[1] I live and teach religion and ethics in Ohio, one of the
eleven states in the 2004 election that passed constitutional
amendments effectively precluding any legal and civil recognition
or institution of gay marriage. The passage of this state amendment
dubbed colloquially as the 'ban on gay marriage' generated much
local controversy within my secular community, which has a
considerable gay population, and much national controversy within
the churches, including my own ELCA tradition. Locally and
globally, the issue threatens to divide parish against parish,
synod against synod, denomination against denomination, and perhaps
most tragically as well as de facto, neighbor against
neighbor.
[2] In a recent article, fellow Lutheran theologian Robert Benne
cites Gilbert Meilander's claim that "One couldn't support the
revisionist agenda or biblical or confessional grounds; one would
have to rely on social science and contemporary
experience.[1]" Throughout
the article, Benne expresses regret at the loss of what he terms
'classical Lutheran teachings.' He references Wolfhart
Pannenberg, who similarly opposes "attitudes [that are] oblivious
to the gravity of treating the classical tradition as optional.
[…][2]" In response,
as a prayerful progressive, I have begun to cast about for
potential classical resources within my own tradition to address
the issue. Is it accurate to claim that one cannot support gay
marriage using resources from within the tradition, but instead one
uniquely must use scientific and experiential resources from
outside theological tradition? How should Christians view the
recent ban on gay marriage? To answer these questions and respond
to Benne and others of like mind, I ask two questions of my
own: (1) What does a theology of the cross mean for the 21st
century, particularly (but not exclusively) for Lutherans for whom
it is a core concept? (2) What contributions does a 21st century
understanding of the theology of the cross make to the contemporary
conversation regarding gay marriage and its ban?
[3] It is my contention that a careful reading of Martin
Luther's classical notion of a theologia crucis-- theology
of the cross--provides us with theological support, grounded firmly
in tradition and the gospel, for a convicted rejection of the ban
on gay marriage. In Christian terms, the Defense of Marriage
Act(s) are violations of agape and justice. In secular terms,
the bans on gay marriage are selective discrimination, which is
unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th amendment.
Through meditations on three of Luther's Heidelberg disputation
theses, I glean three corollary insights that will help prayerful
Christians as they consider where to stand on the issue. Though I
seek and use emphases within my own Lutheran tradition, I hope that
my comments here will find resonance as well as encounter beyond
denominational divides.
[4] First, what does a theology of the cross mean to those of us
Christians living today? The theologia crucis
lies at the heart of both Lutheran theology and the Protestant
Reformation. A theology of the cross, a term coined and
developed by Martin Luther, reconsiders the importance of the
crucified, suffering Christ for our understanding of God, and
acknowledges that 'the crucified Christ is himself a challenge to
Christian theology.'[3] Luther felt
that the Catholicism of his day allowed the triumphalism of the
resurrection to eclipse the inscrutable shame and scandal of the
cross. By emphasizing the importance of the cross for
Christian theology, Luther hoped to correct what he considered an
imbalanced, inordinate doctrinal emphasis on the glory of the
resurrection. To better understand Luther's project, imagine
if you will a balance, symbolizing both theology and the Christian
attitude, with both the crucifixion and resurrection on either
side. Luther felt that the preaching and action of the church
(and therefore the attitudes of most Christians), tipped the scales
fully in the direction of the resurrection. In the glory of
Easter Sunday, in other words, the tragedy of Good Friday was
lost.
[5] Luther's theology of the cross applies a corrective to this
imbalance. Because the modern reader easily forgets the original
historical context, however, the name tends to mislead. The
theology of the cross has often been misinterpreted, for example,
to mean that Christians should neglect or forget the resurrection
and focus exclusively on the crucifixion. As Luther himself
would say, by no means! Such a misinterpretation led and still
leads to the resurrection-blind results of despair, fatalism,
cynicism, theological paralysis, and ethical quietism. Such
readings have particularly upset feminists, who interpret Luther to
be placing an inordinate emphasis upon redemptive suffering and a
subsequent Christian need to accept illegitimate suffering and
oppression. While I value these critiques, nonetheless
Luther's theological telos was to create a balance between
these two crucial christological ideas, not simply to recreate an
imbalance in the other direction.
