Ethics final paper

Currently in the ELCA one question threatens to split the church; that question is, “Should the ELCA ordain openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship?” This is an interesting debate; one side believes that the Bible is the final authority for the church, with tradition and the Book of Concorde as a second. Both scripture and tradition condemn homosexuality as sin therefore the ordination of homosexuals is threatening Luther’s stance of (sola scriptura) scripture alone as authority. The other side claims that the Bible is outdated in this circumstance as it could not comprehend a committed homosexual relationship therefore the verses that condemn homosexuality as sexual immorality should be ignored.
To consider this question from an ethical stand point is to consider it through the lens of the ethical theory “Divine Command.” In this paper I will: explore Biblical text that proves that it is unethical, from a Divine Command Theory perspective, to ordain openly homosexual persons, explain the Divine Command Theory, present both sides of the current argument, then draw a conclusion based upon the most convincing evidence.
Genesis 1:26-31 (ESV):
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
In the above Genesis passage God is forming creation and then He establishes an order to that creation. He made man and woman in His own image and then gave them domain over the creatures of the earth. So, God established a creation then created man to rule over and care for that creation. It is obvious that God didn’t create the fish in the sea to subdue the earth or the birds in the sky for that matter rather they are to be creatures in creation not rulers of it. The point is that there is a certain order to this creation account.
God created humans male and female; again establishing an order to this creation. Then He blessed them and gave them His first command, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” He commanded man and woman to multiply; this is the first office (or vocation) that God created. Man and woman are to reproduce through sexual intercourse and fill the earth with their offspring. Their second office is to subdue the earth. Webster’s dictionary defines “subdue” as, “to conquer and bring into subjection.” “To bring into subjection” supports the stance that there is an order to God’s plan for creation. He creates offices and set ups the law so that creation will remain in order and will not fall into chaos. Then in verses 29 and 30 God supplies everything that is required for humans to fulfill their calling (vocation). This is creation in the form it was intended and ordered; anything to the contrary would be immoral and contrary God’s command.
The “Divine Command Theory” is the theory that moral values are derived from the commands of God therefore to perform an action contrary to God’s commands would be an immoral action. For instance the seventh commandment states, “You shall not commit adultery;” thus if a person has sexual intercourse with another person other than their spouse they are committing an immoral action.
It is only right and ethical to consider the evidence from both sides of the argument for or against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship before a decision on its morality can be reached. First, I will consider the evidence in favor of the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship.
The argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship is based upon three premises: Jesus’ command to love your neighbor, contextual criticism of particular Biblical passages, and the idea that every person is in a sinful state.
Matthew 22: 34-39 (ESV)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The lawyer in the above passage was trying to trick Jesus into answering a question in a way in which they could accuse Him of Blasphemy. But Jesus, being the master of debate that He is, didn’t quote any of the commandments instead He went to the book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Jesus followed this answer with a summary of all the commandments: 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. It is from this passage that the first argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship comes from. Proponents arguing from this passage are saying that above all the other commandments and laws of the Bible we must first love God and then love our neighbor. Many of these proponents are very devout people as they hold God in the highest regard in their hearts and take their calling to serve their neighbor with the utmost sincerity. By excluding openly homosexual persons from the ordained ministry, in their view, we are not obeying our calling to love and serve our neighbor.
Contextual criticism is defined as: A form of criticism which views the literary text as a self-contained verbal structure. Akin to the New Criticism, contextualism holds that a work of art generates self-referential meanings within its own internal and autonomous context. (Glossary of Literary Theory by Greig E. Henderson and Christopher Brown) This theory considers Biblical passages in their original context. It asks questions of the text like: What was the author’s original intent? What were the circumstances the author was addressing in this passage? What was the cultural context in which this text was written? These are all valid and helpful questions that help us to form a deeper understanding of the Biblical text. Proponents for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship that are arguing from contextual criticism are saying that Biblical passages like:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
And
Romans 1:24-27 (ESV):
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
could not conceive of a committed homosexual relationship therefore the context in which they were written does not apply to today’s understanding of a committed homosexual relationship.
Romans 3:21-24 (ESV):
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
No human on this earth or in the history of this earth has ever transcended their sinful state outside of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-24 is law and gospel. 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, in this verse we find the result of the law applied to human righteousness; no one lives up, all fall short of the Glory of God, and this is the judgment applied to sinners, Guilty! But then we have the gospel: 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Proponents of the ordination of homosexual persons in a committed relationship view this piece of scripture as saying that we are all sinners, there is no difference, and therefore homosexuality is no greater sin as another.
