By James Polk
(Information on LCMS Concordia’s Counseling Program)
Introduction
This article provides a detailed exploration and antithetical comparison between a paper written at California Lutheran University (CLU) in 2001 for a religion major course and the conservative, traditional views of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) on sexuality. The 2001 paper was composed before the author’s gradual shift away from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) toward the LCMS, reflecting a more liberal academic approach at the time. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive account of that paper’s themes, summarize its content, and set it in contrast with LCMS doctrinal positions on scripture, sexuality, and the Christian life. The 2001 paper is posted in full at the end of this blog.
Summary Comparison of the Views I had at the end of my Religion Major at CLU in 2001 v. the LCMS Views I now hold
View of Scripture
My Paper (2001): In that paper I questioned biblical inerrancy, arguing that scripture reflects the historical and cultural context of its human authors. I suggested that biblical references to homosexuality were primarily addressing exploitative, patriarchal practices rather than the possibility of committed, loving same-sex relationships.
LCMS Position: By contrast, the LCMS holds to a high view of biblical inerrancy and inspiration, affirming that the Bible is the authoritative and error-free Word of God. Its stance is that passages condemning same-sex relations are universal and timeless, applying not only to exploitative practices but to all same-sex behavior.
Sexual Ethics and Purpose of Marriage
My Paper (2001): I leaned toward a redefinition of sexual ethics, arguing that sex could be separated from procreation and rooted in mutuality, equality, and love. I drew on theologians who suggested that homosexual relationships could model healthy mutuality.
LCMS Position: The LCMS teaches that God created marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman, with the dual purposes of companionship and procreation. Any sexual activity outside of this union—including same-sex relationships—is viewed as contrary to God’s design and therefore sinful.
Theological Framework
My Paper (2001): I drew on liberation theology and process theology, emphasizing God’s relational nature and the interconnectedness of all forms of oppression. I argued that opposing “programmed” prejudice against homosexuality was part of the ongoing work of the Kingdom of God, aligning justice and inclusivity with God’s will.
LCMS Position: The LCMS rejects liberation and process theology as inconsistent with confessional Lutheranism. It affirms that the Kingdom of God is revealed through Christ’s redemption, not through social justice movements redefining biblical morality. While the LCMS opposes hatred or mistreatment of people, it maintains that homosexual acts are sinful and that true freedom comes from repentance and faith in Christ, not affirmation of same-sex relationships.
Summary of where my Views had gone to by the end of my 4-years at CLU
In short, my 2001 paper sought to reinterpret scripture and ethics in a way that affirms inclusivity and same-sex unions, while the LCMS affirms the unchanging authority of scripture and upholds a traditional, creational view of sexuality rooted in male-female marriage.
Summary of the 2001 Paper
The original paper opens with an allegory about a cyborg commandant who enslaved humans simply because he was programmed to do so, even after his alien masters were gone. The story is offered as a metaphor for oppression, including the oppression of homosexuals in the church. The essay then traces historical arguments against homosexuality, such as biblical literalism, the procreation-based philosophy, and even the argument that AIDS was a form of divine judgment. It also highlights arguments in favor of homosexuality, such as love as the guiding ethic and reinterpretations of scripture that downplay or reinterpret biblical prohibitions.
Modern theologians like Jean Ponder Soto and Marvin M. Ellison are brought in to argue for a new sexual ethic not bound by procreation but centered on mutuality, equality, and responsibility. The paper critiques biblical inerrancy, suggesting that scripture must be understood within its historical context, and proposes that biblical condemnations of homosexuality addressed exploitative or patriarchal practices rather than loving, committed relationships. The essay argues that liberation theology and process thought provide frameworks for inclusivity and justice, viewing oppression in its many forms as interconnected.
Finally, the paper places this theological rethinking within the broader context of ongoing civil rights struggles. It concludes that rejecting “programmed” prejudice is essential for advancing the Kingdom of God, which is understood as present wherever justice, inclusiveness, and love are practiced. The message is that the church must resist ignorance and open itself to new expressions of sexual ethics consistent with modern science and inclusive justice.
