There is so much confusion about homosexual behavior within Lutheran circles, that I shall try again to explain what was once thought obvious by Christianity: Homoerotic behavior, like many other human behaviors, is sinful. That this is true ought not to be startling to Lutherans who know that human beings perpetually sin against God in thought, word and deed. Curiously, however, Lutherans have increasing difficulty confessing the sinfulness of such acts, and indeed, of many types of sexual behaviors and practices.
The Lutheran position on the rectitude of homosexual behavior should be straightforward. After all, the great theological tradition has always held that there is an order of creation. The order of creation is the direct artifact of God’s design; it instantiates God’s primary intentionality for existence as such. The Biblical tradition has affirmed that it is part of God’s primary intentionality that a man and woman should leave their parents and dwell in life-long relationships with each other. God is the author of creation so it bears an imprint of his “eternal law” that can be apprehended through conscience as “natural law.” The natural law tradition expresses what God has objectively ordered nature to be.
Under the conditions of existence, the order of creation has fallen into sin from which it cannot free itself. Things that are, are not what they ought to be. Accordingly, human beings by their own natures (fallen human natures) are not, and cannot be, what they are by nature, by that which has been ordered by God. Natural law expresses God’s universal objective ordering; natural human natures instantiate the particular subjective ordering of individuals after their own ends, ends that are not part of God’s primal intentionality.
Given that the Biblical record unambiguously places man and woman together in the paradisical state within the order of creation, the question becomes what can the redeemed church support and proclaim as consistent with this order of creation. Obviously, human beings naturally are not who they are to be by nature. As fallen human beings living the redeemed life, what ought they to think about nature and about their natural acts that are not natural?
There are two choices: One can say that the orders of creation must be adjusted or accommodated to what is naturally possible. Some individuals are obviously natured and nurtured not to desire sexual and romantic relationships with members of the other sex. This is obvious. Moreover, some individuals are obviously natured and nurtured not to be able easily to avoid sexual promiscuity, sexual objectification, masturbation, serial monogamy, premarital sexual activity, etc. This is obvious as well. One can thus say that that which is not attainable, must be not be regarded as sinful, or must be differently understood as sinful.
The other option, of course, is to follow the tradition and claim that what we are sexually not who we ought to be. This option identifies divorce as sin, and understands how humans can be divorced - - particularly in a society like ours. This option identifies the addictive masturbation, pornographic consumption, and sexual promiscuity (especially serial monogamy) as sinful, but still understands how humans could be engaged in these behaviors - - particularly in a society like ours. Finally, this option finally identifies homoerotic behavior as sinful, yet understands how humans can be engaged in these behaviors - - particularly in a society like ours.
The fundamental question is whether we want to regard homoerotic behavior as consistent with the order of creation or not. To my mind, groups like the WordAlone Network have never claimed that divorce is consistent with the order of creation. If they were to have said that, and claimed that homoerotic behavior was inconsistent with it, then the WordAlone Network would be guilty of unfairly picking a particular sin to scorn. Questions about sex and sexuality are driven by society. General cultural forces generate the question of the propriety of homoerotic behavior, and it is this question which confronts the churches now; it is this question that needs a response. I do not believe there are many at synodical and churchwide conventions who want to claim that divorce, masturbation, and sexual promiscuity ought to be blessed within a liturgical context. This point must be seen clearly.
Unfortunately, Lutherans have abandoned any effort to think ontologically about divine law. They squirm at words like 'eternal law' and any attempt to identify a teleologically-ordered creation with divine law. They want to talk about the law only in so far as it confronts us, thus confusing the experience of being curbed by the law with the ontological contour of the law itself. But acting merely in accordance with the law, or acting due to the law does not change the meaning or ontology of the law. The law is the universal objective will of God for His creation, an objective will that is almost wholly obscured under the conditions of existence, an objective will grounding the promulgation of particular divine laws.
The time has come for Lutherans to rescue the divine law from its security within the phenomenology of human existence, and make again the bold and risky claim that the divine law really is God's, and that human apprehension of that law does not that law make.
A comment and a question:
ReplyDeleteThere are many in the ELCA who will deny that divorce, masterbation, promiscuity (at least premaritally) et.al., are sinful. That was one thing I could not get around on the Task Force, namely, the recognition that things that are naturally done in this fallen world are sinful. The most obvious problem here is the notion that it's not the orientation that's sinful, it's only behavior that's sinful. This finally is a denial of original sin. Everything is moved from ontology to ethics (I think I have my terms right, here).
