Tag: sodomy

“The time has come,” the walrus said, “to talk of many things. Of Jews, of Gyps, of temple tax, of sodomitic flings! And why hellfire is burning hot, and whence went the church bell’s rings.”

He also said it was time to talk about part 3 of this series (Part 1 here, Part 2 here). And when the walrus says so, Lutherans hop-to. So without further ado, here we stand… and here we go.

The next question and answer is from 8/3/2023.

Transcript:

Jeff:
Aaron resides in Falls Church, Virginia. He writes,

“Pastor Wilken, I was having trouble squaring what your response was on the listener comment line about civil punishment and homosexuality with what Doctor Mike Middendorf said on the original episode on God commanding the killing of homosexuals in Romans1:32.

“I understand you to say having civil punishment was something Western civilization had seen for millennia as reasonable to one degree or another. Doctor Middendorf seemed to rule out civil punishment altogether, saying he didn’t think that would be applicable to the sin of homosexual behavior in any case, just as the government shouldn’t be perhaps punishing greed or for disobeying parents or anything like that. Am I misunderstanding something here?

“Furthermore: stipulating that the Bible doesn’t command civil laws mandating the death penalty for homosexuality… does it forbid them?”

Thanks for the email, thanks for listening in Virginia, Aaron.

Todd:
Doctor Middendorf and I were speaking to two kinds of subtly different points. Mine was simply a recognition that the laws of Western civilization have included criminal penalties for homosexuality and for adultery and for fathering children out of wedlock, and for all sorts of things that we no longer punish civilly. That’s just an observation of history.

Whereas Doctor Middendorf was dealing with the question, “was St. Paul advocating that the Roman government should be executing homosexuals when he says that homosexuality, among all these other sins, is worthy of death before God?” And he said, that’s not what Paul’s doing. Otherwise, he would have called for the Roman government to punish greed and disobedience to parents and all all sorts of things like that.

So he was making a different observation than I was, because Paul, living in that Roman context, simply could have said, “these things should be punished by death by the government.” But he doesn’t. He acknowledges that all these sins, not simply homosexuality, but all these sins before God, are worthy of death. And again, in the course of Paul’s long argument from Romans chapter one, in Romans chapter two, he goes from kind of the hypothetical to the “you” of Romans chapter two. That where we can find everyone else guilty of all these sins, ultimately comes down to where we stand, where I stand before God. And I too, along with the homosexual and the extortioners, all the other things that he lists there, I too stand worthy of death before God.

Retconning the Narrative

The first and most pressing matter to address is Wilken’s attempt at rewriting history.

If only that segment had been merely answering the question “was St. Paul advocating that the Roman government should be executing homosexuals”! There is a simple and honest answer to that query, and it goes like this:

Not as such.

Paul wrote a theological treatise on the coming of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to an audience of believers in Rome. Paul’s purpose in writing was not to — in the fashion of Machiavelli — assume the role of advisor and counselor to the emperor. Rather, he sent this letter ahead of himself as a herald of the Gospel.

However, we may not derive from this lack of address to the ruling authorities that Paul was opposed to a civil death penalty for sodomitic acts. Such would be worse than an argument from silence, for in this text Paul does indeed give clear indication as to his convictions on this matter when he says that “[sodomites], 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.”

The objection may come: “Aha! But Paul is not here giving a command, to say that we ourselves, or the government which rules us, must do this.”

It is quite true that Paul here speaks in the indicative sense, and not the imperative sense, but this is proof itself in his subscription to such a command, given by Another. In the same way, I might say “what goes up, must come down”. I say this not as the author of such a law, but as an observer of the law which was given apart from me, and to which I bear witness with testimonies of words.

Again, when Paul spoke about death being the proper penalty for sodomitic acts, he was arguing from this as an established and accepted fact, not arguing for it as a prescriptive conclusion. For Paul, it was a foregone conclusion that this penalty was the salutary civil punishment for sodomy and, moreover, his argument from this fact rests on the assumption that his hearers are likewise disposed.

Therefore, while Paul did not undertake in this letter to advocate for the Roman government to execute sodomites, he did in this letter acknowledge the continuing meetness of the law God spoke to the Israelite nation through Moses. Nothing in Paul’s statement should cause us to doubt that a judgement of earthly death remains an appropriate punishment for sodomitic acts, as also for murder, even as through Paul’s appeal to this law he is working to turn our faces toward the judgement of eternal death for all manner of the unrighteous works for which man is guilty.

Is that what we got? No.

We got:

• Told that capital punishment for sodomy was an antiquated practice of ancient Israel that was unique to its place and time
• Told that the penalty was analogous to Israel-specific ceremonial laws, such as those regulating sacrifice and dietary restrictions
• Told that the penalty was analogous to the practice of slavery — the obvious cue for the audience to “boo”
• Told that this law was fulfilled and done away with in Christ
• Told that this law was merely typological, only to show God’s judgement on sin
• Told that this law was simply to show us how sinful we are, to cause us to despair and drive us to Christ and the Gospel
• Told that Christians are to love all, not selectively choose certain sins to carry out justice upon in the civil realm
• Told point-blank that the government should not punish “homosexual behavior” (which is undefined, so we are left to wonder if Middendorf is against sodomy laws, or simply against the censuring of “gay pride” parades)

Read that list again. This repeated pattern of argument over the years is exactly how the ELCA got a transgender bishop.

Civil Punishments for Civil Crimes

It bears repeating in discussions like these, where civil penalties are in view, that we need to ever and always be careful to mark a distinction between the internal proclivities (concupiscence) of Original Sin, and externally consummated acts (actual sin). The clergy class marinates in Second Use (the Mirror), which is focused on the Moral Law written on our hearts, so much that they entirely forget the First Use (the Curb), which is chiefly focused on external manifestations of lawlessness. As such, they fall easily into the antinomian shuck and jive, asserting:

If we had civil penalties for manifest adulterers, then we would have to punish everyone as all have at times had lust in our hearts!

This is of course a patently absurd assertion. It is incoherent to contend that, because a civil law has an underlying moral component that is violated in concupiscence (without breaking the civil law itself), it means that the civil law is per se absurd and should not be enforced. So, it will suffice here to simply remind of the necessity of marking this distinction.

As an aside, Wilken’s earlier point that civil punishments for adultery were abolished in the United States prior to the abolition of sodomy laws — to the country’s lamentable detriment — is worth recognizing. It accomplished the steepening of the gradient of the slippery slope that has brought us to this moment in history.

Not My Heckin Daughterino!

One of the reasons any discussion of capital punishment for sodomites is fraught with peril, even within the believing community, is that so many of our brothers have had sons and daughters taken captive by this corrosive ideology. Everyone with a sodomite son or daughter understandably shrinks from the concept of putting them to death, were such laws in place. Doubtless this very strain has caused not but a few to renounce “the God of the Old Testament,” and try to find a way to incorporate celebrating perverse acts into the practice of their (now so-called) faith. These need our prayers and compassion, even as we stand firm in God’s revealed will.

What is additionally lamentable in such cases is that only very few ever consider that if the sodomite(s) that got to Joanna had been put to death aforehand, she wouldn’t have become “Joey”. A social contagion plague ends when the vectors are brought down to the dust. You want this to be before it finds your house, and a Godly society will invest in this.

A Prayer and A Noose

Over a century ago we understood the difference between God’s mercy and civil judgement. Someone found guilty of a hanging offense would be spiritually ministered to in the days leading up to the execution, and once they took their place on the gallows the charges would be read, followed by the sentence, which was ultimately capped with: “May God have mercy on your soul.”

That is, we understood that, in this life, clemency for the perpetrator is often cruelty for the victim(s), and we do what we must, while hoping in the Lord for the deliverance of the condemned’s soul.

Indeed, sparing the wicked from lesser punishments now is to hate them, for without the rod of correction their iniquities will only grow more vile and bold. As Luther put it:

Just as it is a great mercy not to allow young people to have their will and way, whether it be accomplished by threats or by the rod; it will still cost trouble and labor enough to oppose and prevent evil, even though we punish severely. If punishment were altogether omitted and mercy took the place of office, the country would be full of rogues, and the world become a mere den of murderers. Then one would say to another: If you steal from me, I will rob you; if you go with my wife, I will go with yours. No, this would never do; therefore the executioner is a very beneficial and even a merciful man, for he prevents the rogue from repeating his crime, and restrains others from committing crimes. He executes the one and thus threatens others that would do the like, that they may fear the sword and keep the peace. This is a magnificent grace and pure mercy.

Martin Luther, Sermon for the 4th Sunday after Trinity, Text: Luke 6:36-42

But contra Luther, the LCMS insists that you are always the greater sinner. They bid men be sorrowful for getting out of bed in the morning, for as they are sinners every temporal act of any kind must be shot through with the evil nestled in their hearts. And since they are such great sinners who desire clemency, when they hear of obscene acts committed against others they can only muster the Golden Rule: “I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me; I would have forgiveness for my wickedness, therefore I must ask them not to do it again and let them go free.”

This is exactly what happens when you say that your own trifling sins are logs in your eye, whereas even the grossest most depraved and destructive sins of your neighbor are but specks in theirs — as I previously covered extensively. You would bid Hans the executioner to find other work and pat yourself on the back for your great mercy; and hence the world would be overrun with rogues.