[6] Instead Luther, in my interpretation, urges Christians to
leave behind such human either/or thinking and testify to a divine,
scriptural 'both-and' mode of understanding the gospel. The gospel
scriptures assert that Christ was both crucified and resurrected;
neither is to be understood without the other. We need to
understand both ideas dialectically, an approach that is,
incidentally, consistent with much of feminist theory. Christians,
therefore, must look at the world with a dual consciousness,
holding the paradoxical 'both-and' of crucifixion and resurrection
before their hearts and minds as they theologize, interpret, and
act in the world. For Luther, the Christian view is bifocal. In
Luther's epistemology, we are to understand God in both the scandal
of the cross and the glory of the resurrection. However, the
resurrection does not negate the cross' scandal, nor does the cross
negate the resurrection's beauty. To the world (and often
even to the church) this paradox has proved a difficult burden to
bear, yet God calls us to do so. Luther's theology of the
cross thus should be understood as a methodology, not as a doctrine
or dogma. It is a posture of faithfulness before both God and
world.
[7] The theology of the cross does indeed help us conceive a
response to one of the most important social issues of our day, gay
marriage. Specifically, a theology of the cross provides
three important insights, prompted by three of Luther's remarks,
which help us in our struggle to discern the will of God in such a
difficult and divisive issue.
[8] Meditation 1: "A theology of glory calls evil good
and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what
itactually is.[4]" -Martin Luther,
Heidelberg Disputation
[9] First, a theology of the cross reveals a relevant cautionary
reminder that human beings, particularly in the collective, possess
an ugly and dangerous proclivity toward scapegoating. Human
beings tend to call things by the wrong names. By nailing
Jesus to the cross, human beings, caught up in their glorious
pre-conceived notion of the messiah as a triumphant hero,
effectively label Christ as evil, as a blasphemer and a
rebel. Surely the real messiah would have triumphed over his
enemies and not allowed himself to be mocked! Thinking thus, the
people executed Jesus, calling him a criminal. The theologian
of the cross must testify to this truth, but also simultaneously to
the truth of the resurrection. The resurrection revealed that
Jesus was the son of God, sinless and pure, the quintessence of
goodness. Yet human beings, without exception (except for a
pagan!), mistakenly called Jesus 'evil.' Rather than humiliating
human persons with this knowledge, God in an act of radical grace
freely chose to allow all human beings to acquire Jesus' 'alien
righteousness' as their own, "The love of God does not find, but
creates, that which is pleasing to it.[5]" While the
crucifixion reveals human sinfulness, the resurrection reveals
God's gracefulness. A theology of the cross reminds us that
instead of acknowledging our own guilt and blame, we human beings
tend to deflect our own guilt on to someone else, someone who is
innocent of the particular crime with which they are
charged.
[10] No doubt many might ask, what can this rhetoric possibly
have to do with homosexuals? Homosexuals are sinful, and
therefore must in no way be compared to our sinless Lord Jesus
Christ! To which I respond yes, homosexuals are sinful, as
are all human beings, gay or straight. Calling things by
their right names, a theology of the cross reveals that no one is
guiltless and proclaims with the apostle Paul, "For all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) While
Christ alone was innocent of all charges of sin, human beings are
all guilty of some sin or another in the eyes of God.
However, not all human beings are guilty of the particular crime
with which they are charged. For example, Jews during the
Nazi regime were charged with being 'enemies of the state,' in
spite of the fact that Jews in no way posed a threat to the state,
and were indeed less than 2% of the population. The Holocaust
is indeed one of the prime historical examples of our horrifying
tendency toward unjustified scapegoating. Christians and
their anti-semitism played an enormous role in this
scapegoating. Christians persecuted Jews for centuries in
Europe because of their reading of scripture: Jews were
Christ-killers, plain and simple. In the wake of the Holocaust, the
Lutheran church took responsibility for the church and Luther's
anti-semitism and issued a formal apology to our Jewish brothers
and sisters. The Roman Catholic Church also issued a formal
apology in Vatican II. The urgent question facing us today
is: fifty years from now, will the church be ashamed of its
current position toward homosexuality and gay marriage, as we have
been ashamed before?
[11] Notably, the Third Reich also charged homosexuals with
being enemies of the state as they were an assault on the
foundation of German society, the family. Over 100,000 homosexuals
were persecuted, tortured, and or/murdered during the
Holocaust. Does knowledge of historical discrimination
against homosexuals make a difference in our minds about
contemporary laws concerning homosexuals? Sadly, less than 25% of
Americans today are aware of the fact that homosexuals were even
victims in anyway of the Nazis. If they had known, would it have
made a difference at the polls on election day? A definitive answer
to this question is not possible, though it should highlight for
thoughtful Christians the dreadful potential for condemnation
(labeling a group as 'evil') to lead to active persecution.
