The "Burden" of Pedophilia?

A Critique of the New Edition of the Large Catechism

We in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod have recently had what might be called a kerfuffle. It even showed up in Christianity Today.

The issue is a new edition of Luther’s Large Catechism - one that includes “annotations and contemporary applications.” If you’re not familiar with the Large Catechism, it is a remarkable work, one of the few writings of Martin Luther that we Lutheran pastors are bound by our ordination vows to accept as a “faithful exposition of Scripture.” The actual text is, of course, available online.

At any rate, the controversial part of this project is the inclusion of essays that apply the Catechism to modern life in matters of politics, economics, and sociology. Several of these essays (thankfully a small minority) include controversial language typical of woke leftism and cultural Marxism. And considering that we are a conservative church body, this caused quite a furor.

Gottesdienst wrote about it in the following ten recent blogposts at Gottesblog (I serve as the blog editor, and one of the writers):

• The Large CRTechism

• Why This Stuff Matters

• In Case You Missed It: Kudos to President Harrison

• Theology is Too Important to be Left to the Experts

• Play Nice!

• Concordia: Unity in Confession

• Explaining the Large Catechism Controversy

• The President Has Spoken

• Happy Anniversary Miz Grace

• Thank You, CTCR!.
  
  In addition, our podcast, The Gottesdienst Crowd, covered the topic in two episodes:

• TGC 258 — Anatomy of a Confusion (Large Catechism Edition)

• TGC 261 — Context Matters (LCACA).

Our editor in chief, the Rev. Dr. Burnell Eckardt, will have the final word regarding this matter for Gottesdienst. It will be in the upcoming print edition of our flagship journal. I have read it, and it is a fitting summary to this matter. We’ve said enough as an organization. We are moving on, as there is much else to report on in our church and world.

That said, it is important that dialogue continue about this volume and its topics among pastors and laity, among families, and among our parishes.

As I’ve asserted elsewhere, there is a lot of good in this project. I know and respect many of the contributors. But there are also things that even the Rev. President Matthew Harrison (who presides over our church body, and who has blessed the final project) admits could have been said with better clarity. My hope was that the work would have been split up, with the substance of the Catechism (with annotations and historical commentary) in one volume, and the opinion pieces being published under a separate cover. A lot of people have made that suggestion. But so far, that idea has been rejected.

I have to admit my disappointment with President Harrison on this. I have always supported him. He was my first field work supervisor at seminary 23 years ago. He is a delightful and talented Christian gentleman with a pastoral heart. He has a huge personality, and relates well to people. He is a gifted theologian, translator, and preacher. And in spite of this matter, I will vote for him again. But I do disagree with how he handled this project. I think it is a blind-spot, perhaps caused by his loyalty for those who work for him. Loyalty is an admirable trait, of course, but it can also lead to regrettable decisions.

One of the controverted quotes in the “contemporary applications” put forth in one of the essays on the Sixth Commandment (“You shall not commit adultery") was written by a contributor who is a pastor’s wife. I have no doubt of her orthodoxy, faithfulness, and piety. But given the context of where we find ourselves culturally today, I cannot agree with the inclusion of this quote, and I find it troubling:

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).

The assertion that people with such Sixth Commandment sins (not the euphemistic “burdens”) - including pedophilia - should not be treated in a hypocritical manner is true. We are the first Evangelicals. We are the people of the Gospel. When people repent of any sin, we forgive them, we rejoice, and we live with them as Christian brothers and sisters. That said, this essay fails to acknowledge the damage and hurt to the victims of pedophilia and other forms of disordered and unnatural sexuality. Pedophilia differs from some of these other sins insofar as there is always a victim, a person who is not able to consent - a child.

Our desire to emphasize the Gospel is, of course, a hallmark of Lutheran theology. That said, the context of this essay is, in fact, the Law. This is an essay on one of the Ten Commandments: the first of the Chief Parts of the Christian faith. For without the Law, the Gospel is meaningless.

In my experience, and in talking to a lot of people over the years, those who struggle with various sins of disordered sexuality were almost always abused by someone as a child. This is a huge issue, and ought to be addressed in this book of “contemporary applications.” But the only mention of pedophilia - which is really child rape - is a call to treat the pedophile with compassion. There is a place for that, namely, when such people repent. But again, the context of the Sixth Commandment should not shy away from the Law. Pedophilia is more than a mere “burden.” It is a sin. It is not just a victimless vice, or a peccadillo. It is a crime. And it is a burden to the victims - who are children.

I see this quote as an unfortunate concession to our culture. All over the world, we are seeing pressure to lower the age of consent in addition to a normalization of abominable practices that were common in the ancient world, but were outlawed and socially rejected with the rise of Christendom. As the ethical influence of Christianity wanes in our culture, these abominations are making a comeback. Even the US Military and Hollywood honor those who practice such things.

This video features a Muslim woman sounding the alarm about a 45 year-old male sex activist who wants online access to children without their parents knowing about it. She is calling a thing what it is. Good for her. She has taken a lot of flack for doing so. Why is it that we see a Muslim woman taking the lead in exposing this unrepentant grooming behavior? Why not Christian men? Why not pastors? Why not Lutheran theologians? Why not an essay in our new annotated Large Catechism pertaining to the Sixth Commandment?

Maybe a lot of Christians and academicians are out of touch with all of the degeneracy that is happening in this decaying world. I don’t know how they can be unaware of these things. They are ubiquitous. Drag Queen Story Hour has taken over public libraries all over the country - even in the Bible Belt, including a drag queen middle-school teacher who calls himself Annie Christ (he seems nice). This genre of what used to be euphemistically called “adult entertainment” has now been mainstreamed for children. These are not the campy drag skits of Milton Berle and Monty Python. The overt sexuality is right in the open, and again, in front of children. Even Disney is shamelessly engaging in grooming.

And even when the target audience is toddlers, there is no respite from this full-court press. I remember the Blues Clues children’s TV show from my son’s early childhood. It used to be a sweet and innocent program for toddlers. Today, it features a drag queen singing about various sexual deviancies and a “pride” parade. And the children’s network Nickelodeon has also made sure that the little ones know about the “pride flag” and “the queer and trans people of color.”

As countercultural as it is to say so today, our Lord’s language is shocking when he explains what those who abuse little ones deserve.

I am honestly baffled by the omission of so many things that are front page headlines that are not in any essay on the Sixth Commandment - things like this open grooming of children in our popular culture, things like Christian employees all over North America being forced into Maoist struggle sessions and compulsory “pride” celebrations and rituals at their jobs, things like schoolchildren being forced into unbiblical sex teachings and being hectored over pronouns, things like Christian business owners being compelled to violate their consciences concerning sexuality, being forced to accept artistic commissions that violate their consciences and religious liberties. Even one of our synod-owned universities had a so-called “Queer Straight Alliance” student club operating with the blessing of the administration, until it was finally closed down. Not long after, the university itself was shuttered. There is nothing in the essays about the Sixth Commandment about children being adopted by same sex couples, or being subjected to so-called “polyamory” (other than the above quote that this unnatural lifestyle choice that is harmful to children is just a “burden”). All of these things have infringed upon the lives of ordinary Christian people. They are worried about their children.

When I teach the little ones (toddlers through about ten) the Small Catechism and Bible stories after Sunday’s Divine Service, I pray for their future. I pray that the devil, the world, and their sinful nature will not snatch away the seed of faith that has been sown in teaching them the Word of God. They are so vulnerable and trusting. We need to protect them. Sometimes it seems as if our well-intentioned leaders of society and church are clueless about what ordinary people are facing.

I am heartbroken by the sheer number of friends and colleagues who have children and other young relatives who will not speak to them, who have left the faith, who are sexually confused, who are even engaging in “transitioning” - thanks to our culture’s rebellion against the Sixth Commandment. It happened to a former parishioner of mine. This cultural rot is a bona fide epidemic. It is tearing families apart. It is affecting our churches. It is dragging our country and our culture into the gutter. And their main target is the children.

There is no acknowledgement of any of this. Why not?

Is it simply a case of squeamishness, of not wanting to talk about something gross and depressing? Of ivory-tower cluelessness? Of a desire to be liked and accepted by the world? Of pious people being genuinely unaware that such debased things are happening?

I don’t know. But I do know that I am disappointed. At least we are free to critique this volume, in spite of its issuance and approval by the doctrinal watchdog agency of our synod. Thank God for that liberty to dissent! We pastors and congregations need to talk about these things, and we need to deal with them in the real world. In the parish, these topics are much more important than who wins and who loses a fight over a publication, whose careers are vindicated, and the ongoing reality of church politics. Indeed, these topics in the real world of parish life are of eternal importance.

Lord, have mercy upon us.