Game Theory for Christians

When it comes to the question of what is to be done with the perpetrator of a wrong, there are three main ways a society can get it wrong and result in utter collapse of civil trust and cooperation.

1. Failure of the civil magistrate to enact retribution on wrong with fair and sufficient punishment to avert repeat offense (Lex Talionis, cf. Ex 21:23-25, Lev 24:19-20)
2. Men becoming so litigious that the courts are overwhelmed with petty disputes and can no longer function to uphold just laws
3. Men resorting to vigilantism to settle personal disputes in a dog-eat-dog feeding frenzy

When Christ said,

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

Matthew 5:38-41, NKJV

… he was not thus abolishing civil courts or civil punishments, nor was he forbidding Christians to file charges against and seek recompense from someone who has wronged them (as some LCMS pastors teach). This would have been to collapse society according to point 1 above. In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly speaks of civil courts as one who expects them to continue in their role of adjudication, and that’s before you even get to Romans 13. In this, the predominant 21st century Lutheran interpretation — that Christ came to abolish the law (cf. Matt 5:17) by revoking for believers Moses’s grant of appeal to civil authorities — is dead wrong. Contra Joel Biermann, when Jesus says not to resist an evil person, he is not here contradicting Proverbs 25:26.

Rather, Christ was preaching against the Jewish custom of practicing points 2 and 3 above.

Regarding point 2, this hyper-litigiousness (generally with regard to money, cf. Matt 5:25-26, 18:21-35) is inferred in verse 40 above, where the lender is suing the debtor over his cloak — the very thing which Moses forbade.

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge. You shall restore to him the pledge as the sun sets, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 24:10-13, NKJV

Regarding point 3, you see such taking matters into their own hands each and every time they tried to stone Christ or cast him off a cliff.

Instead, Jesus shows his first hearers a better way.

Rather than taking one another to court and clogging up the system over pennies, forgive one another’s debts.

Rather than striving with one another as Cain against Abel, going back and forth in escalating eye-for-eye tit-for-tat Hatfeld versus McCoystein feuds over what started as trifles and insults, forgive one another’s trespasses.

Christ shows his first hearers, and everyone who has come after, how to avoid the social death-spiral of hard-heartedly refusing to forgive.

Nothing in that necessitates against turning to the civil magistrate to punish intractable bad actors, guilty of gross violations of the law, common decency, and social peace and safety.

In Conclusion

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this total of four essays. My prayer is that this has given you deeper insight into the purpose and beauty of God’s Law, and that this has given you firm footing to withstand neo-Lutheran gaslighting regarding same.

As at the end of the first piece in this cycle, I will end with a warning and a charge.

The warning is that, if those trends in speaking about sodomy, personal sin, et cetera (which I have waged war against in these essays) continue to find purchase in the LCMS, then the saga of this denomination as a Christian one is de facto finished. No other denomination has survived saying the things that now ring from our seminaries, publishing house, and pulpits. To a one they have all become skin-suits stuffed to bursting with necroses.

Therefore my charge is that the LCMS attending among you the readership share these essays with your pastors. Talk about these subjects openly at Bible study and in your homes. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, along with a good commentary if need be (volume III of this project should do well, if you can wait 2 years). Meditate on the nature of the law for the governance of society, and how that is similar and how that is different to the moral law.

Pray for Wilken to understand these matters. And if he cannot or will not, then pray for him to retire quickly so that he does not bring shame on the great good he has done with his broadcast over the years. Die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain, and all that.

God gave Solomon the wisdom to administer over His people because Solomon requested it. Do the same in petition for the wisdom to understand the times we are in, and for the truth of God to stand as a bulwark in your mind against the derangement of the age.

May God grant it to you. Amen.

Explicit Content Warning:
The following article contains material that is not suitable for children.

This is part 2 of 3 in my examination of Issues, Etc.’s defenses of the segment on capital punishment for sodomy. Part 1 can be found here.

In this part, I take up Wilken’s answer to the second critique heard on his July 26th, 2023 comment line broadcast.

A caveat: This post by necessity contains references to dirty deeds done in the dark, and is not intended for children.

Transcript:

Jeff:
Here’s some more feedback on your interview with Doctor Middendorf, “Does God command the killing of homosexuals in Romans Chapter one?”:

“With regard to this segment with Doctor Middendorf, does the word abomination have any meaning in the Bible when it applies that word to some things and not others? Why was the word not mentioned in the segment? Did Middendorf cover this in his commentary?

“Furthermore, does the state have any legitimate interests in considering the execution of rapists, pedophiles and men who murder children, as well as men who mutilate the genitals of children? What is the point of a state sword if it is forbidden from executing those citizens who practice the most heinous destruction, or is sodomy a victimless crime?

“Finally, if a state is not required by God to execute sodomites, is it allowed to? On what basis? The basis that sodomy is just a speck in our neighbor’s eye, while pirating a Disney movie is a plank in ours? Would you feel better if Hollywood pirates were executed too? Or if that’s too silly, just substitute shoplifting instead. I hope you at least agree that it is normal and wholesome for the state to execute murderers, even though that’s just a speck in those people’s eyes.”

Todd:
Well, again, the the state has decided, in terms of capital punishment, that there are crimes that rise sufficiently to a level of harm or danger, in the case of, say, treason, danger to the nation, the entire nation, that these things should be capital crimes. And really, it’s a legal question, rather than a theological question.

As to whether or not, why we didn’t use the word abomination, did we read through the entire thing? I think at one point, doctor Middendorf read through the entire first chapter of Romans and on to the second.

Jeff:
I don’t recall it. I usually tell you to make sure we read the entire text for our listeners because they’re listening and don’t have their Bibles with them.

Todd:
And I think he did. And I— well I don’t recall him commenting on “abomination,” I think we could call any sin an abomination before the Lord. How do we get off saying my sins… I’m not tempted toward homosexuality, but I am tempted toward heterosexual lust. Is it less an abomination? Of course not.

And then just a comment on the thrice mentioned “speck in the neighbor’s eye,” a not too clever reference to one of the essays in the recent Large Catechism from Concordia Publishing House.

It’s an uncharitable reading of that particular essay to say that the essayist was simply referring to the crimes the sins of homosexuality and other sins as mere specks of sins. They were talking about— referencing Jesus’ own words. You gotta do something with Jesus’ words. You can’t throw them out. The attempt to say that we can’t call our neighbor’s sins specks flies in the face of Jesus’ own words. All sins are planks, as far as God is concerned. All of them. But Jesus speaks those words, and you cannot throw them out. They mean something. And he simply says, you cannot attend to what appears to be a speck in your neighbor’s eye while you still have the plank in your own. Remove the plank so that then you can deal with the speck in your neighbor’s eye.

It’s not about the relative size of sins. I really hope that there are Bible commentaries that deal with this. It’s not about the relative size of sins. It’s about whose sin gets dealt with first. If you can’t read Jesus’ words and draw that conclusion, then I don’t know what to tell you.

As Long As It’s Legal

Wilken states here that the matter of what the ruling authorities will deem worthy of the death penalty is a legal question, not a theological question. One wonders: by what standard will the authorities legislate, litigate, prosecute, and judge on this matter? If the authorities decided that espousing faith in Christ warrants the death penalty, would that simply be a legal question, too? At what point would Todd concede that Scripture must weigh in on these questions?

In keeping with a consequentialist reduction of the law (as mentioned in part 1), this reeks of the old “as long as it’s legal, bro” punting of the TV generation having to grapple with the place of God’s law in jurisprudence.

Abomination of Abominations

Wilken also seems to miss the rebuke’s reference to the use of the term “abomination” for sodomy in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. He then dismisses the relevance of the term, saying:

I think we could call any sin an abomination before the Lord. [chuckle] How do we get off saying that my sins…I’m not tempted toward homosexuality. But I am tempted toward heterosexual lust. Is it less of an abomination? Of course not!

Considering that God Himself does not call just any sin “an abomination before the Lord,” but limits this to gross sexual perversion (see my original article for a longer discussion on this), idol worship (Deuteronomy 7:25), and cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18), to call just any sin by this term demands resorting to an equivocal sense of the word. Here again, as in part 1, Wilken insists on a false equivalence between sins.

That said, because heterosexual adultery is indeed listed among the ‘abominable’ sexual sins in Leviticus 18, more should be said about that specific example.

Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.

…

‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you  (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.’

Leviticus 18:20, 24-30, NKJV

Wilken’s statement here deals with internal proclivities (concupiscence), not externally consummated acts — this distinction will be discussed more fully below. Since only internal desires are in view here, which strips away consideration of external consequences for sins that would serve as confounding variables, let’s run a thought experiment. Wilken’s assertion here is that there is no spectrum, no scale when it comes to varying species of desire for what will be the source of one’s venereal pleasure. As a man, lust for a man is no more a sin than is lust for a married woman.

What about lust for a goat? And let’s even make it a male goat. A man who sees one of these and turns his head as he pictures lewd acts with the creature… and Wilken’s temptation to lust after a human woman is no less abominable?

The intact moral compass recoils. The non-cauterized conscience is revolted. And why is this so?