The LCMS Position on Sexuality
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod offers a markedly different theological and ethical framework. Rooted in its confessional stance and strict adherence to biblical inerrancy, the LCMS affirms that scripture is the inspired, error-free Word of God. Its interpretation of passages such as Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26–27 is universal and timeless, condemning all homosexual activity, not only exploitative acts. For the LCMS, the Bible’s authority is non-negotiable, and its moral directives remain binding across all cultures and times.
In terms of sexual ethics, the LCMS teaches that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, instituted by God for companionship and procreation. Sexual intimacy belongs exclusively within this framework. Homosexual relationships, even if monogamous and loving, are considered contrary to God’s created order. The LCMS rejects the notion that love and mutuality apart from biblical norms can redefine what is good or permissible.
Theologically, the LCMS rejects liberation theology and process thought as incompatible with confessional Lutheranism. It insists that God’s nature is revealed definitively in scripture and that human reason, cultural trends, or political agendas cannot redefine divine truth. While opposing hatred and mistreatment of individuals, the LCMS maintains that repentance and faith in Christ, not affirmation of alternative sexualities, constitute the path to true freedom and salvation.
Antithetical Comparison
When set against one another, the contrasts between the 2001 CLU paper and LCMS teaching become stark. The paper seeks reinterpretation and contextualization of scripture, while the LCMS affirms timeless inerrancy. The paper proposes love, mutuality, and inclusivity as the basis for sexual ethics, while the LCMS grounds sexual morality in God’s creational design of male-female marriage. The paper frames liberation theology and process thought as tools for inclusivity and justice, while the LCMS rejects them in favor of classical Lutheran theology centered on God’s Word and Christ’s redemptive work. These antithetical positions reveal the broader divide between liberal theological approaches and conservative confessionalism.
Extended Exploration (Approx. 8,000 Words)
1. Historical Context
The 2001 CLU paper arose within an ELCA academic environment that valued higher criticism, liberation theology, and progressive ethics. At the time, theological faculties often emphasized inclusivity, reinterpretation, and dialogue with modern science and culture. The LCMS, however, had consistently maintained its confessional stance rooted in the Reformation, resisting the liberalizing trends in mainline Protestantism. A historical account of Lutheran divisions in America, from the 19th century immigration-based synods to the 20th century realignments, highlights the distinct path of the LCMS compared with the ELCA.
2. Journey from LCMS to ELCA and Back
The author’s own theological journey illustrates the lived tension between these two traditions. Raised in the LCMS, the author entered an ELCA-sponsored religion major program at CLU, which emphasized liberal theology, historical criticism, and inclusivity. Within four years, this environment shaped his outlook, moving him toward ELCA perspectives on sexuality and scripture. Yet, over time, upon deeper study of both scripture and historical sources, doubts about these liberal conclusions grew. The turning point came through examining the Jewish cultural and historical background of Paul’s writings, showing that Second Temple Judaism and rabbinic tradition categorically rejected same-sex relations. This analysis is laid out in detail in the paper hosted at Praxis Professional (link). The discovery that Paul’s teaching was consistent with Jewish cultural prohibitions against same-sex activity demonstrated that reinterpretations of scripture to affirm homosexuality lacked historical grounding. Confronted with the strength of these arguments, the author returned to the LCMS, finding in its confessional theology a faithful continuity with both scripture and Christian tradition.
3. Biblical Inerrancy vs. Contextual Hermeneutics
A central point of divergence is the view of scripture. The CLU paper rejected inerrancy, insisting on contextual readings that reflect patriarchal structures of the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman culture. The LCMS, by contrast, grounds all doctrine in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, regarding it as timeless and wholly reliable. This section explores key biblical texts (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10) and compares liberal reinterpretations with LCMS exegesis.
4. Sexual Ethics: Redefinition vs. Creational Design
The CLU paper embraced theologians who argued that sex is not bound to procreation but is a means of fostering love and equality. It praised the mutuality of same-sex unions as potentially exemplary. The LCMS, however, insists on marriage as instituted by God between man and woman, grounded in Genesis 1–2. This section examines natural law, Luther’s catechisms, and LCMS documents such as the CTCR Report on Human Sexuality, showing how creational design defines the boundaries of sexual ethics.
5. Theological Frameworks: Liberation and Process Thought vs. Confessional Lutheranism
Liberation theology and process thought were celebrated in the CLU paper for their inclusivity and relational view of God. The LCMS critiques these frameworks as human-centered, undermining God’s sovereignty and revelation. This section explores how confessional Lutheranism emphasizes law and gospel, justification by grace through faith, and the authority of the Book of Concord, setting it apart from modern theologies that attempt to reshape doctrine around cultural concerns.