As is well known in the cases of people like Matthew Shepherd,
homosexuals in our own country are often the victims of
persecution, violence, and hate crime. In the current
American political arena, homosexuals are 'charged' with
'corrupting or destroying the sanctity of marriage.'
According to this logic, laws are needed to protect marriage.
Hence in Ohio, our state legislature passed a law called the
Defense of Marriage Act, an act whose very name implies that
marriage needs to be defended from those who would otherwise
destroy it without our preventive measures. The assumption
is, of course, that marriage needs to be defended against
homosexuals, hence "Issue 1" on the Ohio ballot was referred to by
every form of media as 'the ban on gay marriage.' Are gays
and lesbians indeed guilty as charged?
[12] Here, the theology of the cross as methodology begs me to
ask the question, could this accusation against homosexuals be yet
another manifestation of the Christian complicity in and human
tendency toward unjustified scapegoating? Could this
condemnation of homosexuals as the source of the corruption of
marriage be a classic case of the egregiously mistaken human
tendency to call the good evil and the evil good, at least in part?
Both at the level of intentionality and action, I cannot find any
empirical evidence that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of
marriage.
[13] And what of scriptural evidence? Though an in-depth
biblical study is beyond the scope of this essay, in all seven
references to what contemporary readers term homosexuality, the
bible speaks only of same-sex acts, never of sexual orientation let
alone gay marriage, a possibility never entertained by the biblical
writers. The Bible does speak negatively of same-sex acts,
referring to them as unnatural. Is it then the unnaturalness
of certain sex-acts that corrupts marriage? What constitutes
an unnatural sex-act? Anal sex? What of oral sex? Do American
Christians consider these acts are unnatural? Is it then that
particular sex-acts corrupt marriage? But what of the gay couples
who perform none of these 'unnatural' sex-acts (and yes, there are
plenty of people who fall into this category)? Aren't heterosexual
couples who engage in 'unnatural' sex-acts like oral sex destroying
the sanctity of marriage? If so, countless people, including
innumerable Christians, stand indicted. Where are the
additional laws needed to protect marriage from these sorts of
attacks from within? Why can heterosexuals engage in
all these 'corruptions' of marriage and more, with impunity? Are
heterosexual marriages permitted because they are sinless, and
homosexual marriages prohibited because they are sinful? What
straight Christian could claim before God that their marriage is
sinless?
[14] Do heterosexuals bear no blame at all for the crumbling of
marriage in America? I fear that the scapegoating of
homosexuals for marriage's corruption can lead American
heterosexual Christians down this path of no accountability, to a
theology of righteousness which bears no resemblance to a theology
of the cross. Jesus, after all, in the book of Matthew,
suggests that DIVORCE, --not homosexuality, which Jesus never
condemns-- is an assault on the sanctity of marriage. Mark
10:11: "He answered, 'Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces
her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.'"
Jesus could not have been more correct in labeling that which
indisputably corrupts the sanctity of marriage: marriage's
dissolution. Sanctity means holy or sacred, religiously
binding, and inviolable. Christian divorce violates the
inviolable, tearing apart with human hands and deeds what God has
bound together. Jesus' assertion has the added flourish of
being both rationally and empirically verifiable-surely the tragic
death of every marriage is an assault on marriage's supposed
inviolability and sanctity.
[15] As a heterosexual theologian of the cross, I feel compelled
to call things by their right names. To use Luther's terms of
good and evil, divorce is evil, if by evil we mean that which
destroys marriage. The legalization of divorce in this
country goes directly against the very words uttered by the lips of
our Lord. However, most churches, innumerable Christians, and
the American legal system have determined (I think understandably)
that divorce is, at times, a necessary evil, a last
resort. Yet where is the moral outrage over such
legalization? Divorce is for many, a regrettable exception to
the norm. For many thoughtful Christians, divorce is an exception
grounded in the reality and inescapability of human sinfulness. For
still others, however, divorce is simply a no-fault
agreement. Some heterosexuals marry three, four, even five
times in a lifetime, in clear violation of the Ohio state
constitutional amendment that states, "Only a union between
one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in
or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions."