Because nature itself testifies to the depth of the depravity of such inclinations, which descend far deeper than the otherwise natural desire of a man for a woman. This is why, though God calls all sexual sins abominations before Him, He testifies additionally (and not just one time) that sodomy is an abomination.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 18:22, NKJV

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13, NKJV

Therefore sodomy is literally the abomination of abominations.

But don’t take my word for it, take the word of the fathers of the Church, from the inspired St. Paul in the 1st Century:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Romans 1:24-26, NKJV

To St. John Chrysostom in the 4th Century:

For these [catamites] are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature: but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this were worse than any punishment. Yet if you say they found pleasure in it, you tell me what adds to the vengeance. For suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully. But that I may show the atrocity in a yet clearer light, bear with me in one more example. Now if any one condemned a virgin to live in close dens, and to have intercourse with unreasoning brutes, and then she was pleased with such intercourse, would she not for this be especially a worthy object of tears, as being unable to be freed from this misery owing to her not even perceiving the misery? It is plain surely to every one. But if that were a grievous thing, neither is this less so than that. For to be insulted by one’s own kinsmen is more piteous than to be so by strangers: these I say are even worse than murderers: since to die even is better than to live under such insolency. For the murderer dissevers the soul from the body, but this man ruins the soul with the body.

And name what sin you will, none will you mention equal to this lawlessness. And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil. For there is not, there surely is not, a more grievous evil than this insolent dealing. For if when discoursing about fornication Paul said, that “Every sin which a man does is without the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body,” what shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed?

John Chrysostom, Homily 4 on Romans, Translated by J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, and revised by George B. Stevens.

To his 4th and 5th Century contemporary, St. Augustine:

Can it at any time or place be an unrighteous thing for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind, and his neighbor as himself? Therefore those offenses which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.

The Confessions, St. Augustine, Book III, Chapter 8, emphasis mine

To St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century:

In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above, is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another’s authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above.

Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature. …

Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above, and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Genesis 37:2, “He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime,” says that “they copulated with cattle.” After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the “vas” than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 154, Article 12

In conclusion, the modern desire to flee from God’s clear words on the gravity of sodomy is just that: modern.

Of Logs and Specks

Now we turn to the matter of logs and specks in all of this. Where Wilken sees flippant casuistry on the part of the commenter, I see genuine concern for the question of how we address what are (in many cases) criminal acts taking place within our society when our clergy class insists that all sins are equal.

Since it was brought up, permit me a digression into what Mrs. Fr. Brock Schmeling wrote in her essay on the Sixth Commandment in the new Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications. Actually, permit me several digressions, because to address this matter is to twist open a veritable matryoshka doll. This was not a woman off on her own in the theological weeds. This was a woman who had pastors and theologians grooming her and her takes at every step along the way. From her ordained husband, to her pastor, to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), to the seminary professor editor, to the Synod President — every one of them signed off on this, and each has only doubled and tripled down since her theological categories and articulation were called into question.

I’ve elected to take a long quote, to provide a sense of the context which is often asserted to be missing in critiques of same.

Luther faced a different reality [than the Israelites whose sexual sin most commonly manifested in adultery qua adultery]: “But among us there is such a shameful mess and the very dregs of all vice and lewdness.” He then addresses the common unchastity of his day, motivated in part by the “shameful mess,” namely, the irony of monastics who esteemed virginity far above marriage yet failed miserably at it. Much like doctors who “cure” genetic disorders by aborting babies, the “popish rabble” cloistered themselves away from “vice and lewdness” and devoted themselves to “chastity,” hoping to avoid adultery by rejecting marriage. But God honors marriage in the Sixth Commandment, and the monastic rejection led only to individuals who “indulge in open and shameless prostitution or secretly do even worse, so that one dare not speak of it. . . . Their hearts are so full of unchaste thoughts and evil lusts that there is a continual burning and secret suffering.” Marriage is therefore not only honorable but also beneficial to curb temptation.

Like Luther, we also must address the most common unchastity among ourselves: that in the name of “sexual freedom” we feed our continual burning and honor neither virginity nor marriage. Our sin isn’t even secret: we speak of our lusts through crude joking and foolish talk, often naming ourselves by our sexual sin as no murderer or liar ever does.

However, though some of us are burdened with homosexual lust, pornographic addiction, transgenderism, pedophilia, and polyamory, more often they are the speck in our neighbor’s eye rather than the log in our own (cf. Matthew 7:3–5). For decades, if we didn’t wink at fornication we certainly turned our eyes from it, as long as the acts performed outside of marriage were heterosexual ones. We shudder in disgust when it suits us, forgetting that we, too, follow our hearts, that organ which produces
every evil thought and sexual immorality (Mark 7:21–22). We are in love, so we live as though married; we are out of love, so we break our marriage oaths before death has ended them. …

We may be tempted to see as sin only those most brazen acts of rebellion. But each of us must begin by removing the log from our own eye, for “if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness” (Matthew 6:23). Confess and receive absolution: “But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Andrea Schmeling, “The Sixth Commandment: Sexual Purity,” Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications, Published by Concordia Publishing House, 2022, emphasis is the contested passage

Let’s take a stab at what Mrs. Schmeling is perhaps trying to say here (setting aside, for the moment, the fact that she has no business saying anything in this context). The final quoted paragraph above, taken from five paragraphs below the contested passage, gives the key.

Commenting upon the relative gravity of the sexual sins named does not seem to have been the intent of Mrs. Schmeling’s words. Rather, she seems to seek to call out the willful blindness of her Christian audience, who through studied inattention have ignored or even excused the rampant fornication practiced by our sons and daughters — and, in some cases, even ourselves. Indeed, she seeks to direct the reader’s attention inward, to abate any incipient pride. To remember that fornication, also, is a sin to be repented of, same as any other. She acknowledges that some in this list may even be more “brazen acts of rebellion,” and seems to say (rightly) that appeals to the existence of more extreme sin “out there” does not serve to absolve our own hearts before God.

For my part, if I had wanted to get this sort of point across after her fashion of writing, I might have said:

In our day we find ourselves surrounded by all manner of “out and proud” sexual licentiousness too abominable to recount. We, like righteous Lot, have cause to be “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked” (2 Peter 2:7b). Nevertheless, we are called to remain vigilant lest, like Lot himself, we ourselves give way to sexual perversion of other kinds. Many of us have shed tears over lives formerly given over to fornication, or continually struggle with the besetting sin of lust. When we are tormented with guilt for these, we remember our Baptism and that “the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.”

And we remember as well that God offers this same Baptism to the wicked who walk about us, and to the most exalted of vile men, for He names among the saints men who left their former venereal vices behind when He says, “such [sexually immoral, adulterers, and sodomites] were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). Therefore, even as in the Kingdom of the Left Hand we oppose such lawless deeds and those who practice them, in the Kingdom of the Right Hand we confess and proclaim to those presently lost that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15).

Now, the above paragraph explaining what I take to be Mrs. Schmeling’s position used fewer words than she took to state it originally. Favoring poetic turns of phrase and meandering over clarity is a flaw with a number of these essays, and spritzing Biblical phrases and reformer quotes every couple of lines has all the same energy of the dorm monitor spraying Febreze while walking down the jock hall. It’s no cover for the stink of poorly conceived and poorly articulated theology. It should go without saying that indeed yes these ideas could have been expressed “more clearly.”

Therefore, now that we have done our due diligence to suss out the praiseworthy — though abysmally executed — intentions of this piece, let us proceed with what is intractably wrong with it. After all, though Mrs. Schmeling’s intention may not have been to comment on the relative gravity of specific sins (and maybe it was, as per her pastor’s defense of the piece, which we shall come to in time), that is the clear effect of her words. We will begin our examination of this fact with the most aggravatingly ironic element of the entire matter: the text’s overt denial of the Lutheran Confessions.

Denial of the Lutheran Confessions

Yes, Mrs. Schmeling’s piece denies the Lutheran Confessions. Ironically, it denies the Large Catechism (LC). Ironically ironically, it denies the explanation to the Sixth Commandment. Ironically ironically ironically, it denies the section of the LC Mrs. Schmeling quotes just two paragraphs above the contested “log” and “speck” line — included in the quote above.

To reproduce the quote in full:

From this you see how this popish rabble, priests, monks, and nuns, resist God’s order and commandment, inasmuch as they despise and forbid matrimony, and presume and vow to maintain perpetual chastity, and, besides, deceive the simple-minded with lying words and appearances.

For no one has so little love and inclination to chastity as just those who because of great sanctity avoid marriage, and either indulge in open and shameless prostitution, or secretly do even worse, so that one dare not speak of it, as has, alas! been learned too fully.

Luther’s Large Catechism, Explanation to the Sixth Commandment, Martin Luther

Read that last line again. In this passage of the Large Catechism (and hence, in our Confessions), Martin Luther states that there is a worse sexual sin than fornication with prostitutes. Though he tactfully declines to name it (as he alludes to in his commentary on Genesis 19) in this book meant for teaching families with small children, Luther spoke about it explicitly elsewhere: it is sodomy. Significantly, this includes, but is not limited to, pederasty. In point of fact, it especially denotes pederasty—the rape of boys. If sodomy is the abomination of abominations, pederasty is the abomination^3. And while a full exposition of the data on the topic is beyond the scope of this piece, it is worth mentioning that when you plot for time, the Venn Diagram for sodomy and pederasty is just…a circle.