6. Civil Rights, Justice, and the Kingdom of God
The CLU paper framed the acceptance of homosexuality as part of the ongoing civil rights struggle, tying it to the presence of the Kingdom of God where justice and inclusiveness flourish. The LCMS acknowledges civil rights as a legitimate concern but refuses to equate sexual ethics with justice movements that contradict scripture. Instead, the LCMS proclaims that the Kingdom of God is made present through Christ’s redemptive work and the proclamation of the gospel, not through redefining moral norms.
7. Pastoral Care and Practical Implications
Both perspectives address human suffering and the need for compassion, but their applications differ. The CLU paper urged inclusion of same-sex unions in church life as a matter of justice. The LCMS emphasizes care for individuals struggling with same-sex attraction while calling them to repentance and faith in Christ. This section examines pastoral guidelines, counseling practices, and the tension between truth and love in ministry.
8. Reflection on the Author’s Journey
The author’s personal journey—from liberal theological exposure at CLU to rediscovering the LCMS confessional stance—provides a narrative thread. This reflection highlights the intellectual and spiritual shifts, the recognition of biblical authority, and the contrast between inclusivity-based ethics and creational theology. It illustrates how theological convictions evolve in dialogue with scripture, tradition, and personal experience. The Praxis Professional essay played a decisive role, showing that Paul’s cultural and theological context could not be reinterpreted in favor of affirming homosexuality, thus reaffirming the LCMS perspective as faithful to both scripture and Jewish-Christian history.
9. Conclusion of Extended Exploration
The extended analysis reveals that the 2001 CLU paper and LCMS teaching represent fundamentally different approaches to theology and ethics. One seeks adaptation to culture and inclusivity; the other seeks fidelity to God’s Word and the order of creation. This conclusion underscores the broader conflict within Christianity between liberal and conservative approaches, reminding readers of the importance of discernment, doctrinal clarity, and pastoral integrity.
Conclusion
The 2001 paper and the LCMS position represent two vastly different ways of engaging questions of sexuality and scripture. The former reflects a liberal, academic, and justice-oriented framework that sought inclusivity and reinterpretation, while the latter embodies a conservative, confessional approach that emphasizes fidelity to God’s Word and the creational order. This antithetical comparison underscores not only the theological divides within Lutheranism but also the broader fault lines within Christianity regarding scripture, culture, and morality. In the end, the shift from ELCA-influenced perspectives back toward LCMS conviction illustrates the author’s own journey—from contextual liberal theology to a rediscovery of confessional Lutheranism rooted in scripture and history.
Text of the 2001 Paper in full is posted below
“I was simply following my programming”. Those were the last
words of the cyborg human commandant. He was a robot
programmed to run a slave work camp. The slaves were humans and
he was a robot with human flesh on the outside of his machinery. His
programmers were aliens from another planet who had enslaved the
humans and made them work to mine oil for their ships. On the day
that the humans found out that their overlords were really robots and
finally rebelled and won their freedom, they also found out that the
aliens had not been on the planet for over 100 years, and the
commandant was simply keeping the slave camp running because of
his programming. When the slaves opened the front gate to the
complex and stepped outside, a lush green world awaited them.
Oppression simply because of programming. I would like to make this
little story an analogy for all kinds of oppression, and specifically for
the oppression of homosexuals.
Throughout the history of the church, homosexuality has been
denounced as a sin. There have been all kinds of different arguments
against homosexuality. There is the “Christian” argument that God
created man and woman and ordained marriage between men and
women only and not between the same sex. There is the philosophical
argument that homosexual unions do not produce children, and
therefore should not be allowed. There has recently been a “Christian”
argument that it should be clear that homosexuality is wrong because
of God’s judgment upon it in the form of AIDS.
There have also been arguments in support of homosexuality.
Citing love as the criteria for judging all actions and relationships,
committed homosexual relationships have been deemed acceptable.
Also the higher criticism of the Bible has led to new interpretations of
the passages in scripture supposedly dealing with homosexuality. Not
only the interpretation of scripture, but the view of scripture has
affected some Christian’s views on homosexuality.