In practice, the state clearly recognizes not one, but multiple
successive marriages for heterosexuals as valid. Why aren't
Christians concerned about the fact that there is absolutely no
limit on the serial monogamy of heterosexuals, who could feasibly
be married and re-married 20 times in one lifetime, while living in
one state? The 'gay marriage ban' isolates homosexuals as the only
persons who are both unmarriageable and corruptors of marriage's
sanctity.
[16] Divorce, however, fortunately can and never will be
prescriptive for Christians. We do not wish for all to be divorced.
Similarly, gay marriage can never be prescriptive, in the sense
that prayerful progressives do not wish for all marriages to be gay
unions. Many prayerful progressives are not arguing for
homosexuality to become universal behavior--anymore than they are
pushing for divorce to be universal. Prayerful progressives'
arguments must not be summarized with this straw-man fallacy.
No, prayerful progressives like myself are pointing to a double
standard that may very well rely on a theology of glory-the
naïve triumphalism of heterosexual Christians that they have
successfully sustained the sanctity of marriage, despite all
evidence to the contrary. Prayerful theologians of the cross might
ask the question, can the Christian church conceive of
homosexuality as a legal exception to the Christian norm, just like
divorce? That is, acceptable and even celebrated by some who
consider it sinless, regrettable to others who consider it sinful
but acceptable as a necessary evil because of the omnipresence of
human sinfulness-but however you slice it, perfectly
legal? No good reason why this compromise is not
possible, particularly from the standpoint of justice, has been
presented. As things currently stand, many might appositely
accuse Christians of inconsistency, pushing as they have for laws
ostensibly honoring one part of the biblical text (homosexuality)
while completely conceding to secular values on the other
(divorce). The prayerful progressive position advocates with
consistency for acceptance of both exceptions.
[17] Meditation 2: "Although the works of man always
seem attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal
sins….Without the theology of the cross, men misuse the best
in the worst manner.[6]" -Martin Luther,
Heidelberg Disputation
[18] The second insight the theology of the cross grants to the
Christian struggling to take a stand on the issue of gay marriage
is the notion that our epistemologies are deeply wounded. At
our very best, without exception, an authentic consideration of the
crucifixion demands that we recognize that we employ scarred
epistemologies. What does this mean? To answer, we must
also discuss the theological anthropology suggested by a theology
of the cross. In effect we must answer two questions
here: Who are human beings, and how does this affect what we
know?
[19] According to Luther, Christians are embodied
paradoxes. That is to say, looking at the world through the
bifocal lens of the crucifixion and resurrection shows us that
human beings are simul justus et peccator. This
Latin phrase means that all Christians who truly understand the
gospel and the theology of the cross understand themselves in a
strange manner-that is, as persons who are simultaneously righteous
and sinful. Christians are justified sinners, righteous
sinners, rendered righteous not by a single word or deed of their
own but instead only through the righteousness of Christ. "It is
the sweetest righteousness of God the Father that he does not save
imaginary, but rather, real sinners, sustaining us in spite of our
sins and accepting our works and our lives which are all deserving
of rejection, until he perfects and saves
us…we…escape his judgment through his mercy, not
through our righteousness.[7]"
[20] Luther urges us to understand that human beings' existence
as simul justus et peccator dramatically affects both our
knowledge and our actions. This calls for a radical reversal
in human thinking, which typically feels more comfortable in a
theology of glory, because it permits the fanciful notion that some
individuals stand on a pure and moral high ground. Instead,
Luther's theology of the cross suggests that neither can be without
ambiguity. To make this point abundantly clear, Luther quotes
Ecclesiastes 7:20, "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth
who does good and never sins," and Psalm 143:2, "No man living is
righteous before thee." No thought, understanding, belief, action,
or institution is ever untainted by human sin. Sin permeates all,
even Christians', churches, marriage, and biblical
interpretations. Thus in Moltmann's terms, for Luther Christ
'is a scandal even for Christian theology.'