And on that score, there really is nothing new under the sun. Luther:

I am not lying to you. Whoever has been in Rome knows that conditions are unfortunately worse there than anyone can say or believe. When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal. From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull.

More remarkable yet, in the same bull they decided that a cardinal should not keep as many boys in the future. However, Pope Leo commanded that this be deleted; otherwise it would have been spread throughout the whole world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy. I do not wish to mention the pope, but since the knaves will not repent, but condemn the gospel, blaspheme and revile God’s word, and excuse their vices, they, in turn, will have to take a whiff of their own terrible filth. This vice is so prevalent among them that recently a pope caused his own death by means of this sin and vice. In fact, he died on the spot. All right now, you popes, cardinals, papists, spiritual lords, keep on persecuting God’s word and defending your doctrine and your churches!

No pope, cardinal, bishop, doctor, priest, monk, or nun will condemn such an obviously disgraceful life; rather they laugh about it, excuse it, and gloss over it. They incite kings, princes, country, and people to defend such knaves with life and property, with land and people, and faithfully to protect them so that such vices might not be repented of and reformed, but rather strengthened, sanctioned, and approved. Now you are to hazard blood, body, and life just for the sake of saddling your neck and conscience with this.

I could easily mention more examples of such abominations, but it is too shameful; I fear that our German soil would have to tremble before it. But if an impudent popish ass should come along and dispute this, he will find me ready to do him battle, and it will be quite a battle!”

Luther’s Works Volume 47, p.38, emphases not original

Indeed, Luther continued to hold the same position he articulated in the LC — that forbidding marriage results in disordered passions including those “worse” than fornication with a prostitute — all his life. Why, he was still speaking about it a decade after publishing his LC, such as in the following table talk:

Through the papists Satan so defiled [natural affection] that in his little book on the celibacy of priests Cyprian wrote, ‘If you hear a woman speak, flee from her as if she were a hissing snake.’ That’s the way it is. When one is afraid of whores one must fall into sodomite depravity, as almost happened to St. Jerome.

Table Talk: “There Is Danger in Avoiding Marriage,” 29 May, 1539, Luther’s Works Volume 54, p.357

In a quote worthy of being placed in the list above featuring Paul, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Aquinas, Luther said,

The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female. Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversion? Without a doubt it comes from the devil. After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature.

Quote as found in What Luther Says: An Anthology, ed. by Ewald Martin Plass, emphasis mine. Pick up your copy from Concordia Publishing House today, before they discontinue it for badthink!

But let us return to the statement in the LC: “For no one has so little love and inclination to chastity as just those who because of great sanctity avoid marriage, and either indulge in open and shameless prostitution, or secretly do even worse, so that one dare not speak of it, as has, alas! been learned too fully.”

To perhaps restate: it is the clear and explicit ruling of the Lutheran Confessions that sodomy, especially pederasty, is even worse (a greater sin) than fornication (with a prostitute no less). To say otherwise is no simple and innocuous theological difference of opinion. To say otherwise is to depart from and contradict the Confessions. To maintain that fornication and sodomy are equal sins is by the Missouri Synod’s definition false doctrine.

This is not LCMS rules-lawyering. The Confessions faithfully expound the soul-saving doctrine of the Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:16). And to the present point: Lutheran ministers vow before Almighty God that they believe this. To contradict the doctrinal standard is a double lie. First, it defames the name of God Himself by putting lies in His mouth, effectively forging His signature on a fraudulent letter. Second, it is oath-breaking. Both are evil. The first is worse. “The Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). False doctrine is an enormity, not a quibble. And when Todd Wilken says that fornication and sodomy are equal in the sight of God, that is false doctrine.

When Mrs. Schmeling espouses that some guy’s child-raping is a speck in his eye, while your fornication is a log in your own, that is false doctrine — taught by a woman. Verily, it is named as such by the very quotation she used two paragraphs before.

Fr. Brock Schmeling signed off on it. Mrs. Schmeling’s pastor signed off on it (as we shall see). The entire CTCR signed off on it. CTSFW Professor John Pless signed off on it. LCMS President Matthew Harrison signed off on it. And when it was exposed, they all doubled down.

The CTCR forthrightly asserts that this volume does not change, question or supplant any doctrinal position of the LCMS, including any Synod teaching on contemporary cultural issues such as race or sexuality. The CTCR furthermore categorically rejects any assertions to the contrary. …

[T]he text of the Large Catechism itself remains entirely unchanged in this volume, using the English translation found in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions—A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. It is the same text to which our Synod has always subscribed as part of our unqualified commitment to the 16th-century Lutheran Confessions. …

[T]he text of each introduction, annotation and excursive essay underwent thorough review and subsequent approval by the CTCR, as well as Synod doctrinal review. These reviews were undertaken to ensure that all material was in accord with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and the Constitution, bylaws and doctrinal statements of the Synod. Numerous suggestions for improvement were offered during this process and were ultimately addressed satisfactorily.

LCMS CTCR Statement on ‘Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications,’ February 2023, emphasis mine

[T]here is nothing in the content of the volume promoting critical race theory (CRT), confusion of sexuality issues, or any theological position at odds with biblical and confessional Lutheranism. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s doctrine is established only by the Scriptures and confessed in the Book of Concord. By God’s grace we remain steadfast in this eternal truth and confession as we await the return of our blessed Savior Jesus Christ.

Frankly, I think each reader will be astounded at the content and quality of the volume.

Update from President Harrison on Large Catechism, Feb. 2, 2023, emphasis mine

With their own mouths, they have said it. I urge them to reconsider, while it is yet day.

Thus, Ryan Turnipseed’s original criticism of the passage stands against all the slander leveled at him.

[W]e have an equivocation of homosexuality, pornography, sodomy, pedophilia, whorishness, and transgenderism with heterosexual fornication outside of sex.

That is, the LCMS can’t say “sodomy is evil” without softening it with “but so is straight sex before marriage”.

@turnipmerchant

If your pastor is effectively demanding that you stand down over so-called “LGBT+” issues and focus on the log of your own heterosexual lusts, inform them that our confessions call sodomy worse than sex with a prostitute. He will either repent, or he will become ipso facto a quatenus subscriber to the Confessions.

With that, we turn to one such pastor and author of a screed which is emblematic of a subtle antinomian drift within Synod. As has been hinted, it is Mrs. Schmeling’s own pastor.

The Incoherence of “Your Sin Is Always Worse” Theology

Back in April, Mrs. Schmeling’s pastor, Charlie Lehmann, realized that it was the theology he had inculcated in the young lady which was being expressed in the contested passage. In a Facebook post on April 18, 2023, he wrote:

In her essay in the Annotated Large Catechism, Andrea Schmeling wrote, “Though some of us are burdened with homosexual lust, pornographic addiction, transgenderism, pedophilia, and polyamory, more often they are the speck in our neighbor’s eye rather than the log in our own (cf. Matthew 7:3-5).”

She’s being attacked for this because she’s a woman and, of course, laity and because some think it minimizes the sin of pedophilia.

It struck me this morning that she probably wrote this because one of her pastors taught this to her for about 7 years. I know this pastor rather well. He’s me.

I frequently preach that we should take Matthew 7 and 1st Timothy together. We are the chief of sinners. Whatever sin another person might commit, our sin is worse. That’s a categorical statement. It is absolute. Whenever we address the sin of another, we must address it as one sinner to another.

So don’t go after Andrea. Go after me. Go after the other pastors who may have taught her the same thing. In her essay she’s actually doing what some critics say that women should do exclusively: Listen to their pastors.

LCMS pastors love to put women forward as theology teachers to men and the equal of men. Then, when men find occasion to sternly criticize the woman’s theology, just as they would a man’s erroneous theology (see everything I’ve written about Wilken and Middendorf), LCMS pastors put on the white armor (which is kind of funny, since at most any other time they are pretty embarrassed of the pale shade). Therefore, in order for this piece not to become the windmill at the end of a cavalry charge, I will now shift my address to Lehmann instead.

Now, we saw in the last essay that — pace the neo-Lutheran claim to the contrary — not all sins are equal. We looked at three standards by which one sin might be deemed worse than another. But here is the next phase in the devolution of neo-Lutheran hamartiology. It’s not enough that your sins be equal with sodomy, etc. Rather, your sins must be worse.

This is incredible. But rather than just lambasting it in passing and moving on, let’s drill down a bit.

Firstly, what does “whatever sin another person might commit, our sin is worse” even mean? How does one actually parse this?

To harken back to the previous essay, is the claim being made that another’s sin is always venial, and ours always mortal, and hence worse? No, that can’t work. The other might be a non-Christian, and we are Christians.

Is the claim being made that our sin is always greater than anyone else’s with regard to negative consequences in the world? That’s self-evidently absurd for anyone not sitting on a prison block.

Is the claim being made that our sin is always greater when it comes to God’s hierarchy for such things? A read of the previous essay should easily disabuse this notion.

Then what? What is Lehmann comparing to arrive at this verdict? We will come to this answer in due time.