Is it necessary to speak of eternal law in a creation ordered by God prior to the fall? In other words, an ordered creation doesn't need an ordering law. So in one sense, then, the law is not eternal in that it was not needed prior to the fall, and will not be needed when the restoration is completed. Do I need the law if my ontology is right? And just for the record, that ontology is not right, in my mind, until God raises me from the dead.
Lou Hesse
Lou,
ReplyDeleteBut it does seem to me that the assertion of an ordered creation entails the assertion of some process by which it is ordered. Traditionally, this has been the eternal law of God. It is the divine regularities conceived by God and then instantiated in the world. I cannot imagine a possible world where there is an ordered universe, God, yet no ordering of the universe by God. (In worlds where God did not order, God would not be God.) This ordering of the universe by God is the instantiation of God's eternal law.
In this discussion and another, I've pondered the place of Law as you and Lou here discuss, and I return to the title of a recent publication of Luther's antinomian theses: "Only the Decalogue is Eternal." This title is "...a direct quote from Luther's response in the 34th argument of the 1st antinomian disputation - it casts light on the eschatological validity of the moral law frequently emphasized by Luther in the disputations at hand." (from the foreword of said book)
ReplyDeleteI regret to say I've had precious little time to devote to reading these theses/disputations yet, but I look forward to doing so.
Thanks for your incredibly valuable contributions to the church!
Brian Crocker
Maybe my imagination is wilder than yours, Dennis, because I can imagine a universe that is ordered by God where God is God and there is no law. This is going to be hard to explain here, but if God creates all things good, it is ordered in the creating, and he doesn't need the law to order that creating because it's his very state of being (good). So in a universe without the presence of evil, where everything is created good, what ordering from the law would be necessary? I think this is the same thing Tim Swenson is driving at with his latest post over at Applied Theology.
ReplyDeleteAs to the assertion that an ordered creation implies some ordering, I think that's covered in the creating of good creation. Ordering or reordering is only necessary once a good creation fell.
Lou
Brian,
ReplyDeleteYes, you speak of "solus decalogus est aeternus." Yes, the decalogue clearly speaks the law which remains in force as long as God is.
Luther argues: "Decalogus autem ideo maior et praestantior est, quia est insculptus omnium cordibus et mentibus et nobiscum manebit etiam et futura vita. Circumcisio autem non item, sicut nec baptismus non manebit, sed solus decalogus est aeternus, ut res scilicet, non ut lex, quia in futura vita erit id ipsum, quod hic exigebat."
This is what I have been saying. The law is eternal in that it has been written in the hearts and minds of all and will remain in the future life. This is not so of circumcision or baptism. The decalogue is not eternal as law (ut lex) but in so far as in the future life things will be as that which has been demanded by the law.
In other words, the primary intentionality of God establishes the basic ought-to-beness which remains throughout temporal life and is realized eschatologically. In so far as humans live in grace, the proleptically live the "yet" kingdom while being solidly here "not yet" there. The "not yet" quality of this life entails that the fundamental to-beness of things is experience now as a fundamental "over-and-againsteness." This "over-and-againstness" characterizes Christian freedom within the ambiguity of human existence, and will be eradicated only at the last day when what ought to be truly is.
Thanks for this great conversation.
Tim Swenson posted this elsewhere on this blog, and I wanted to get it over here where the discussion on law is happening. Thanks Tim!
ReplyDeleteThe Ontology of the Law...
The nature of religion is to assume the eternal existence of the Law as the order of creation, set it place by God, demanding obedience, and ordering all of life into right and wrong. In religion, Jesus Christ is a stop-gap measure, a temporary fix so that the eternal Law can be fulfilled.
In contrast, Faith knows that Jesus Christ is the eternal one and that Faith in Christ (which is the presence of Christ) is the ordering agent of creation, not the Law. The Law is only a temporary approximation, a poor mimic, of what faith delivers.
The Law's ontology? It is temporary; it has a beginning (choice) and an end (Jesus Christ), and (though Luther could say that we will always have the Law with us) there will be no Law in the New Creation only its fulfillment in the New Being.
The freedom to choose is itself bondage. Prior to the serpent injecting choice into the Garden, Adam and Eve were creatures of faith--beings who feared, loved, and trusted God above all things. However, once they were captured by choice, they saw that they must now choose between right and wrong: Choose Well! Their "being-ness" as creatures of faith had been reduced to "obedience" in the Law.