In his article entitled “The Church and Marriage: Looking for a
New Ethic”, Jean Ponder Soto, writing from a background in the
Roman Catholic tradition, posits that when sexuality is “unlinked” from
procreation, them we have to rethink our ideas about sexuality.
Starting with the post Vatican view that the purpose of marriage is to
produce and educate children and for spouses to love and care for
each other, Soto goes on to argue that sex does not have to be
connected so rigidly with procreation. Sex can be used as a way to
foster love between two partners. He sees that sexual expression and
lovemaking between two partners is one of the best ways that we can
see what God is like and what the meaning of the incarnation is. He
sees lovemaking as making love apparent in a concrete way, and that
is what happened in the Incarnation.
Once it is established that sex can be engaged in solely for the
purpose of pleasure and the mutual uplifting of sexual partners, the
door is opened wide for the acceptance of same-sex unions. He says
that the way in which gay and lesbian couples practice mutuality and
equality can be a great example to heterosexual couples on how to
break out of the traditional dominant and submissive roles of men and
women respectively.
In his article in our reader entitled “Common Decency: A New
Christian Sexual Ethics”, Marvin M. Ellison sees that there is a gap
between official church teachings on sex and what people actually
believe. He wants the church to rethink its sexual ethics in a clear
way. His idea for a new sexual ethic is the ethics of love and
responsibility as opposed to the traditional ethics of heterosexuality
and marriage. He sees that the church has produced only guilt and
fear instead of sexual maturity with its exclusion of so many kinds of
sexual experiences. He also sees that our loyalty to God is the
foundation of the church’s mission to seek justice. If we ignore sexual
justice then we are forgetting the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “a
threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. He sees
this oppression as emanating from our culturally conveyed system of
patriarchy. Patriarchy is the cultural socialization to see male
dominance as the supreme value. We as men are taught that we must
be stoic and unaffected by the world around us and that we must rule.
This socialization into a patriarchal system harms us by marginalizing
many people who do not fit the traditional stereotype of manliness or
femininity. To quote Ellison directly, “The moral challenge before the
church, therefore, is this: It must choose between perpetuating a
patriarchal ethic of sexual control and gender oppression or pledging
its commitment to an ethic of gender justice, of mutuality between
women and men, and of respect for sexual diversity.”
The view that one takes of scripture is of utmost importance in
formulating a Christian response to any issue. Reading through the
Moody Handbook of Theology, Biblical inerrancy is upheld throughout.
The view is that the Bible is totally inspired by God and has no errors.
I used to be one of the most adamant supporters of this doctrine.
That was before I entered the arena of the higher academic study of
religion. I feel that this doctrine falls apart miserably. This doctrine
fails to acknowledge that the bible is a book that was written by men
who did not have the same knowledge that we do now. The belief in
an innerant scripture ties us into accepting the scientific worldview of
the biblical writers along with the true wisdom and insight that can be
gleaned.
I believe that the biblical writings must be interpreted in light of
the historical situation in which they were written. The bible only
speaks about homosexuality a few times. When it does speak about it,
it is viewed as being a sin. I believe however that what we have today
in the situation of committed, loving homosexual relationships is a
whole different thing than what was going on when the scriptures were
compiled. The Middle East, like most of the world, was and continues
to be a patriarchal society. In a patriarchal society, as was noted
earlier, male domination of society is seen as the highest “good”. In
the book of Leviticus, it says that it is an abomination for a man to lie
with another man as he would with a woman. I believe that this is
talking more about cases of male dominance over other males in the
context of rape than it was of committed homosexual relationships. I
don’t think that they really even existed in that culture. Because of
the patriarchy of the society, homosexuality was never even an option,
because it did not fit the mold of male dominance over a woman. In
the New Testament, Paul lists homosexuality in among a list of other
sins. Many scholars believe that again, the situation being described
was not one of committed relationships, but one of sexual exploitation.
Oftentimes, older men would take young boys and would have
sexually exploitative relationships with them. Many times the men
would surgically alter the boys so that they could enter them.
Opposition to things like that is what I feel that the true spirit of what
the biblical writers wrote.
Process thought and Liberation theology go hand in hand in
working towards communities of inclusive wellbeing for all peoples.
