St John's Lutheran Church in LexingtonI sat down this past Sunday to unwind after a great morning, but when I read the editorial page of The State newspaper I saw something that was so deceptive I had to respond.  So I immediately sent my letter to the editor in response to a full column that was written by Rev. Eric Wolf of St. John's Lutheran church here in Lexington.  Rev. Wolf wrote in defense of his denomination's recent decision to bless homosexual unions.  Most of my response letter was published in today's paper, but a pretty significant part of it was left out, so I reprint it in full in my blog where I am the only editor.  Also, lest anyone think I am some type of homophobe, I assure you I am not.  I have dear friends that are currently practicing the homosexual lifestyle and I have made it clear that they are not to be discriminated against and they are welcome at our church.  We are to be a safe place for people of any and every sexual orientation . . . heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, et al., though we only endorse and bless heterosexual marriages.  You can listen to my sermon entitled "The Issue of Homosexuality?" at this link. 

So here is the full text of the letter that was sent to the editor and published in part in today's paper . . .

Having just read Rev. Wolf's 'biblical, ethical and moral' justification of blessing homosexual unions within the ELCA, I would like to offer a few comments.  First of all, it is somewhat embarassing that Rev. Wolf wrote, "The chief argument against blessing homosexual unions conerns the statements in Leviticus and Galatians against homosexuality."  In fact, these statements are actually found in Leviticus and Romans.  It is also telling that he conveniently chose not to quote either of these passages within his column.  I charitably assume mistaking Galatians for Romans was a simple oversight on Rev. Wolf's part, but it should be noted when a Priest claims to have a faith "rooted in the scriptures" and yet makes such an obvious error in referring to those scriptures?  

Additionally, Rev. Wolf's argument is basically that sexuality is something we are born with and therefore our duty to love our brother or sister just as they are takes precedence over any biblical prohibitions related to sexuality.  Based on that logic, I would simply ask about the case of polygamy or polyandry.  How do we respond to men or women who are inwardly driven (from their earliest memories) to have more than one partner/wife.  Or what about the bisexual, who is born to love and have sex with both men and women?  Once we 'redefine' marriage as nothing more than a lifelong commitment between two consenting adults, on what theological, civic or rational basis can we confine the union to only two adults?  Why can't three or more consenting adults of any gender choose to enter into a lifelong, consensual, marital relationship?

Finally, I love the way Rev. Wolf conveniently reminded us that 'good' homosexual couples were better for society and the family than alcoholic, drug addicted, sex-crazed heterosexual couples.  That was very insightful.  Actually publishing such a ludicrous, false dichotemy was so juvenile I was not sure how to respond, other than to say that the verses Rev. Wolf quoted in his column should have instructed him to be a little more fair minded, comparing 'good' heterosexual couples with 'good' homosexual couples when considering their impact on children and society at large.

After I sent this letter, I was wondering if I was too harsh in it, as I have a natural talent for sarcasm and at times that can be a lot more destructive rather than constructive.  On the other hand, we are commanded to tear down every lofty argument that sets itself up agains the knowledge of Christ, so we have to point out faulty logic, faulty thinking and faulty statements about God, albeit in a fair and charitable way.  I hope I hit this balance here . . . and Rev. Wolf, if by a long shot you wind up reading this blog, please don't personalize the debate . . . in fact, I would love to catch a lunch with you sometime in the near future where we could discuss these things outside of the public eye.