We are their heirs and our mortality lends urgency to our choosing. We've lost our identity as beings who can "fear, love and trust God above all things." We've lost the way in our vocation as creation's lords--the ones who were to have dominion over it, care for it, love it and be stewards of its bounty. The Law comes as the voice of creation looking for it's lords--the ones who were to "order" it through faith in Christ and "image" God(Christ) to it. But, since we are now preoccupied with choosing well, our choices become the idols of religion and we serve them rather than creation.
Still, the law does not stop demanding we be its lords. Sometimes that voice is heard as nature's imperatives: "breathe, eat, drink, defecate, reproduce, survive!" Sometimes the demand comes from a neighbor--a fellow creature, "Love me! Protect me! Care for me! Feed me!" The governing institutions in creation also have a voice, a demanding one: "Pay your taxes! Obey the rules! Drive on the right side of the road!" At times the law must heard as the voice of God coming in revelation to speak of things which may not be readily apparent to our observation; such as care for the poor and restraint in sexuality, the necessity of worshiping and thanking the right God, and the need for repentance.
In all these things what is accomplished by the law's demand is but a poor shadow of what is accomplished by faith. However, the works of faith--joyous, delightful, and spontaneous though they be--are hidden from us and our "choosing" so that they do not become idolatrous satisfactions of the law. Since we are "fallen" lords, creation has only one Lord now, Jesus Christ who, for the time being, remains hidden and his work is only revealed where the Word is given--at pulpit, font, and altar.
For now--this side of the eschaton--we cannot observably "order" the world by the works of faith, for then we'd lay claim to them and make them idols of our religion. We can rather have confidence that Christ is ordering it (because we are told he is doing so and--because of his faith--he is the only remaining lord of creation): ordering this old creation (including us) with its demanding Law to death so that the New Creation will arise complete with the now revealed glory of Christ as its order.
Until then, this old world is still demanding we be its lords and we must provide for its ordering as best we can. Some of nature's imperatives have been ameliorated by advancing technology. Some of the neighbor's demands, e.g. polygamy, slavery and Levirite marriage, have been superceded by other social institutions. Government's demands change under democracy rather than tyranny. And, we've come to see that the Law given in revelation as the voice of God comes conditioned by culture and circumstance. But the Law never stops accusing: Choose well!"
Thanks be to God for preachers who declare Christ and him crucified so that, in our hearing of this Word, the Holy Spirit will call, gather, enlighten and sanctify us and hold us in the one true faith which is the presence of Christ! There we can rest, rest from all our choosing and idol worship, held in the faith of Christ.
Yet, our ears are still mortal ears and we must leave the transfiguring mountain for our work on the plain where the cacaphony of creation's voices soon overwhelm the still, soft voice of the preacher speaking Christ the Word of God. These loud demands bring us back under choice's bondage as our idols clamor, "Choose well! Choose me!"
That's how it is to live during these in-between-the-times of our baptism. That's how it is to live in this paradoxical age of "already but not yet." That's how it is to live the "simul" as citizens of God's two kingdoms.
When creation was "ordered" by faith, creation itself was trustworthy. Man and woman were husband and wife--"one flesh"--as a matter of being and doing; there was no other way to be or anything else to do.
ReplyDeleteWith the injection of "choice" into creation, neither creation nor it's fallen lords are trustworthy. Men and women must "choose" to be husband and wife as a matter regulated by the Law.
The laws restraining sexual behavior can only approximate the trustworthiness of what was given in faith. What was once "being" and "doing" has been reduced to "choosing" and "obedience."
Though they merely mimic faith's trustworthiness, the legal restraints on sexual behavior are a necessity for our enjoyment of a somewhat trustworthy creation.
Sexual expression is too powerful a force to be left in the realm of individual rights (and this from a libertarian?). Sexual expression--so that there can be trust--is best viewed as the community's property to bestow upon individuals under certain circumstances.
Lou writes:
ReplyDelete"Maybe my imagination is wilder than yours, Dennis, because I can imagine a universe that is ordered by God where God is God and there is no law. This is going to be hard to explain here, but if God creates all things good, it is ordered in the creating, and he doesn't need the law to order that creating because it's his very state of being (good)."
But this is how I understand 'law'. In the tradition this primary ordering in the creating is an expression of the eternal law. God's very being expreses itself in the eternal law he has for all His creation.
"As to the assertion that an ordered creation implies some ordering, I think that's covered in the creating of good creation. Ordering or reordering is only necessary once a good creation fell."
But to create is itself to order in a particular way. This is clearly a supralapsarian phenomenon. We attest to this primal ordering in the Nicene Creed where God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.