Secondly, to the claim that “some think [the essay] minimizes the sin of pedophilia.” Surely it is at least fair to ask, “Well, why would they think this?” To get at an answer, let’s take the statement and make some substitutions.

Though some of us are burdened with bestiality and necrophilia, more often they are the speck in our neighbor’s eye rather than the log in our own.

Would it be reasonable for someone to come away thinking this minimizes bestiality and necrophilia? Would it have passed doctrinal review? Why or why not?

I mean it: why or why not? Take a break from this long article and ponder that.

What if we change things up some more?

Though some of us are burdened with racism, antisemitism, white supremacy, and Nazism, more often they are the speck in our neighbor’s eye rather than the log in our own.

Would this have passed doctrinal review?

Would the sitting LCMS president dare to say without qualification that his own heart has more abomination in it than the acts of white supremacist racist Nazis? Because Harrison did… except instead of Nazis he used child-groomers as his point of reference.

There’s not a single person in this room who deserves the grace of God.

I might know a few sins of somebody who does drag shows at the library, which is abominable.

But I know my own heart. And there’s much more abomination than that in it.

LCMS President Matthew Harrison

Of course Harrison’s statement that “there is not a single one of us who deserves the grace of God” is true. As Martin Chemnitz says in his Enchiridion:

206 Is, Then, Original Sin, Which Still Remains in the Reborn in This Life, in Itself Such a Light Little Sin, or, So to Say, Peccadillo, that God Neither Can Nor Wants to Be Angry Against It?

All sins are not equal; some are more grievous and greater than others (Jn 19:11; Mt 11:22; Lk 12:47–48); yet if one judges according to the sense of the divine law, no sin per se and by its own nature deserves forgiveness; that is, none is so small and insignificant, but that it makes [one] subject to divine wrath and worthy of eternal damnation if God enters into judgment with him. (Dt 27:26; Gl 3:10; Ja 2:10)

Martin Chemnitz , Enchiridion

Note well the gloss whereby Chemnitz again claims that “all sins are not equal” and “some are more grievous and greater than others,” even as he says that nevertheless all sins deserve damnation apart from forgiveness in Christ. I recommend you read the entire selection on this page, it will help you further think on these issues under discussion.

Of course I also recognize that Harrison is attempting to put his own spin on Paul’s “I am the chief of sinners,” just as Lehmann says we should do above.

However, Paul’s formula differs greatly from Harrison’s.

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

1 Timothy 1:12-16

Comparison with Harrison’s stumbling formulation falls flat, for although he is certainly in step with Paul insofar as both are working to show that God’s mercy is unearned and available to all, Harrison cites no specific personal sin(s) from which he is grateful to give a testimony of salvation. He rather cites another person’s specific actual sin (a classical Lutheran term denoting sins of commission), and then applies Lehmann’s own formula from above: “Whatever sin another person might commit, our sin is worse. That is a categorical statement. It is absolute.”

And yet I wonder why Paul phrased his testimony as he did, rather than saying, “I might know a man who unrepentantly cavorts with his mother-in-law, which is abominable; but I also know my own heart, and there’s much more abomination than that in it.” Likely because he was not being sloppy.

Indeed, in saying this, Harrison has engaged in the typical 21st Century Lutheran sloppiness of speaking about sin. Namely, he has conflated the categories of concupiscence (the errant desire of the flesh which inheres to our nature by virtue of Original Sin), and actual sin (consummated acts which flow from our sinful nature). Now of course concupiscence is itself damning sin, as the reformers confessed. And these desires remain after Baptism as the sinful flesh clings on for the duration of our earthly life, necessitating that we struggle daily to drown the Old Adam in the waters of Baptism, as the reformers confessed.

That said, Saint James himself testified to the distinction between concupiscence and actual sin:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

James 1:13-15, NKJV

Again, both concupiscence and actual sins are sinful, but they are distinct from one another — and a great subject of contention between the papists and the Reformers. Believe it or not, though both are species of adultery, there is a difference between the sin of lust (which takes place in the heart) and the sin of climbing into bed with another man’s wife (which takes place in the outward members). If it were not so then Paul could not say:

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Romans 6:12-13, NKJV

In the words of Lutheran father Martin Chemnitz:

The Scripture, however, distinguishes these two things, to commit sin (1 John 2:4), or to walk in sins (Eph. 2:3), and to have sin (1 John 1:8), which is called indwelling sin (Rom. 7:17,20), sin that is present (Rom. 7:21), sin which besets us on all sides and takes possession of all powers in man (Heb. 12:1), the ignorance that is in them. (Eph. 4:18)

Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Volume I, Third Topic: Section 2: Subsection 5

Thus, Harrison is not making an apples to apples comparison when he states “I might know a few sins of someone who does drag shows at the library (actual sin), which is abominable; but I know my own heart, and there’s much more abomination than that in it (concupiscence).”

Again, in the spirit of charity, Harrison is clearly driving at the point that he himself deserves grace no more than does the pedophile. This point — however poorly articulated — is meet, right, and salutary for, apart from Christ, both are damned sinners. In this, he sounds rather like the Solid Declaration when it calls Original Sin “a horrible, deep, inexpressible corruption of the [body and soul of man].”

However, would Harrison make the following claim?

“I might know a few sins of a man who gassed six million innocents, which is abominable; but I know my own heart, and there’s much more abomination than that in it.”

The fact that he would not proves out the category error being made. A technical foul, you might call it. And it is the identical error that Lehmann makes, as is proven by filling in the blanks of his statement above and solving for X.

Whatever sin another person might commit, our sin is worse.

“Might commit” is the language of commission — that is, of actual sin. Therefore let us replace this with a reference to a specific sin.

Whatever [genocide of 6 million by gas chambers] another person might commit, our sin is worse.

What is “our sin” here? Does Lehmann just expect us to fill in the blank with any given thing we’ve done wrong?

Whatever [genocide of 6 million by gas chambers] another person might commit, our [cussing when we stub our toe] is worse.

This is immediately morally incoherent, so let’s give Lehmann the benefit of the doubt and say, as I did above, that he like Harrison is playing a sloppy switcheroo instead.

Whatever [genocide of 6 million by gas chambers] another person might commit, our [sinful heart’s desire] is worse.

This is also incoherent, though we hear Lutherans speak this way so often that is has become a mantra for us. A shibboleth, of sorts. To set an actual sin up for comparison with concupiscent sin is apples and oranges. Both are sins, but in other respects a failure to rightly discern what makes them different (as SS. Paul and James show us how to do) will only lead to confusion.

The neo-Lutherans make use of the confusion brought about by this equivocation toward two ends.

Thwarting Pride

The first end is to snuff out pride. These men want to ensure that you do not attempt to self-justify, thinking that your sins are so light compared to the sins of others that you may escape notice altogether (a notion which Chemnitz disproves above). This is the essence of Middendorf’s repeated “scorekeeper God” phrase — he does not want you to think that life is a game of golf where scoring under par keeps you off the hook. Rather, as has been repeatedly said, concupiscence on its own is damnable sin, and we all have this in spades.

One can somewhat appreciate this goal. Indeed, Christ Himself showed in Matthew 5 that what proceeds from the heart is at enmity with the will of God, even if you never reach out your hand to carry out the corresponding actual sin. Certainly our concupiscence alone should cause us to cast ourselves on the mercy of Christ. However, it should not require the mental gymnastics of making ourselves out to be worse that pederasts to accomplish our own humbling before the Lord. Christ was not asking that the Pharisee blurt out like a Tourette’s sufferer that he was worse than the tax collector in order to be justified — rather, He was insisting that, when it comes to justification, comparison has no purchase before the throne of God at all.

That said, for all the good intentions of practitioners, when it comes to acting justly in our lives, this confusion is a hindrance. If we do not mark a distinction between the evil of our concupiscence and the acts of the pederast, then indeed what standing do we have to oppose those acts? This is to make of concupiscence an irremovable plank — as we will return to momentarily.

As Matthew Cochran aptly writes on this subject:

So do not fall into the false pride of superiority because you think your sins are milder than your neighbor’s. But as you avoid false pride, do not plunge yourself into a false humility that scares you away from proclaiming what is right to those who are doing wrong.

Matthew Cochran, “Sins of Inequality? No! Inequality of Sins“

One need not — indeed, must not — resort to confusion and subterfuge in one’s attempts to thwart pride in another.

Sins the World Loves

The second end the neo-Lutherans turn this confusion toward is that of dodging accusations of bigotry.

It’s a simple enough tactic. Call sodomy a sin (“See God? I did the thing!”), then, before anyone can accuse you of bigotry, rush to “but I’m a sinner too, of course!” And of course, since the neo-Lutherans have chumps like you in the boat with them, they have to get you talking the same way, lest you embarrass them with a naked declaration of the sin of sodomy such as found in the mouths of faithful Christians throughout the centuries (see above again).

But it’s worse than that, because as we have seen above, it’s not enough for the neo-Lutheran regime that your sins be equal with sodomy. Rather, your sins must be worse.

Sins the world loves? Hurry, eject the I’m-a-bigger-sinner chaff! “Sure, it’s bad. But not as bad as my sin. I’m no bigot, after all!” (Psst! Quick, you fool, get down on your knees and supplicate! Supplicate!)