[21] In the realm of epistemology, sin's ubiquity suggests that
no human being can claim full knowledge of God's will. A
theology of the cross simultaneously testifies to our deep intimacy
and connectedness with God but also to our radical disconnection
and alienation from God. It is not one or the other, but always
both. Practically, this means whether I am a progressive or a
conservative, indeed whatever my position, a theology of the cross
necessitates that I adopt a position of self-critique. Luther
reminds us, "Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present
unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every
work.[8]" In
shorthand, a theology of the cross urges us to ask about even our
noblest enterprises such as ethical decision-making: Could I be
wrong? No one can corner the market on God's will and
truth. A theology of the cross introduces the scary truth of
fallibility, stated scripturally in Romans as all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God. On this issue, scripture is
surprisingly unambiguous, "For God has imprisoned all in
disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." (Rom
11:32)
[22] No doubt many of my fellow Christians will counter, the
will of God is clear and unambiguous, it is preserved in the word
of God. If the Bible were without ambiguity, however,
Christians would not be plagued with these discussions. As
only one case in point, while the Bible says thou shalt not kill,
it also admonishes the chosen people of God to slaughter the
Canaanites without mercy in warfare. Such is the basis of our
current debates on war. Similarly, though some biblical
passages condemn same-sex acts, particularly in the Old Testament,
other biblical passages seem potentially to trump this
injunction--for example, Gal 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus," to which we could conceivably add 'gay and straight.'
In the midst of this ambiguity, a theology of the cross reminds us
of the difficult truth that even biblical interpretation, tainted
as it is by human sin like every other human endeavor, is and can
be guided by human agendas rather than divine ones.
[23] Vast historical evidence corroborates this insight.
Christian pastors and parishioners, for example, used their skewed
reading of the Christian Bible as their primary source for
supporting slavery. The Bible appears to support slavery, yet
no American Christian supports this interpretation today. We
consistently reinterpret the Bible in light of our culture, but
many act as if we are just doing this for the first time in the
case of homosexuality. A more recent and perhaps relevant
example occurred in 1998 in South Carolina, where state legislators
realized that a law banning interracial marriage was still on the
books. At that time, a Christian senator stood up on the
senate floor and stated that based on his Christian beliefs and the
Bible, he believed interracial marriages were an abomination to God
and man. Our laws obviously once shared this senator's
viewpoint that miscegenation was a corruption of marriage's
sanctity. However, since 1967, state interracial marriage
bans have been declared unconstitutional under the 14th
amendment. (This raises the question: why does race
qualify under the equal protection clause but not sexuality?)
A majority of Christians once shared this senator's views as well,
though now they no longer do. Clearly these former 'Christian'
positions were guided by human agendas and not divine ones, but
very few people realized this at the time. A theology of the
cross, however, reminds us all that such interpretations are
likely. Could the same human agendas of prejudice be at stake
in the gay marriage debate over reinterpretation of scripture?
Given my understanding of our scarred epistemologies, I cannot and
do not claim absolute truth for my position. Instead, I
respectfully offer it up to thoughtful Christians, especially
within the ELCA, for their consideration as a counter-voice to the
mainstream.
[24] A theology of the cross therefore reminds of our beautiful
need of one another, what I term our dialogical need of the
other. A theology of the cross suggests that human
beings need one another, to call one another up short and help us
to discern the log in our own eye to which we are blind, busy as we
are finding the sty in everyone else's. In our blindness,
only God, working through our neighbors and their agape, can help.
The point of such difficult discussions is not to claim that
nothing can be said, but for Christians to enter into dialogue
about their interpretations, serving as necessary critics of one
another with those on the opposite side of the spectrum.
[25] Sin, therefore, is a great equalizer. But perhaps you
are asking, are Christians then completely unable to make absolute
truth claims, left with nothing but relativism? A theology of
the cross suggests that we can and must still speak, yet we must
confess that our claims are provisional. Undoubtedly this
thought makes many people uncomfortable, and they would see such a
claim as a curse and a sell-out. I can only remind these
dialogue partners that on Good Friday, we condemned Christ as a
criminal and blasphemer. Even his own disciples betrayed,
denied, and abandoned him. Thankfully, however, we have a
forgiving God. On the basis of grace, God overturned our
judgment of Christ and instead passed his own. God's
judgment, importantly, did not resemble our own in the slightest,
but instead was its opposite. A theology of the cross reminds
me that only God judges (crucifixion) and only God saves and
redeems (resurrection.) Nothing that human beings do or say or even
believe earns them salvation-only a theology of glory would believe
such a thing. Says Luther, "The person who believes that he
can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he
becomes doubly guilty.[9]"
[26] The concept of being saved by grace lies at the core of
Lutheran teaching, and with Luther, I believe it is a relief that I
am not saved by my own merit or my own judgments. I therefore
interpret the provisionality of human truth claims to be a
blessing, and not a curse. Such knowledge of provisionality
leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work in the world and for God to
be alive and sovereign, working through and in human beings to
provide human life with future revelation of Godself. The
provisionality of human truth claims, even moral and theological
ones, leaves room for the resurrection to happen. If human
labels and judgments were definitive, there would be no
Resurrection, and no resurrections. In the face of God, I cannot
claim absolute knowledge. I can only speak and act as the Spirit
guides me, and as a theologian of the cross that means with deep
humility and consciousness of my own fallibility.