Dennis,
ReplyDeletePerhaps the tradition needs to be challenged on just what the "eternal law" (God's divine intentionality) is. Perhaps Christ, not law, is the ordering.
If the progression is from perfect ordering in the law (pre-fall) to imperfect ordering in the law (post-fall, which necessitates Christ)to perfect ordering in the law (with Christ in the new creation), then Christ is merely a mechanism for the functioning of the law.
But the scriptures don't not speak of God creating "in the law." They tell of him creating "in the Word" which is Christ through whom all things came to be. In him all things hold together, not "in the law" all things hold together.
Starting with the law makes choosing and obedience the conditions of creation. Starting with Christ has faith through being in Christ as God's ordering intentionality.
I remember from Forde that if you start with freedom (that is choice and obedience), you always end in bondage. But if you start from bondage (that is, either bound to Christ or bound to the Law) then proclamation gives freedom because it binds us to the only One who can set us free, the Son.
In response to Tim's first post:
ReplyDeleteWe do seem to have a couple of friendly differences here. You write: "The nature of religion is to assume the eternal existence of the Law as the order of creation, set it place by God, demanding obedience, and ordering all of life into right and wrong. In religion, Jesus Christ is a stop-gap measure, a temporary fix so that the eternal Law can be fulfilled."
However, to say that the law is eternal is clearly NOT to say that Jesus Christ is a "temporary fix." Lutherans hold to the ubiquitous Christ in which the human and the divine are forever joined. Christ was present before all worlds, and Wisdom Itself played at creation's dawn.
You then claim that Jesus Christ is the eternal one, and that "faith in Christ is the ordering agent of creation, not the law."
I agree that Christ is the Logos which connotes 'language' and 'order'. However, surely faith itself is not the ordering agent of creation - - God is. (But if you mean by 'faith' 'Christ's presence in us' then, of course, Christ has the divine nature which, as God, does order all things.)
The law does not have a beginning, I would argue, but the over-and-againstness of the 'ought' to the 'is' does have a beginning. The necessary condition for this is sin and, as you say, human freedom.
Were Adam and Eve creatures of faith in their supralapsarian state? One might argue here that faith demands risk and that its necessary condition is the over-and-againstness of the fall. Tillich famously claimed that faith concerns the courage to be in spite of non-being. If law cannot be law prior to the fall - - I think that is your view - - then it would seem that faith cannot be faith prior to the fall either. This is an application of the important theological rule that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The law as "voice of creation" is a tantalizing image. I would say that the God's primal ordering of creation was that humans "fear, love and trust God above all things." This is God's primary intentionality towards his creation and is thus his "law" for creation. However, creation is fallen and human beings cannot "fear, love and trust God above all things." Now a fissure opens between 'ought' and 'is' and the law confronts us heteronomously. We refer to this basic over and againstness of the 'ought' to the 'is' as 'law'. The 'law' in this sense only arises infralapsarianly.
I quite agree that faith grants theonomous freedom from the externality of the law. Now, the law from without is also within, the fissure is healed, and human beings have real freedom (libertas.
I think I agree with the rest of what you say. Why, however, would it be a theological error to claim that the eternal law (the original divine intentionality towards creation) exists, and that the incarnation of Christ expresses God's redemptive will that all be saved despite the obvious fact that humans cannot free themselves? Why is it a theological mistake to distinguish the law in itself from the law in so far as it confronts us?
To Tim's second post:
ReplyDeleteSo much in our argument concerns the proper application of the terms 'law' and 'faith'. I want to use 'law' in a way that does not entail over and againstness. In other words, I can imagine a possible world where laws were in place, no one knew they were in place, and all acted in conformity with the rule of law - - even while not acting due to the law.
You, on the other hand, want to use 'faith' in a way that does not entail dubiousness, doubt, or an "in spite of" character. You can imagine a possible world where a being would have faith even though there was no possibility of doubt. I can't imagine such a world. It would be like trying to imagine up without down. I think 'faith' is a term that connects to the logic of contrasts in a way that 'law' does not.
In response to Tim's third post:
ReplyDeleteI would disagree that talk of God's primal intentionality under the rubric of 'law' downplays Christ to a mechanism for the functioning of law. Let me ask you this: If we were not to use the word 'law' would you be OK using 'primal intentionality, design and ordering'? That the Second Person of the Trinity is involved in such primal ordering goes without saying because all of the Trinitarian persons are involved in all acts of God directed towards the outside. All of God's economic operations are the unified work of all three Trinitarian hypostases.