Sins (maybe even non-sins) the world hates? Well there the neo-Lutherans find their backbone. “This is evil. We condemn it in the name of Christ.” No quarter! Here and here alone they will posture as Menschen against noooance.

Once you see it, you see it everywhere, all the time, because being respectable to the world while still holding a plausibly Christian confession is the neo-Lutheran’s material principle.

Returning to Issues, Etc.

Wilken, alongside Lehmann and Harrison, deals in this same confusion about sin, so we now return to examining his words.

It’s an uncharitable reading of that particular essay to say that the essayist was simply referring to the crimes the sins of homosexuality and other sins as mere specks of sins. They were talking about— referencing Jesus’ own words. You gotta do something with Jesus’ words. You can’t throw them out. The attempt to say that we can’t call our neighbor’s sins specks flies in the face of Jesus’ own words. All sins are planks, as far as God is concerned. All of them. But Jesus speaks those words, and you cannot throw them out. They mean something. And he simply says, you cannot attend to what appears to be a speck in your neighbor’s eye while you still have the plank in your own. Remove the plank so that then you can deal with the speck in your neighbor’s eye.

It’s not about the relative size of sins. I really hope that there are Bible commentaries that deal with this. It’s not about the relative size of sins. It’s about whose sin gets dealt with first. If you can’t read Jesus’ words and draw that conclusion, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Todd is interpolating the concept of all sins being planks to God into this passage. Yes, all sin separates man from God. Yes, all sins are grievous to God. But as discussed at length above and in the last essay, not all sins are intrinsically as grievous as one another.

However, Wilken is very correct when he says that this passage is about whose sin gets dealt with first — an order of operations, if you will. First step: hypocrisy check; do not skip. Importantly, Jesus then assumes that there is a time after a man has removed a plank, at which point he will regain the clarity of vision required to perform spiritual eye surgery.

And this is where the confusion of concupiscence and actual sins can do harm. When Wilken, like Lehmann speaking for Mrs. Schmeling, demands that all of your sins are planks, and all of your neighbor’s sins are specks, he condemns us to never having the standing to address our neighbor’s sin. After all, as our confessions state: although the guilt of Original Sin is removed in Baptism, its effects upon our desires (as concupiscence) presently remains. As the presently intractable concupiscent desire to sin is itself sin, within Wilken and Lehmann’s framework it thus constitutes an irremovable plank. According to this reading, you will never have standing to address another man’s actual sin, because your concupiscence constitutes an even bigger sin; “That’s a categorical statement. It is absolute.”

But this cannot be correct as, again, Christ describes a stage in the sequence at which time we have standing to address our neighbor’s sin. Wilken and Lehmann are simply wrong here when they dispute the presence of the dimension of degrees of sin in Jesus’ words. While they correctly note that reckoning one’s own sin (actual or concupiscent) takes priority in the order of operations, their dismissal of the place of the relative weight of the sins in the equation leads them to gainsay Christ.

Lehmann preaches that 1 Timothy 1:15 is the proper cross reference for Matthew 7:3-5. But I would like to suggest that Matthew 23:23-24 (cf. Romans 2:17-24) — with its nod to hypocrisy concerning the relatively weightier matters of the law — is the true and intended parallel.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Matthew 23:23-24 NKJV

To mix Jesus’ metaphors, you could say, “And why do you look at the gnat in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the camel in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the gnat from your eye’; and look, a camel is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the camel from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the gnat from your brother’s eye.”

The point of the Matthew 7:4 check is not to make you realize that you are always guilty of a greater sin, in each and every situation, a la Wilken and Lehmann. The point is to avoid the gross hypocrisy of the pharisees. And, yes, when you take this step with the sins that vex you in others, at times you may indeed find that you are suddenly cognizant of previously unexamined sins in your life. Praise God for the tool by which He revealed this knowledge, allowing you to repent, and you will be more forgiving of your neighbor’s debts with the refreshed knowledge that your own debts have been cancelled.

To insist that Christians walk around blinded by irremovable logs in our eyes (always seeing, but never perceiving, you might say) in every endeavor is an absolute abuse of this text.

Concluding Remarks

As Wilken concludes by hoping there are commentaries which teach his reading of Matthew 7 that all of your neighbor’s sins are specks, it seems fitting for me to conclude with selections from one of the oldest extant commentaries on the text: the sermons of John Chrysostom.

What then can the saying[, “judge not, lest ye be judged,”] be? Let us carefully attend, lest the medicines of salvation, and the laws of peace, be accounted by any man laws of overthrow and confusion. First of all, then, even by what follows, He has pointed out to them that have understanding the excellency of this law, saying, Why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in your own eye? Matthew 7:3

But if to many of the less attentive, it seem yet rather obscure, I will endeavor to explain it from the beginning. In this place, then, as it seems at least to me, He does not simply command us not to judge any of men’s sins, neither does He simply forbid the doing of such a thing, but to them that are full of innumerable ills, and are trampling upon other men for trifles. And I think that certain Jews too are here hinted at, for that while they were bitter accusing their neighbors for small faults, and such as came to nothing, they were themselves insensibly committing deadly sins. Herewith towards the end also He was upbraiding them, when He said, You bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, but you will not move them with your finger, Matthew 23:4 and, ye pay tithe of mint and anise, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Matthew 23:23

Well then, I think that these are comprehended in His invective; that He is checking them beforehand as to those things, wherein they were hereafter to accuse His disciples. For although His disciples had been guilty of no such sin, yet in them were supposed to be offenses; as, for instance, not keeping the sabbath, eating with unwashen hands, sitting at meat with publicans; of which He says also in another place, You which strain at the gnat, and swallow the camel. But yet it is also a general law that He is laying down on these matters.

…

What then! say you: if one commit fornication, may I not say that fornication is a bad thing, nor at all correct him that is playing the wanton? Nay, correct him, but not as a foe, nor as an adversary exacting a penalty, but as a physician providing medicines. For neither did Christ say, stay not him that is sinning, but judge not; that is, be not bitter in pronouncing sentence.

And besides, it is not of great things (as I have already observed), nor of things prohibited, that this is said, but of those which are not even counted offenses. Wherefore He said also.

Why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye? Matthew 7:3

Yea, for many now do this; if they see but a monk wearing an unnecessary garment, they produce against him the law of our Lord, Matthew 10:10 while they themselves are extorting without end, and defrauding men every day. If they see him but partaking rather largely of food, they become bitter accusers, while they themselves are daily drinking to excess and surfeiting: not knowing, that besides their own sins, they do hereby gather up for themselves a greater flame, and deprive themselves of every plea. For on this point, that your own doings must be strictly inquired into, you yourself hast first made the law, by thus sentencing those of your neighbor. Account it not then to be a grievous thing, if you are also yourself to undergo the same kind of trial.

Chrysostom, Homily 23 on Matthew

Let’s face facts. In the post-Christian West, sodomy advocacy is the chief persecutor of the Church. Missouri Synod affiliated congregations have for the last decade been amending their bylaws to ward against lawsuits from sodomite couples who might seek to be “married” in such a venue. News outlets are publishing hit pieces on LCMS pastors who commit the crime of denigrating sodomy before too large of an audience. LCMS seminary presidents are losing their children to gender transitioning. The television is evangelizing for sodomy to children in the impotent presence of the highest paid official in the Synod.

Sodomy is no trifling thing that Christians should be made to keep silence over. It is an abomination, contrary both to law and nature, a form of lawlessness which has no equal. Yet synod officials bow and scrape to their lobby while conducting doxing campaigns for so-called “alt-right” personalities and “condemning them in the name of Christ” explicitly for — I repeat, explicitly for — agreeing with the Ugandan government’s legal measures (which just so happen to mirror God’s prescription to ancient Israel) to deal with the matter.

This should justly be an outrage.

More to come in part 3.

With thanks to our readers, the essay Issues with Sodomy, Etc. has been one of our most popular posts to date. It is clear that there is an unfilled hunger for clear and unflinching testimony about God’s Law, and His word on the unnatural vice. We hope the post is helpful even to audiences which have never even heard of Issues, Etc., as it is likely that most Christians are hearing the same message in their respective circles that was preached in that broadcast segment. Critiquing a podcast is not the point. Critiquing the ways in which Satan has nudged out of joint the Christian conceptualization of and vernacular about God’s Law and about sodomy is the point. And this issue of the unnatural vice is emblematic of the overall slide into unwitting antinomianism which has affected the whole Church, and few more slyly and successfully than the Lutherans, who now stand on sinking sand while boasting that we are planted on bedrock.

On that note, a fox-eared reader has brought to my attention a few follow-up statements from Todd Wilken, made during comment-line segments of the show. In the spirit of charity toward the man himself (which some incorrectly dismissed the previous piece as lacking), and of further revealing the ways the modern Lutheran church tries to contort itself to avoid being perceived as speaking too harshly on the matter, I would like to make brief comments on them. There are three in all, and I will take them up in turns in three separate essays.

The first two statements come as responses to rebukes read for the mic from the July 26, 2023 airing of Issues, Etc. Coincidentally, that is the date of the posting of the final draft of my own commentary (link above). It seems that several listeners independently found their own, er, issues with the segment, and put in their own rebukes more directly.

Here is the first rebuke, with the response by Wilken, which I will be responding to in this essay.

Transcript:

Jeff:
Alright, let’s begin with Joe. He said,

“I have a lot of disagreements with Mike Middendorf’s mild opposition to the death penalty for homosexuals. But instead of listing them, I pose this question:

“Can Issues, Etc. examine whether some sins are worse than others, and what those sins are? I think this is the foundational question.”

Thanks for listening. Thanks for the email, Joe.

Todd:
Well, I think we have. We did an interview sometime back with Pastor Will Weedon, and in the course of some other series where we ended up talking about two categories that theologians use to describe, really, the state of faith with respect to individual sins. And that’s the category of Mortal Vin and Venial Sin. It’s a long established category. It’s one that, while we can define a mortal sin as one that robs someone of faith and a venial sin as a sin that does not rob one of faith, we have to maintain that all sins deserve eternal death and punishment were they not atoned for by the blood of Christ.

But we’re really talking here in these cases of sins, not the sins themselves, like what you did, but the nature of faith, with respect to that sin. Does a sin rob one of saving faith, or can one remain ever repentant? Now, the way the old theologians, especially the Lutherans, have said, they’ve said, well, you know, venial sins are the ones that are unintentional. Not accidental, but unintentional. They are sins of weakness, whereas mortal sins are ones that are done with the full knowledge that this sin is a sin.

Well, if you stop and think about the sins you commit on a daily basis, Christians’ consciences are always testifying against them. And there are times when our conscience says, no, no, no, don’t do that. Don’t say that. Don’t think that. And you just go ahead and do it, don’t you? Am I unique in that respect where I know that something I’m about to say is wrong, and I say it anyway?

These categories really serve more as a constant warning to the Christian that they should avoid sin and struggle against sin at all costs. But we do have to recognize that there are sins Christians commit. Let’s think about this, the sins Christians commit, without even being aware that they’re committing a sin. We can safely say those are the kind of sins that the Christian, being unaware of them, does not rob them of faith necessarily. But these categories are intended to serve as a stern warning against simply taking sin lightly.

Now, that’s the category of mortal and venial, long established. It’s found in the Lutheran confessions. It’s found in the Lutheran Dogmaticians. There’s very little question about that. There are categories that we wholeheartedly accept.

Then there is the question of whether certain sins have greater consequences, both to the neighbor or in one’s own life — and one of those consequences might be to rob someone of saving faith — but temporal consequences. So someone thinks a bad thought in the privacy of their mind about their neighbor. That certainly is a sin. It’s condemned by God’s law. Does it have the same temporal con… it may have grave consequences in the life of that Christian. If that becomes a harbored anger, resentment, a grudge, it can rob one of faith. But the temporal consequences of the private thought — an evil, private thought against your neighbor — not that big. Your neighbor may not even know you’re thinking that they may not even be personally harmed by it. Although in God’s eyes, it is the same as if you were to have murdered your neighbor.

The temporal consequences are insignificant if it’s simply a private thought, no less a sin, no less dangerous to the faith of the Christian committing that sin. But in terms of temporal consequences, not so much. And I think that’s one of the things that we confuse when we talk about sins that have consequences and sins that seem to have no consequence. For a man to go out and physically murder someone has tremendous consequences in both his life and the life of the person he has harmed and their family and everyone else. It does more harm. And that chain of harm is longer and greater and more powerful than if a man just says, “I just hate that guy,” in God’s eyes.

Same thing in terms of temporal consequences; a vast difference. One of those things we punish civilly when someone commits actual murder because of that chain of harm that is done to everyone involved, including the greater society. The other one, we don’t punish civilly. I can stand on the street corner and say, “I hate that guy,” all day long. Guess what? I’m not gonna get arrested. That guy may never know.

And this is the question we were trying to answer when it came to the civil punishment of homosexuals: “Does scripture require a civil punishment for homosexuality?”

I think in a sane world, we would say that there — apart from scripture, even just dealing with natural law — there should be some kind of consequence there. That’s really actually how Western civilization understood this for centuries; for millennia. But it’s a question of prudence, of judgment, of reasonability. Does it rise to the level of… that’s why they will talk about victimless crimes in order to remove the legal stigma from homosexuality. The legal arguments were, “there are no victims, so we should not be punishing them.” They were making the argument from “the chain of harm is really insignificant,” or “they’re only hurting themselves. As long as this is consensual, they’re only hurting themselves. Why should it be a crime?” Those are the actual arguments that were made in my home state of Texas when they overturned sodomy laws.

From God’s perspective, are such sins deserving death? Yes. Are those sins true mortal sins? Absolutely. In the same way that intentionally committing adultery is a true mortal sin. One cannot say, “well, I’m just going to commit adultery, but I’m still Christian. I’m retaining faith.” No.

And in the same way, turning from homosexual to heterosexual sins: it used to be a crime to commit adultery, too, and we dropped that one long before we dropped the sodomy laws. Why was it considered a crime? Why was it punishable in Western civilization? Because it harmed everyone involved. There were consequences that went far beyond the individual acts or the consenting adults.

So I don’t think Doctor Middendorf took a soft opposition to the killing of homosexuals. He was simply answering the question: “does Romans 1:32 single out homosexuality before God as deserving death?” And the answer to that question is: no. If you listen to his argument, it’s very clear that all those sins listed, including homosexual acts, before God are deserving of death. That does not make the case that, in terms of how we civilly punish people, we should be meting out the death penalty.

Jeff:
I would encourage our listener to listen to the introduction of our series with Pastor Will Weedon on the Seven Deadly Sins. You guys covered this whole issue in part one of that series.

Todd:
Yes, he lost his faith and drove away the Holy Spirit. And he fell from faith and had to be restored by the prophet Nathan. And in that case, they say, look, here’s a really clear example of what… David couldn’t have been doing all this stuff and still retain the Holy Spirit. And that’s the stated conclusion of the Lutheran Confessions.

Todd:
And I’m not saying that the mortal and venial sin is a cut and dried category, like, “these sins fall into the mortal category, these sins fall into venial.” Because the categories exist, as I said before, to speak to the state of faith of the person committing that sin, rather than to say, “certain sins fit into the mortal, certain sins fit into the venial.”

Jeff:
Don’t they lose their professions? State that David lost his faith…

Todd:
Absolutely.

Jeff:
…when he had an affair with Bathsheba?

Todd:
Yes, he lost his faith and drove away the Holy Spirit. And he fell from faith and had to be restored by the prophet Nathan. And in that case, they say, look, here’s a really clear example of what David couldn’t have been doing all this stuff and still retain the Holy Spirit. That’s the that’s the stated conclusion of the Lutheran Confessions.

This rebuke goes to the heart of a different matter than the one I addressed in my own critique. I dealt with the matter of the rank confusion of different kinds of Law (moral, ceremonial, and civil) and the results of these category errors employed by both Wilken and Middendorf in terms of doctrine and practice. I also addressed the place of sodomy laws within a nation’s jurisprudence, as informed by proper Biblical exegesis, which Wilken and Middendorf skirted with the aforementioned confusion of civil and ceremonial law.

But this rebuke seeks a cross examination on a separate, though related, issue: is Wilken (and Middendorf) willing to look deeper than the sin/not-sin binary and grant that some sins are worse than others?

Of course, “worse than” is comparative language. Answering this question requires assuming a standard by which A can be judged worse than B. Wilken does very well to answer in the affirmative according to two different classical standards.

First, there is the Mortal vs. Venial distinction, which in the Lutheran parlance essentially means high-handed sin which accomplishes the driving out of the Holy Spirit and the ceasing of His war with the flesh (Mortal) vs. a sin which is one lost battle in the believer’s lifelong, ongoing war with the flesh (Venial). The difference here is simply and solely in how a given sin stands in relation to one’s salvation. Wilken rightly notes that, according to this standard, the mortal sin is the “worse” sin.

Second, Wilken notes well that various sins manifest a wide range of temporal consequences. According to this standard, the sins that come with greater negative ramifications, and affect a greater number of people, are “worse” sins. As Wilken notes, this consequentialism is the basis for contemporary American jurisprudence. I was grateful to hear Wilken affirm the salutary nature of sodomy laws, even though his appeal was strictly to consequentialism and he continues to maintain that God’s Law does not factor into the equation (more on this in part 2). I agree with him that laws against adultery are needful also.

However, despite these salutary examples of standards for identifying which are “worse” sins, Wilken misses what I take to be the intent of the rebuker’s challenge. Let me rephrase the question to be more clear:

“Acknowledging that all sins damn apart from Christ, are there some sins which are worse than others in the eyes of God?”

We will get this sense more with his answer to the next rebuke (which will be taken up in a subsequent essay), but Wilken seems to be very committed to the idea that God sees (and, hence, judges) sin in only one dimension: sin is either there, or it is not. It goes without saying that of course this dimension is truly present: all men go in the sinner column, unless their sins are taken away in Christ, allowing them to be placed in the not-sinner column. No right-believing Christian disputes this dimension.

