Would Luther Be Pro-Gay?

Mary Zeiss Stange, a professor of women’s studies and religion at Skidmore College in New York, thinks so.

Lutheran anti-gay activists routinely, and correctly, point out that Luther had plenty of bad things to say about the scourge of “Sodomites” in 16th century Germany. Like his role model Paul, Luther was a product of the social prejudices of his time and culture: a time when the concepts of homosexuality as an “orientation” or a “lifestyle” were still unheard of. But would the man whose break from Roman Catholicism involved a revolutionary rethinking of the role of sexuality in human relationships take such a negative view of homosexuality today? Most probably, given the way his theological mind worked, he would not.

Al Mohler, on the other hand, sees through the nonsense of Strange’s strange argument. He thoroughly dismantles it by demonstrating the Luther’s revolutary thinking was deeply rooted in Scripture alone.

Professor Stange is absolutely correct in pointing to the fact that Luther’s break with the Roman Catholic Church also involved a transformation in his sexual ethics. Luther held to the superiority of marriage over celibacy and he expected his Lutheran pastors to marry. Without doubt, this was a clear rejection of the Catholic tradition of priestly celibacy. He also celebrated the physical dimension of marriage, affirming sexual intimacy in terms of physical pleasure as well as procreation.

So, in this sense as in others, Luther was a revolutionary. But how did he come to his conclusions? By what authority did he defy Rome? The answer is simple and straightforward—by the authority of Scripture alone.

As Luther told his prosecutor at the Diet of Worms, he would be convinced only by “Scripture and plain reason.” That is, he would submit his conscience to the authority of the Bible, plainly understood, and to no other authority.

. . .

What would Luther do? Asking this kind of question invites trouble. The question might be a fun exercise for a graduate seminar, but it cannot be answered in any helpful way, other than to go back to what Luther did.

Luther stood upon the authority of every single word of the Bible. As he repeatedly made clear, no word of the Bible could be dismissed—every word carries the full authority of God Himself. Luther put his life on the line for the sole authority of the Bible and this became the formal principle of the Reformation itself—sola Scriptura.

Luther specifically affirmed the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality and he never rejected or denied the full authority of any text of Scripture. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree to suggest that Luther would change his position on homosexuality if only he could be instructed about the modern concepts of sexual orientation and sexual lifestyles.

Well said.

I would add that Strange seems completely blind to the fact that it is she (rather than Paul and Luther) who is “a product of the social prejudices of [her] time and culture.”

Read the whole post at Mohler’s blog.

It’s worth noting as well that not all pro-gay “Christians” resort to rejecting Scripture—at least not on the surface. Some attempt to affirm it while redefining the terms. See this post at PastorBookshelf Blog: Gay Study Bible.

Like this post? Subscribe to our feed .