On the surface these three arguments in favor of the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship seem like pretty compelling evidence but in reality they are twisting scripture to fit a certain world view. These interpretations are made by persons who approach scripture to stand over it and interpret it to fit their position as opposed to one who approaches scripture as the authoritative Word of God, letting scripture interpret them, there by standing under its authority. I cannot, in good conscious, leave these arguments in this paper without pointing out the deceitfulness of their content and make the argument against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship in the process.
Matthew 22: 34-39 (ESV)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
This is the divine Word of God and it is authoritative! The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart and the second is to love your neighbor. But what does loving our neighbor entail? If this were God’s only command then I could see the logic in the idea that by excluding openly homosexual persons from ordained clergy we are not loving our neighbor. However, this is not God’s only Word on this issue and to view it as the only word is to twist scripture. Verses such as:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Or
Romans 1:24-27 (ESV):
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
contradict the idea that we should just accept our neighbor no matter what their sexual orientation. I am the father of three beautiful children. If my son Joey (7) was putting candy from a store in his pocket with the intent to steal it from the store I would not let him do so even if by pointing out his sinful behavior I might offend him. My point is that you would have a hard time finding a neighbor that I loved more than my wife and kids as I am first called to the office of husband and father. However loving Joey does not mean that I should avoid hurting his feelings by not teaching him that stealing is a sin. Loving him means that I should point out when his behavior if sinful and correct his behavior so that he may avoid the sinful behavior in the future.
Galatians 6:1 (ESV):
6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Loving our neighbor means correcting them when they’re behavior is sinful. To allow a neighbor to continue to sin would be contrary to the teaching of scripture even if it brings persecution upon us from “the world,” which leads me to the second false teaching in this argument.
To consider scripture in its original context is a fine way to study the Word. It helps us to understand the author’s original intent which aids us in comprehending what God is requiring of us today. However to say that the teachings of the Bible are not applicable to life today is blasphemy. In the Lutheran church scripture is meant to be the final authority for the church. The Word of God does not have an expired shelf life. The proponents for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship are denying the Word of God by saying that its lessons do not apply to life today in this particular circumstance. The denying of the Word of God as authority leads us into the discussion of the final false argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship.
The desire to hold up the homosexual life style as an example of a proper relationship for a Christian leader is to deny that this lifestyle is sinful as it is considered sexual immorality. As the Bible verses I have pointed out in this paper show, it is clearly sinful and to lift this lifestyle as an example of a proper healthy Christian relationship is to blatantly disobey God’s divine command.
The argument against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship is based upon the belief in sola scriptura, scripture alone as authority. Scripture as authority is a belief that has been held by the Christian church since the first century. Tradition has also been proposed as a source of authority since this time. Neither scripture nor tradition has ever supported the homosexual life style as a God ordained position. To lift up this lifestyle as a proper Christian relationship is to let today’s world view override scripture and tradition as the authority of the church. It scares the life out of me to hand of the authority of Christ’s church to the world view of those who would call our two thousand year belief in scripture and tradition as outdated.
Not only is this lifestyle against the clear commands of God to avoid sexual immorality, it is also contrary to God’s order of creation as stated in Genesis 1:26-31. God created man and woman, not man and man nor woman and woman, for the purpose of multiplying and filling the earth and with the intention of them subduing the earth and ruling over it. There is no physical way that a homosexual relationship could produce offspring because it is not a God ordained office. In fact by partaking in a homosexual relationship a person is denying the very first command of God and is denying the office in which they were called. To deny God’s command and His order of creation is to behave in an unethical way according to the Divine Command Theory.
There are those who the question this argument by asking what about the spiritual gift of celibacy or the elderly or a barren woman who doesn’t poses the ability to multiply? Again this is rhetoric. There is not found in scripture anything that states that celibacy is a sin but is in fact considered a spiritual gift. This is a different office created by God and not one contrary to his commands. As for the barren and the elderly, this is a physical state not a behavior and therefore is a cross that that person if chosen to bear and not a behavior that contradicts the divine commands of God.
I started this paper by looking at Genesis 1:26-31 and stating that the intention of this paper was to show that the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship was unethical when viewing it through the lens of the ethical theory of Divine Command. I have made the arguments for and against his practice and have concluded that not only does scripture condemn this life style as sinful and sexual immorality but it is against the order of creation therefore is an unethical behavior.