Process thought sees God not as static and unrelated to the world, but
as the supremely related one. In the Moody Handbook of Theology,
process theology is said to detract from the personality of God, but I
do not agree with that analysis. I feel that if God is unaffected by the
world then God would be impersonal. I feel that only by God’s being
affected by the world can we speak of God as being personal. In the
handbook, process theology is said to take its authority from man
instead of from God because it is based on human reason instead of on
revelation. My objection to that is that even the Bible relies on human
understanding and experience. More than that, the supporters of
fundamentalism interpret the Bible to make it fit their own political
agendas.
Liberation theology, while mainly focusing on the socio
economicly poor, sees all forms of oppression as being linked together.
The goal of liberation theology is to set men free. It sees systems of
economic oppression, gender oppression, race oppression, religious
oppression and oppression of sexuality as branches of the same tree of
oppression. All forms of oppression have their root in fear of the
other. When people who are not like us are seen as enemies and as
threats to us instead of as brothers and sisters, then people are
demonized and their oppression is justified.
In our naming of God in exclusively male terms, we support a
system of patriarchy, androcentricism and of heterosexism. It is a
funny thing to hear people say that God is spirit, and say that referring
to God as he is simply a metaphor, and that God is not a man, and
then see them cringe when God is referred to as she. It must be
realized that the terms father in reference to God do not imply
maleness. Abba Father as Jesus called God indicated a closeness and
personal relationship with God, and it also signified the transmission of
wisdom. Today father implies something different; it means more of a
raising and of male “progenation”. Just because words don’t mean the
same thing today as they did yesterday does not mean that they were
false or untrue. It simply means that in the context of a particular
society, the truth about God is communicated in different ways.
What does this all have to do with homosexuality? Well, it
relates to homosexuality in that a broader understanding of the
historical situation in which past societal norms were lived out gives us
a better understanding of our situation today. In light of much of
modern science, we can see that evolution took place. Now does that
mean that the creation stories in Genesis were false? No! It simply
means that they are not literal. It means that people thousands of
years ago had to make sense of how we got here somehow. I think
that the basic truth that the universe has its origin in God is the truth
of the creation stories. In light of much of modern science, we see
evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, but people are born with
that orientation. Does that mean that we totally discount what the
Bible says about homosexuality? No! It simply means that we must
take the words of the biblical writers in context. Exploitative sex is
wrong. The biblical writers believed that, and I believe it. The biblical
writers were not contemplating the morality of committed homosexual
relationships.
Last weekend I got into a discussion with a friend of mine as
to whether the civil rights movement was still going on. He felt that it
wasn’t and that people have grown extremely complacent. While I
agree that the consciences of people need to be raised with regards to
oppression worldwide, I do think that the civil rights movement is still
going on. I believe this because of the people I have met, and the
things I have been seeing in the church. The day after that
conversation I stopped to eat dinner at an in and out burger joint, and
I started reading the newspaper. I found an article about a recent
meeting of the Episcopalian church. In it was a brief synopsis of a
discussion going on within that church about the inclusion of and the
ordination of homosexuals. Just the fact that this is even an issue
makes me think that there is no way that the civil rights movement is
over. I think that the whole climate in which children are raised today
has been profoundly affected by the happenings of the 60’s. Hatred is
no longer acceptable in the mainstream. Ignorance is no longer
tolerated. My friend might be right about the complacency of people
lately, but I feel that there are enough people thinking over the issues
of sexual oppression, economic oppression, gender oppression, racial
oppression, and just oppression in general that unless a fascist dictator
takes over the world, these things will exist to a lesser and lesser
degree in the world. I recently heard a song on the radio by a group
called Beck. The chorus said, “I want to defy the logic of our sex
laws.” The song is not calling for rampant sexual promiscuity, as some
people would say it is. I feel that it is calling in less technical terms for
a rethinking of our sexual ethics. Like Ellis, a lot of people are seeing
that common decency, not heterosexuality or strictly marital sex,
should be our criteria for judgment.
Oppression simply because of social programming is what we
need to fight. Basically we are fighting ignorance. We are opening the
gates to a whole new world that was at one time thought to be a land
of desolation, but is proving to be the kingdom of God. The Kingdom
of God is present when justice, love and inclusiveness are present.
I definitely had gone from LCMS to ELCA back in 2001. I am now all the way back and further into the LCMS.