexual orientation sinful. I think I know why that is.
Dr Silcock, unlike our sect-like LCMS cousins from the US, I suspect that you have a very compassionate heart. You look at my gay friends and you know that their sexuality is essentially the same as yours and mine. It is a part of the way that God has *fearfully and wonderfully* made them. As with our sexuality it is an essential part of their humanity and is inseparably tied to every relationship they form whether that be a specifically sexual relationship or not.
Yes, I think I know why it feels harsh for you to call someones sexual orientation sinful. It feels harsh because it IS harsh. Not only is it harsh to condemn someones sexual orientation it is down right soul-destroying. The negative consequences of such damning judgements are measured in the deaths of young Christian gay people who suicide at a far greater rate than any of their peers. And so you rightly recoil from such a condemnation on homosexual orientation.
But then you fail to embrace the logical and theological consequences of your own position.
You have discovered the wheel but you fail to put it on a cart.
You reject the notion that the world is flat but fail to accept its roundness.
You reject the idea that the sexual orientation of my gay friends is sinful yet you fail to allow them the natural expression of that same orientation.
To me, in all my heterosexual glory, you say the following.
Your sexual orientation is an essential part of your humanity. It is created by God and is God*s good gift to you. It can and should be acted on in good and God pleasing ways.
And yet, here is what you appear to be saying to my gay friends.
Your sexual orientation is an essential part of your humanity. It is created by God and is Gods god gift to you. However the minute you act on it the essence / the nature of it changes. It suddenly become an evil thing. Suddenly it is sin and God is no longer pleased.
How are my young gay friends supposed to deal with that? How are they meant to healthily process all of the natural God-given feelings that arise from their sexual orientation. What are they supposed to do when they meet someone they are attracted to and those feelings are reciprocated. How are they supposed to deal with the fact that your desire is to cut them off from the possibility of a God pleasing life of intimacy, care, companionship and growing old with the one they love?
Dr Silcock, I know that this will sound harsh but I will say it anyway. I say it because this issue is important. In fact, I don’t believe that anything else you are working on even comes close. I say it because in your position of power you hold the lives of hundreds of LGBT Lutherans in your hands.
Your half-baked and inconsistent theology takes the good and godly gift of sexuality and wraps it up in a putrid blanket of prohibition. That blanket is woven from nothing but fear and prejudice.
Inclination and activity are always combined for good or for ill. My inclination of lust, greed and anger give birth to all manner of activities that harm me and those around me. My inclination toward love and compassion give birth to actions that create and affirm community, family and *life in all its fullness*.
Dr Silcock, let me state the obvious. The only healthy, decent and theologically consistent way forward is for us to accept that our sexual orientation, gay and straight, is a part of how God made us. Gay or straight, it is Gods good gift to us. Gay or straight it is to be celebrated. Gay or straight it is to be expressed in relationships that build up self, family and community. Gay or straight it is to be expressed fully, completely and intimately with our life’s partner.
This is what honours God…
Because it was God who said…
*It is not good for the man to be alone.*
You sir, give me hope for the LCA.
I think we should also remember David and his love for a man: 2 Samuel 1:26.
Many men showed love for a man in biblical times. Jesus showed us the greatest love by dying for us.
Matt 5. 27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This answers it all. “You Shalt not commit adultery” that is a warning to heterosexual persons married and arguably single as God also warns against sexual immorality. Every thing else you say I agree with except your conclusions. We do not have to act on our impulses. We can deny ourselves. This is but a short 70 years. God can change our desires and I am not talking about orientations. Pornography has become a huge problem among men married and single men have been set free by prayer, confession and accountability. Repentance. They do not have to act on the temptation when it comes, they have a choice. Pastoral care. Acceptance, love and support. The same way most of us as broken and sinful people get over any of our issues that lead to habitual sin, get over their problems which generally are caused by deep rooted issues such as being predisposed to it in their makeup, generational issues in some cases and often issues they are unaware of which come to light through the process of repentance and sanctification.
“Its not good for man to be alone” thats why God made a help mate for man called woman. Did God make a mistake before the fall by not making allowances for gays? Or is this because their were no gays at this time? What did he make for gay women? Does not seem to be any reference to this. Why are their no models of homosexual relationship anywhere in the bible which are sanctioned? Jesus spoke much on relationships marriage and divorce and sexual immorality on how to relate yet never spoke on homosexual relationships, not once.
Is it harsh to speak about someones sexual orientation well yes and no. Yes if it as done as it has been in the past. Not one person ever will change by being told they wrong or by being bashed, ostracized or slandered. Try telling anyone they are wrong when they are smitten whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Each one of us is God’s Masterpiece and we all have mud on us at different layers and levels. Some hardened which is even tougher to remove. We cannot remove no more than a painting can only the Master Himself can restore anyone. So all we can do is support others to get closer to the Father. I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and conviction. Conviction as opposed to condemnation. This is where “church” as we know it has very little to do with Church as described in the bible.
Paul writes, “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his purpose.” Sanctification.
Can I clarify what you are saying here?
You are saying that my gay friends sexuality and desire for love, intimacy and companionship is like pornography. And you are saying that, although God made him in such a way that he is not at all attracted to women that , should he desire to live with someone in a lifelong loving and committed and intimate relationship that it must still be with a woman?
And you are saying that thats all OK because he only has to put up with this while he live for 70 years on this earth.
Can I ask you, Gregg. Do you consider your sexuality and all the different ways you express it with your wife to be essentially a good, God given gift?
Yes but at any time it can be corrupted. True. We need always be on guard. As I believe it homosexuality is outside of God’s plan as all sexual immorality it is a sin. That’s the way I see it but if people wish to engage in this activity and feel/believe it is a gift from God then who am I to say different publicly to them. If they asked me I would give them reason why but I would not offer an opinion un-solicited. Thats why I have no objection to society or culture making this “legal” as it has nothing to do with Christian living. I would hope people would respect this difference in belief as we do regarding infant baptism, holy communion and many other issues.
Gregg – So what constitutes sexual immorality? When you are talking about engaging in ‘this activity’, what do you mean?
Greg, you wrote “Pornography has become a huge problem among married and single…”
I have yet to have anybody explain to me what the problem is, without resorting to saying that sex is dirty and should be forbidden. There is nothing at all wrong with most pornography, providing it is portraying acts by consenting adults. Our children can watch thousands of murders and beatings on TV without anybody objecting, yet seeing people in the act of love is somehow objectionable. In Denmark, when they legalized all pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Denmark), they saw a sharp drop in consumption and public interest. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,941672,00.html) They also saw a drop in sex crimes. So pornography is like drugs, a problem that is created by attitudes and laws against it.
One of my main problems with Christianity is this anti-sex attitude that seems to permeate all your thinking, without being influenced by data or reality. You, Greg, have demonstrated this problem with your assumption that pornography is a problem. It isn’t. Christian anti-sex attitudes are the problem. That is also the basis of the silly preoccupation with who does what to whom. Love is what counts. The body that love is packaged in is not important.
Neil, once again I must applaud your clear thinking and rational arguments. Keep up the good work.
AH I think you better do some research these people are exploited and held in bondage for others gratification. Spouses are hurt and feel cheated on. Come on your telling me you would not feel a little put out if your partner got their jollies off watching porn and neglected you needs and desires? People are suffering as are people trapped in prostitution. An you wrong when you assume Christians are anti sex. For goodness sake God is the one who created sex.
I agree with you whole heartedly on the murder/violence. In fact for mine I go so far as to say that this with failure of societies to parent and break down in community, and community values has lead to the events unfolding. The lax guns laws only increase the means and opportunity for people to kill in the US.
I also agree with drug issue. The questions is why do people want to use drugs? Prohibition will not work. People should not be hurt for another’s benefit.
Thank you… Thank you… Thank you!
By the way, I’m going on a date tonight. I’m a bit nervous, butterflies really. So, I wonder does going on a date fit into the propensity category (which is okay) or does the action of deliberately going to drink coffee with someone fall in the action category? Perhaps Jeff could clear that up for me before tonight. If really appreciate some clarity.
Jesus loves me, this I know. He also loves the other I’m going on the date with too.
Good luck…. with your date AND with getting an answer to your question.
My opinion about the coffee question, for what its worth…
Short black is propensity.
Latte is activity.
I am a Cappuccino man myself – a little extra sweetness on top!
I hope it goes well for you!
It is more than Biblical texts that must be examined here, for there is the interface between Scripture and society that must be examined as well. For that to be done in a mature way, one would expect CTICR to consult, consult, consult in order to access the wisdom of membership beyond ALC.
Thanks for your continued voice in this debate.
CTICR… Consult??? Not likely.
We are back to that nonsense idea that should never even be considered by any theologian worth their salt but continues to be a founding principal of how the CTICR do their… stuff (?)
*Our investigations are necessarily narrow. We focus on the Bible and not societal matters*
How does one even begin to dialogue with a group who believes this to be valid? (let alone trust the veracity of their investigation)
There’s the weakness in the system. Theology cannot be imposed. If membership is in a different place, imposed theology can only exacerbate tensions and deepen schisms. The Catholic Church is an example with their stance on women’s ordination. The world Catholic Church is in the midst of a struggle/showdown/schism, for the people are in a different ‘place’ (in regards to women’s ordination) to Rome.
When the UCA was struggling with gays and lesbians in ministry, it put together a working paper that the whole church was asked to respond to. Of course there was diverse opinion, but the point was to give voice to everyone in an aim to find a wise path. After all, theology is an expression of human understanding of God’s will for us, and that understanding is negotiated over the ages between all involved. There is no longer a monolithic, singular understanding of God’s will – rather it is something that each generation and community must determine for itself using all available tools – as seen through seemingly endless denominations in seemingly endless cultures. We can only do our best in determining God’s will for ourselves.
If the LCA does not spend time at the interface of theology and society then the whole process will be wasted, for within a generation existing declarations will be disposed of and the process will be started again.
I tried to wade through a translation of the Philokalia, and one bit I remember is that demons were thought to surround the Hesychast. If a temptation whispers to you, (perhaps this is less than a “propensity”, perhaps more than an orientation) that is not in itself sin, but if you consider that temptation your consideration of it is the start of the sin. Then comes planning, acting on the temptation, habitual action and habitual action with no guilt feeling (very powerful demons in the Philokalia). The other bit I remember is that when one takes the Eucharist, one theologian said you should always weep with the emotion of it: gratitude to Christ and horror at his sufferings.
Ah Clare! NOTHING gets past you. The MCC should put you in the side as wicket keeper for the ashes tour.
I knew that when I opened up this topic i would raise some questions. I expected references to Hebrews 4.
*Jesus was tempted in every way as we are yet without sin.*
Surely this means that there must be some temptations (propensities ? Orientations?) that are not sin until they are acted upon.
I actually wrote up an extra 1000 words or so addressing this question. Bottom line… I think this is a part of the mystery of the incarnation.
Christ… 100% God and 100% human
as Human limited to a seed in a teenagers womb 2000 years ago/ as God… unlimited by time and space.
as Human, tempted in every way as we are… as God, yet without sin.
I think it is an ontological statement. Christ became fully human so that we can be sure that he understands all that we go through… he has experienced it. It is not an instruction on how we may avoid sin.
Having said that, I bow to the wisdom of the Fathers and their reflections on meditation and the quest for the holy.
*if you consider that temptation your consideration of it is the start of the sin. Then comes planning, acting on the temptation, habitual action and habitual action with no guilt feeling*
I think that there is definite progression in the things that effect our life. However, If we take the above in reverse, I dont believe that we can identify the place where sin crosses some imaginary line and become sinless temptation.
Hmmm… I realise that what I just wrote is completely inadequate for the topic…
There are no small decisions in life as what seems insignificant can lead to further choice. Just like a light on a hill keep Christ in the center of our life and we will continue up. Choice’s r Us.
I think Luther once said “You can’t help it if a bird flies over your head, but you don’t need to let him make a nest in your hair.”
God knows man’s heart. We don’t know our own heart at times to me this why reflection, confession, repentance and sanctification are just so important in the Christian faith. Deception and lies are the evil one’s weapons.