Necessary Roughness

An opinion in USA Today by Mary Zeiss Strange posits that Martin Luther would have supported homosexuality today because he was such a revolutionary. The American Spectator ties that article with efforts in the ELCA to accept homosexuality.

To say Luther was a revolutionary completely ignores the context of what Luther was struggling against. Luther felt that the Roman Catholic church had fallen away from scriptural teaching with the RC practices of indulgences, praying to the saints, etc. In his view the Roman Catholics were the revolution, substituting the precepts of man for the doctrines of God. It makes more sense in light of Scripture to say he was counter-revolutionary.

It particularly boggles my mind how Luther, with his theology driven from Galatians and other works of St. Paul, would be at odds with behavior blasted by Paul in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy.

The vague reference in Strange’s article that Luther criticized Roman Catholic “polemics again sodomy” doesn’t detail why or how Luther was opposed to them. Luther was very much aware of a civil rule versus a religious rule in his “two kingdoms” theology. He may have even objected to the treatment of these sinners. I find it more likely without reading the polemics and his response that Luther was criticizing the use of state power by the Pope. In fact, if in this country it came down to having police officers enforce sodomy laws between consenting adults in the bedrooms of homeowners versus having police officers investigate homicides, I would ask that the police use their finite resources in enforcing the latter. The civil vs. religious aspect must be weighed.

But even if Luther were back (not at the Movies or Lutherama) and said in no uncertain terms that homosexual behavior was approved by God, Luther would be wrong. Christians are under no charge to believe anything that comes from a particular person because that person said it (some denominations do implicitly trust a leader, though). We evaluate everything that is said in light of the Bible.

This struggling of the Christian community is all for naught. The campaigning is intense, as if all of these people would not be sinners if just this behavior were sanctioned. Even if this behavior were sanctioned and gay marriages were actually blessed, we’re still sinners. It would be more truthful if the advocates would say, “Leave us alone! We don’t accept Moses and Paul! We want to do our own thing!” rather than say, “Well, they would have thought differently if they were around today, so you should accept our behavior now.”

Each one of us participates in behavior that breaks God’s Law. When we are reminded that we have violated the Law, we do not deny that we have violated it. We repent. We try not to do it again. Some would deem a particular sin is special and excusable because there may be a genetic disposition to it. We all have an inherited disposition to sin. We deal. We fail. We confess, receive absolution, and start the cycle again.

If we confess, God will forgive us. Even if one commits homosexual acts. Even if one commits murder. Even if one calls somebody a fool. To reject calling a sin “sin” is to reject God’s forgiveness of it. We can’t confess everything, but we must not reject the law’s accusation of a sin.

There are many things where abrogation of Mosaic Law and Christian freedom may give people confusion as to what is forbidden and what is not. This is not one of those things.