A statement signed by, so far, more than 130 ELCA “teaching theologians” (as the ELCA Press Release has seen fit to dub them) has come out in support of all four recommendations by the ELCA Task Force on Sexuality. I will show how misleading and self-contradictory their statement is. But I have to begin here on a personal note.

I belonged to the students who first attended Seminex. I was consequently ordained in the miniscule AELC, which body went on, however, to play a disproportionately important role in subsequent American Lutheran history. I note that of the signatories to this statement, the following professors from Seminex appear: Mark Bangert, Kurt Hendel, Ralph W. Klein, Edgar Krentz (all at Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago) and Everett R. Kalin (at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary). These men were my teachers and models. Among other signatories are Kathryn A. Kleinhans, Wartburg College; Peter T. Nash, Wartburg College; Douglas E. Oakman, Pacific Lutheran University; Gary Simpson, Luther Seminary—all fellow graduates of Seminex. I could also mention my theological friend, Ronald Thiemann of Harvard, who had graduated from Concordia—St. Louis somewhat earlier, whose name also appears on this statement.

A little church that represented around 2% of the merging churches in 1989 to this day produces a disproportionately high number of leaders, taking the “right side of history,” as we used to say in those days. There are many other signatories as well whom I would regard as friends in theology through the years. Naturally I find it painful to break ranks with these old comrades. But I do. I have to bear witness that the solution they propose in this statement is no solution: not biblically, not theologically, not ecclesially, and not pastorally. It is going to be as constructive as the Exile thing itself was, that is, a destructive polarization, a demoralizing division, fueled by self-righteousness and leaving a lot of human wreckage in the wake. But let me show you why.

The claims of these teaching theologians are misleading and self-contradictory. In addition to appealing to the Task Force Recommendations (lines 147-212), the statement highlights the following four points, which I will cite verbatim and then comment on.

We too affirm the authority of the Scriptures, but the seven biblical texts that are frequently cited on the issue of homosexuality are not directly pertinent to the 21st century discussion because some of them condemn specifically homosexual rape, deal with questions of “clean and unclean” that are not normative in the Christian community, do not take into account issues like “sexual orientation,” and presuppose that all would agree with a particular interpretation of what “nature” teaches.

If these teachers affirmed the authority of Scripture, they would take their orientation on the question in dispute from the weighty and ecumenically recognized texts of Genesis 1:26-28 and Mark 10:2-14, as the Lutheran christocentric hermeneutic of Scripture requires. Then they would interpret the seven biblical texts prohibiting homosexual relations in that light. Of course, without the positive good in view that the prohibitions seek to protect, the prohibitions appear as arbitrary and not “pertinent.” Thus their reference to the supposed ambiguity or irrelevance of these negative prohibitions is subterfuge—a false appearance created by considering the prohibitions apart from the positive good of God’s creative purpose in the one-flesh union of male and female that these (and other) laws regarding sexuality seek to protect. Notably, then, these teachers fail to affirm the biblical and Lutheran doctrine of marriage, as we shall see in the next section. At a minimum, this sin of omission misleads; it exposes in any case the falsehood of their claim to “affirm the authority of Scripture” as it has been understood in Lutheranism and is claimed for the written Word of God in the ELCA Constitution, Chapter Two.

The Task Force wisely proposes that both heterosexual and homosexual persons are expected to express sexual intimacy within publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous relationships. This has long been the expectation for heterosexual couples, and therefore is an appropriate expectation for homosexual couples as well.

The wisdom of this counsel is hardly to be doubted. But it is not wise counsel dispensed by the Task Force. What wisdom it possesses derives rather from divine law, as in the Fourth and Sixth Commandments, which we learn in the Catechism and pledge ourselves to in confirmation and ordination vows. The wisdom of lifelong and sexually exclusive commitment might conceivably be extended to same-sex couples, but to do that we have to begin with the good that God wills and intends normatively. So here too a subterfuge occurs, betraying the claim of the teaching theologians to affirm the authority of Scripture in faith and life. Under this mask of prudential counsel, we in fact witness material antinomianism, that is, the content, the good revealed in Scripture is disregarded, and a merely formal law of responsibility, without any particular content, takes it place, just as we see the draft Social Statement and the Four Recommendations.

Be it noted that the Task Force could have had the real wisdom of supporting civil unions in civil society for homosexual persons, as a matter of equal protection under the law of the land in our kind of liberal democratic order. Then, in light of the analogy of that such unions might bear to Christian marriage, it could have asked whether the church might under certain conditions recognize them, though not bless them with the blessing of Genesis 1:26-28. Real wisdom from the Task Force might then have prevented the theological self-destruction of the ELCA that will now possibly occur in August. But the pseudo-wisdom recklessly endorsed here by the “teaching theologians” does nothing to assure that a material, content-rich return to the teaching of, and self-discipline under, the law of God, as we see it in Luther’s Catechisms, will occur in the future, and everything to worry that a formalistic, abstract, and politicized notion of “critique” of those who actually hold to the material content of the commandments will take its place. Do I imagine this?

The first recommendation of the Task Force rightly proposes that acceptance of same-gender relationships among all people of this church is a prerequisite to considering people in same-gender relationships for rostered leadership positions.

