Having recently published a blog about the ‘necessity’ (This word seems ill-advised in this context, but nevertheless.) of properly discerning what is truly adiaphora I find myself flummoxed, adrift, even asea.
It started with looking more closely at the LCMS 1999 task force report Ministry Plan to Homosexuals and Their Families which 25 years ago I felt was quite wanting. It legitimizes a false distinction between homosexual orientation being no sin and only homosexual acts being sinful. They referenced, in regard to their definition of male and female, to the 1981 CTCR report Human Sexuality. This in turn references the 1975 STATEMENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY by the Lutheran Church of Australia.
It’s the Aussies that apparently started the conforming of theology to psychology and biology saying, “In its assessment of, and attitude towards, homosexuality and homosexual behavior, the Church must, as in all matters, be guided by Holy Scripture. The available medical and psychological evidence must guide the Church in this assessment as it seeks to know God’s will in His Word.” This leads to the following conclusion: “God’s Word is silent about homosexuality as a propensity. In view of this and in the light of medical and psychological evidence the Church may not condemn or judge homosexual propensity” (3).
I don’t think this is a middle issue at all. If the Scriptures condemn (and they do) the propensity of men to desire women other than one’s wife, the propensity of thieves to desire other people’s property, the propensity of liars to lie, the propensity of drunkards to drink too much, then we can certainly say the Scriptures condemn homosexual propensity. And do note all of my examples, psychology has now said are addictions, diseases calling for treatment not punishment, for understanding not condemning, for Gospel not Law.
But what about this statement from the 1981 CTCR report cited above? We should stress that the judgment made here is moral and theological, not legal. The question whether homosexual acts between consenting adults should be legally prohibited is one about which Christian citizens may disagree. Not all matters of morality are fit subjects for legislation. Although law does play an educative role and must, therefore, shape moral convictions, questions of morality are especially fit subjects for legal codification when they impinge on the common good. Whether homosexual acts privately engaged in damage the common good in such a way that public concern and control are needed is difficult to judge. Even if one felt that such relationships were not a fit subject for legislation, however, the law would still have a legitimate interest in protecting children from homosexual influence in the years when their sexual identity is formed. At any rate, the judgment of informed Christians may well differ as to precisely where the legal lines ought more properly be drawn (35-36).
Is this really a Middle Thing, an Undifferentiated Thing? It’s hard to think so given the victory of LGBTQ in 2016 has quickly poisoned not just sexuality for children but education, matrimony, and self. Still, I do feel hoisted on my own petard about the limits of adiaphora.
However, I have no doubt about this. If Confessional Lutherans don’t get together and talk about all of the LGBTQ issues, some will be hoisted on the State’s petard. Will these be martyrs for the truth or fools about Middle Things?