However, in restricting God’s view of sin to only this dimension, Wilken sets up a paradigm wherein, as far as God is concerned, within the sinner column there is no differentiation or distinction in either quantity or quality from one instance to the next. That is, man may mark a difference between a child predator and a paperclip thief strictly for temporal consequence purposes. God on the other hand, being colorblind and lacking depth perception, only sees identical shades of damnable sin, and deems the one as no worse than the other.

However, Scripture testifies that God does indeed see some sins as worse than others, damning though they all may be. As Martin Luther himself notes,

From [the Fourth] Commandment we learn that after the excellent works of the first three Commandments there are no better works than to obey and serve all those who are set over us as superiors. For this reason also disobedience is a greater sin than murder, unchastity, theft and dishonesty, and all that these may include. For we can in no better way learn how to distinguish between greater and lesser sins than by noting the order of the Commandments of God, although there are distinctions also within the works of each Commandment. For who does not know that to curse is a greater sin than to be angry, to strike than to curse, to strike father and mother more than to strike any one else?

Treatise on Good Works, Martin Luther, March 1520; tr. W. A. Lambert, emphasis mine

Luther again references this concept of greater sin in his Small Catechism, which I remind that we are confessionally bound to affirm:

But if any one does not find himself burdened with such [sins as have been mentioned] or greater sins, he should not trouble himself or search for or invent other sins, and thereby make confession a torture, but mention one or two that he knows.

The Small Catechism, Martin Luther, Part V: How The Unlearned Should Be Taught To Confess

Against the idea that God is not regardful of the dimension of quantity when it comes to the sins a man commits, we have the words of Christ:

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

So he said, “Teacher, say it.”

“There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?”

Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.”

And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.”  Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

Luke 7:40-48 NKJV

Against the idea that God is not regardful of the dimension of quality when it comes to the sins a man commits, we have the words of Christ:

Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

John 19:11 NKJV

Hence, according to God, within the “sinner” column there is still very much a spectrum of sin, with some cases being markedly worse than others.

But, if it is true that God marks some sins as worse than others, then why do we not see God treating damned sinners — whose sins are still upon them and not on Christ — differently from one another in their damnation, according to the scope and scale of their sins?

According to the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod’s (LCMS) own much vaunted Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), this is in fact exactly what we see.

In both “body and soul” unbelievers will suffer eternal separation and condemnation in hell (Matt. 18:8 and 25:46; Mark 9:43; John 3:36; 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 13; Rev. 14:11). Indescribable torment will be experienced consciously, the degree determined by the nature of the sins to be punished (Matt. 11:20-24 and 23:15; Luke 12:47-48).

The End Times: A Study of Eschatology and Millennialism, published September 1989, page 32, emphasis mine

In so saying, the CTCR argues the same position of St. Jerome, who contended against Jovinianus in the Fourth Century when the latter claimed that: as all sins are equal in the sight of God, there are no degrees of rewards or punishment in eternity. Indeed, from the premise that all sins are equal in the sight of God, such a conclusion must follow. But St. Jerome wrote these sayings (and many others) against the doctrine of Jovinianus:

If we may not depart a hair’s breadth from virtue, and all sins are equal, and a man who in a fit of hunger steals a piece of bread is no less guilty than he who slays a man: you must, in your turn, be held guilty of the greatest crimes. …

But what are we to think of your assertion, that because there is a division into good and bad, the good, or the bad it may be, are not distinguished one from another, and that it makes no difference whether one is a ram in the flock or a poor little sheep? Whether the sheep have the first or the second fleece? Whether the flock is diseased and covered with the scab, or full of life and vigour? especially when by the authoritative utterances of His own prophet Ezekiel God clearly points out the difference between flock and flock of His rational sheep, saying, Behold I judge between cattle and cattle, and between the rams and the he-goats, and between the fat cattle and the lean. Because you have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, until they were scattered abroad. And that we might know what the cattle were, He immediately added: Ezekiel 34:31 You my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men. Will Paul and that penitent who had lain with his father’s wife be on an equality, because the latter repented and was received into the Church: and shall the offender because he is with him on the right hand shine with the same glory as the Apostle? …

For you admit no difference between sins, and the gratitude of those whom you raise from the mire and set on high will not equal the rage against you of those whom for the trifling offenses of daily life you have thrust into utter darkness.

St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus (Book II); I recommend it for further reading from part 18 onward as Jerome absolutely savages Jovinianus’s arguments for a reductionistic sin/not-sin binary such as is advanced by modern Lutherans and critiqued in the present essay

What’s more, the very concept of the 3rd Use of the Law (the guide) is incoherent if all sins are equal before God. Growing in sanctification by virtue of seeking to obey God’s law is predicated upon the notion that a believer will progressively reduce both the scope and the scale of their sinning, replacing such with the fruit of the Spirit. It goes without saying that a Christian’s sinning will not utterly cease this side of eternity; however, if we say that all sinning is equivalent, then it is impossible to maintain that the life of a believer will produce less sin (either in quantity or quality) than that of an unbeliever — and hence Christ’s exhortations would be rendered absurd. Either Wilken affirms a difference in the nature and scale of sins Coram Deo (even while granting that all sins damn apart from Christ), or he has not been truthful when he has claimed that he has left Third Use denialism behind.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, while decidedly not among Lutheran confessional documents, makes a salutary confession on these matters, which can be instructive for us.

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
A. All transgressions of the law are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
A. Sins receive their aggravations,
1. From the persons offending; if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, willfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?
A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Yet I know that many will scoff because, after all, nothing good can come from without the Lutheran tradition. Therefore, I point you back to Luther above. And, to prove that it is possible for a Lutheran to speak on the subject of mortal and venial sin (as Wilken adroitly did above) while also rightly acknowledging that not all sins are the same before God (as Wilken did not do above, and as he explicitly denies in the segment I will take up in the next installment), see the following from Lutheranism’s Second Martin, Martin Chemnitz:

Next we must consider the definition of this matter. What is mortal sin? What is venial sin in the regenerate? The usual definition is that mortal sin is those kinds of actions which cut off those who permit them from the grace of God and thus they cease to be righteous, and as a result they are condemned unless they change their minds. But venial sins are not of this nature, since out of the pure grace and mercy of God they are forgiven for the sake of the Son of God our Mediator to those who repent, and in the case of these sins, their sins are covered.

In another place we have shown that in setting up correct definitions we must keep our eye on two things. The first is that in the main parts of a definition we must include those elements necessary for an understanding of the subject. The second is that they must have the foundations for each part of the definition drawn from the testimonies of Scripture.

Therefore in defining mortal sin we must indicate the chief aspect of this kind of sin, in order to understand it. These are:

I. The difference between mortal and venial sin is derived not from the subject of sin as it is considered in itself in keeping with the Law. For although one kind of sin may be greater or less than another kind, cf. John 19:11, “He who betrays Me has the greater sin”; Luke 12:47–48, “The servant who knew the will of his master and did not prepare himself and did not act in keeping with his will, will be beaten with many stripes, but he who did not know and did commit things worthy of stripes, he shall be beaten with few”; Matt. 11:24, “I say to you that it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for Capernaum”; yet according to the Law, if God should enter into judgment with sin, all sins in themselves are mortal, guilty of or subject to the wrath of God and worthy of the curse and eternal death.

That is to say, there is no sin, even if it seems to be insignificant, which in itself according to the Law and outside of Christ, if God should enter into judgment with it, that is not worthy of eternal death. Deut. 27:26 and Gal. 3:10, “Cursed is every one who does not continue in all the words of this law, to do them; and all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” Therefore in the definition we must include the concept that “all sins in the unregenerate are mortal.” For “he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains over him,” John 3:36.

This is what Luther is saying on Galatians 5 [Amer. Ed., 26.76], “Mortal sin and venial sin are distinguished from each other not on the basis of the substance of the deed involved or according to some difference in the sin committed, but on the basis of the person or because of the difference of those who commit the sins.”

We must note this aspect of the matter thoroughly. For the error of the Pharisees in the time of Christ pertained to the matter of big and little sins. This idea, however, is refuted at length in Matthew 5.

On the other side, Jovinian contended that “all sins are equal,” something which Jerome refuted. Likewise in our own day Sebastian Frank, an unlearned and arrogant man, has asserted the same thing. But Luther is correct when he says, “As far as guilt is concerned, all sins are equal unless reconciliation takes place.” Thus those people are in error and need to be corrected who think that certain sins do not deserve death. But it is a certainty that all sins, even those which in our eyes seem minor, are worthy of the eternal curse.

Augustine uses this simile: It is insufficient to make this comparison between these two kinds of sin and simply say that whether a person is on the shore or sinking in the depths of the sea, they are both dead. There will be some difference among those who are saved, just as there is a difference among stars in their brilliance, 1 Cor. 15:41, and there are also degrees among the damned because of the difference in their sins. Yet all are in damnation.

Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici vol II, part 17 (Locus XVI) “The Difference Between Mortal and Venial Sin,” chapter III “Definition of the Matter”; translated by J.A.O. Preus

Because this subject can be fraught with the terror of the knowledge of guilt, I will end by reminding you that, as great as your sins may be, Jesus Christ is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him. And as small as your sins may be, nothing can make you right with God apart from Him. Do not despair, but rather call on his name and receive the atonement He made with God on your behalf.

See you in the next installment.