This latter worry that those who oppose these changes on material grounds will be vilified is now reinforced by the statement here that same-gendered relationships must be accepted by all people of this church. This is a manifest misreading of the Recommendation, which howsoever incoherently urges a local option blessing of same-sex unions and later a local option ordination of persons in such unions. If the teaching theologians are saying that “rostering” of persons of such relations awaits universal approval in the ELCA, it will never happen. What are they thinking? The reference to universal approval of same-gender relations seems ominous.

While not all Lutheran church bodies are of one mind on these issues, Scandinavian and German Lutherans have already taken similar actions to those being proposed now in the ELCA.

This a huge overstatement, as anyone familiar with the church situation in Europe knows. Only the state churches of Sweden and Denmark have established such policies regarding homosexuality, which in any case immediately caused trouble with other member churches of the LWF. Under similar political pressure from the state as experienced in Sweden, the church of Norway has recently narrowly approved ordaining homosexuals in partnered relationships and is bitterly divided as a result. Finland, arguably the most vital Lutheran church in Scandinavia, has to date not followed suit. And Germany as a whole has not—the bishops of the EKD voted down such a change (though it is possible that, just as in the ELCA, local options are being exercised within this or that of the Landeskirchen). Why we Americans would want to follow the lead of contemporary Sweden, with the lowest church attendance in the entire Lutheran world, is another question we will not pursue here. Utterly ignored by our “teaching theologians” is the deep opposition to the proposal from the really vibrant, flourishing African and Asian Churches in LWF family, as well as African Americans and Latinos in the ELCA, not to mention the vast majority of the traditional constituency of the ELCA.

Thus we see the divisiveness of this proposal cavalierly tossed aside with yet another subterfuge. The minority Lutheran churches of Eastern Europe with which I have worked will be deeply demoralized if the ELCA takes this action, and will be sorely tempted to turn away from their present good relations with it. The appeal to precedence here is highly selective, and does not even try to justify continuity with the church through ages, according to ELCA Constitution, Chapter 3.

We who favor the changes being proposed pledge ourselves to honor and respect those sisters and brothers within the ELCA who for reasons of theology and conscience choose to oppose these changes.

This is not believable, for several reasons. First, those who for reasons of theology and conscience oppose these changes cannot and will not in any sense cooperate with them, but rather bear public witness that those who teach these things are not faithful to Scripture and Confession, as pledged in ELCA Constitution Chapter 2; that the people of God should not listen to them; and that they should certainly not support in any form a church that admits such changes. If we act on our consciences, there is no alternative but publicly to contradict the claim of these 120 to teach us. How will they honor their opponents, when they act on their opposition? Second, this affirmation as mentioned contradicts the statement made above that acceptance of same-gender relationships among all people of this church is a prerequisite to considering people in same-gender relationships for rostered leadership positions. I don’t know what sense to make of this contradiction but I find it loathsome beyond telling if it implies what logic would require it to mean.

We recognize that the unity of the church is based on one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and that within this unity, faithful members may disagree on individual items of faith and life.

This pious platitude, unmasked, asks us to continue together as a church where an agenda should be pursued that contradicts things that opponents hold as integral to the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. I don’t know any other Lord Jesus than the one who teaches in Mark 10:2-14, invoking Genesis 1:26-28, and I deny that unity exists with those who appeal to some other Lord than He. That would be two Lords, no longer one, ergo no any longer one faith, one baptism.

After making these four points, the statement goes on to endorse all four of the recommendations, contradicting, as mentioned above, the claim above that acceptance of same-gender relationships among all people of this church is a prerequisite to considering people in same-gender relationships for rostered leadership positions. How logically can we not take this to mean that such acceptance will be required when all four recommendations are adopted? Practically, it is inconceivable in any case how a future ELCA with a divided clergy could in any functional way come together as church, and given ELCA mandatory “inclusiveness” policies, opponents can expect nothing from it but vilification, marginalization, blacklisting, and defamation as “fundamentalists,” “neo-orthodox,” “homophobes,” etc.

The threat of coercion that I infer contradicts the pledge to honor and respect those sisters and brothers within the ELCA who for reasons of theology and conscience choose to oppose these changes. I do find it hard to believe that at least some of these 120 theologians would actually make this veiled threat. But one should minimally think that “teaching theologians” placing their signature on a piece of propaganda would be responsible enough to think about what they are signing and capable of observing rules of elementary logic, as in, e.g., the law of non-contradiction. What else do these “teaching theologians” base their claim to authority on? We have already seen that it is not Scripture and Confessions! Facing this contradiction, they should retract their endorsement of all four Recommendations, and return to the drawing board.

If not, the crack up of the ELCA after this summer will be their responsibility, along with the drafters of the Social Statement and Recommendations, not those who act in fidelity to vows made in confirmation and ordination, along which lines the ELCA is officially pledged in Chapters 2 and 3 of its Constitution, for the sake of the matter, the content, and the good which Holy Scripture gives to us in this regard, which is the “one-flesh” relation of man and woman. Were this teaching clear, pastoral flexibility and evangelical mercy could prevail as they ought in our churches in regard to sisters and brothers who bear the cross of same-sex desire. But since it is not clear, and since veiled threats are being issued to keep matters obscure, those true to Scripture and Confessions have no choice but publicly and officially to protest.

Paul R. Hinlicky is the Tice Professor in Lutheran Studies at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia.