# Martin Luther and Homosexuality



## Scott Shahan (Sep 21, 2006)

My professor said in class the other day that when it comes to the Homosexual issue you can't use Martin Luther, since Martin Luther didn't say anything about it specifically. This is a ELCA school that I am at. I know his statement to the class is a wrong one. Does anyone know where to find in Martin Luther's works where he specifically speaks about Homosexuality. The only place that I have found so far is Vol 3 pg 255. 
How would you respond to something like this?

Scott


----------



## Ravens (Sep 21, 2006)

Two light smacks and a left hook.



Sorry, I'll let more informed people give the substantive replies.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 21, 2006)

anyone have any ideas?

Scott


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 21, 2006)

Hi Scott,

I'm not sure on what basis one would make such a claim about Luther. 

In his lectures on Romans (in the Scholia - I'm not sure just now if these are the earlier or later lectures on Romans, but for this point it doesn't much matter) he says on ch. 1:



> To uncleanness to the dishonoring of their own bodies among themselves. From the apostle this vice gets the name uncleanness and effeminacy. Thus we read in 1 Cor. 6:9: "œDo not be deceived; neither the immoral, "¦ nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, etc., will inherit the kingdom of God"; and in Eph. 5:3: "œAll uncleanness, or covetousness, must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints"; and in 2 Cor. 12:21: "œThey have not repented of the uncleanness, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced." He also calls this a dishonor, or shame; for as the nobility of the body (at least in this respect) consists in chastity and continence, or at least in the proper use of the body, so its shame is in its unnatural misuse. As it adds to the splendor of a golden vessel when it is used for exquisite wine, but it contributes to its inelegance when it is used as a container for dirt and refuse, so also our body (in this respect) is ordained either for an honorable marriage or for an even more honorable chastity. But it is dishonored in the most shameful way when it not only violates marriage and chastity but also soils itself with that disgrace which is even worse.
> The uncleanness, or effeminacy, is every intentional and individual pollution that can be brought about in various ways: through excessive passion from shameful thoughts, through rubbing with hands, through fondling of another´s body, especially a woman´s, through indecent movements, etc. I have called it "œintentional" in order to differentiate it from the pollution that takes place during the night and sometimes during the day and the waking hours, but which happens to many people involuntarily. Such things are not intended. I have called it "œindividual," for when it becomes heterosexual or homosexual intercourse, it has a different name.
> 
> Martin Luther, vol. 25, Luther's Works, Vol. 25 : Lectures on Romans, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1972).



He also addressed it in his lectures on Genesis which were delivered in the 1540's, late in his career (a brief selection from a discussion ranging over 4 pages):



> Moses proceeds with a description of a terrible sin. I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though this disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy. Of course, they were trained and educated in such a praiseworthy manner at Rome.ï»¿19ï»¿
> 
> But this passage contains a necessary and profitable doctrine. We see that when sins become the fashion and human beings smugly indulge in them, the punishment of God follows immediately. Therefore let us learn to fear God and to arm ourselves against the flesh and the devil, in order that we may not fall into similar disgraceful sins which God cannot allow to go unpunished. Moses describes the wretchedness and misfortune of the human race in strong enough terms. After the angels had eaten, he says, they undoubtedly talked about various things at table"”about the fear of God, about righteousness, and about the corruption of morals and the collapse of discipline; for perhaps saintly Lot complained about these matters. Peter does not state without cause (2 Peter 2:8) that the soul of righteous Lot was tortured day ï»¿20ï»¿ and night because he was compelled both to see and to hear shameful things. Therefore Lot´s mouth spoke out of the abundance of his heart (Matt. 12:35), and he could not control his grief when such saintly guests had arrived at such an opportune time.
> 
> ...



rsc


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 21, 2006)

Well there you go!


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 21, 2006)

Thank you Mr. Clark

I emailed the professor with the references that you cited. He returned my email and thanked me for it. Thanks for your help. Hopefully he will correct himself and let the class know that Luther did have something to say about homosexuality. I realize that the ELCA is getting closer to ordaining Homosexuals, and maybe that is the reason for his comments to the class
Scott


----------



## AdamM (Sep 22, 2006)

Scott, here is a Concordia Fort Wayne link to a paper that addresses the subject:

http://tinyurl.com/mtwx4


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 22, 2006)

Adam,

That link isn't working for me. I am very interested in reading that. When I click on that link all that comes up is a blank screen.
Scott


----------



## AdamM (Sep 22, 2006)

Sorry Scott.

Here is the whole link:

http://www.ctsfw.edu/academics/faculty/pless/homosexuality.p
df#search=%22luther%2C%20homosexuality%22

A better way might be to Google Luther and homosexuality and this paper done by John Pless of CFW comes up at or near the top.

I hope it helps!


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 22, 2006)

Thanks Adam!


Doctrinally speaking how does a ELCA memeber justify that homosexuality it acceptable? If we read the same scripture how do they not see that it is wrong? They must have a different view of the biblical text. Or their exposition needs a little help, but surely they learn that in seminary. Did Martin Luther believe that the Scripture was infallible and enerrent?
What are their main arguements? Does anyone know what goes on in their heads! They must have somekind of rational to believe what they believe. Maybe they all are relativists.
Scott


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 22, 2006)

Scott,

There are a few explanations. The first explanation is that rejection of homosexuality was a cultural condescension at the time and that, even though the Scriptures are inspired, they were written by fallible men who had their own prejudices and superstitions. That would be the view of folks who have any sympathy for the Scriptures at all.

An example used is Paul's teaching on slaves and masters. They claim that Paul endorsed the practice in his cultural ignorance. The Church, through the continued progressive help of the Holy Spirit, came to recognize that God really hated slavery unlike Paul but condescended to Paul and society and allowed him to pen that He really liked it. Likewise, God has really liked homosexuality all along but condescended to allow Moses, the Prophets, and that meanie Paul to inspire that He hated it.

Liberals would say that the Scriptures are permeated with myth and the teachings of man and you have to get past all of that stuff into the true message that God has. The message is, of course, that God is Love and that Christ came to redeem people and save them no matter what they do. God doesn't really hate homosexuality because, after all, God can't really hate anything (except maybe second-hand smoke, pollution, and George W. Bush) and He made people that way. It can't be wrong if God made you that way.

Of course, the _real_ theological reason they approve of it:


> Rom 1:28-32
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 23, 2006)

Another argument I've heard is that Paul was referring to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity and that he did not "know" that some people are born homosexual. The liberal understands "exchang[ing] natural relations" in light of his belief that the "sexual orientation" we are born with is natural and God-given.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 23, 2006)

Oh, I forgot another one: 

That the Scriptures only condemn homosexual rape and not "...a monogomous, loving homosexual relationship..."

...makes the skin crawl.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 23, 2006)

Where does the thinking that truth is evolving come from.? I know that it was some philosopher from the enlightenment era . This I think leads to becoming a relativist, everything is relavent. The ELCA people have said to me Scott, that was true then (homosexual issue)but we now live in a different world and so what was true then is not neccessarily true now. They say "we need to be culturally sensitive, and that when the scripture was written it was written with cultural bias of that day. How do I argue against their "cultural bias" arguement?
Scott


----------