[27] Even though we will undoubtedly err in our biblical
interpretations and subsequent social ethics, my principle of
selectivity is the scriptural Christ-given principle of agape found
in Mark 12:31: "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no
commandment greater than these." When faced with
ambiguity as in the situation of homosexuality, I choose as a
theologian of the cross to err on the side of agape, understanding
that if God's judgment one day prove me wrong (crucifixion,) we
also have a loving and forgiving God (resurrection.) As
contemporary Christians, we must confess our principles of
selectivity as well as our selective literalism. After all, how
many of us stone children to death when they curse their parents,
as Exodus 21:17 commands? How many of us do as Christ
instructed in Mark 10:21, and sell all that we have and give it to
the poor?
[28] Wherever selective literalism is unconfessed and
unacknowledged, as it commonly is in contemporary discussions of
gay marriage, a theology of the cross cautions that a human
prejudicial agenda could be at work. A theology of the cross
implies that God's justice compels me to also act for justice in
the world. From the standpoint of justice toward homosexuals,
I must ask, on what possible biblical basis can we ban
exclusively homosexuals from the civil institution of
marriage? As things currently stand, they are the only
consenting adults not permitted to marry by law. But
scripturally, are those who commit same-sex acts the only
'sinners'? Surely not! What of murderers? Can they
marry? The answer is yes, in every state, even if they are behind
bars.[10] What of
other biblical sinners of a more sexual nature, such as adulterers,
can they marry? Can rapists marry? Can child molesters and
abusers get married, and therefore have children? Can persons
convicted of domestic violence against a spouse marry?
Clearly adulterers, rapists, child molesters, and spousal-abusers
undeniably violate the sanctity of marriage; what sane person would
argue otherwise? But can all of these persons (criminals, actually)
legally marry? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. As long as one
is heterosexual in America and a consenting adult, marriage is
yours for the taking, and abusing.
[29] As a theologian of the cross who calls things by their
right names, when I look at the current legislation banning
same-sex marriage, I can think only of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
definition of an unjust law. In the Letter from Birmingham
Jail, King defines an unjust law as "a code that a numerical
or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does
not make binding on itself. This is difference
madelegal.[11]" Letter for
letter, the current gay marriage ban qualifies as an unjust law
according to Dr. King. My conscience therefore condemns the
gay-marriage ban with my very being, as there is no denying that it
is a law passed by a power majority group on a minority group which
is not binding for itself. Far be it from us as Christians to
support injustice, analogous to the way many Americans Christians
were blind to the injustice of race relations for decades. As
an American citizen, I can only think of our legal system, which
deems unconstitutional any and all laws that target only one
specific group and deny them equal rights. Both a theology of
the cross and the Constitution condemn acts of
discrimination. Martin Luther and his namesake Dr. King stand
united on this issue. Justice is the concern of theology and of
Christians just as surely as it is the concern of every American
citizen. I ask myself, how could such a violation of justice
have passed, primarily with the support of Christians who claim to
seek justice?[12]
[30] The gay marriage ban therefore does just what it purports
to do: exclusively targets homosexuals and stigmatizes them
as unworthy of marriage. In supporting such a ban, the
Christian churches participate in injustice, albeit perhaps
unwittingly and in the very name of justice-but the theology of the
cross forewarns us of such irony. By supporting this ban, the
churches tacitly ignore other marital issues in which one person
would concede that they are hurt by the other-spousal abuse and
rape, child molestation, and adultery. (Notably, in gay
unions, both parties claim not only to not be hurt, but to
flourish.) What kind of message do we send to our young people by
isolating our marital laws and our support of such laws to
homosexuality? We send the message that as the body of
Christ, we do not condemn rape, adultery, domestic violence, murder
and child abuse as corruptions of marriage. Only
being gay matters; only homosexuality corrupts marital covenants.
Have we unreasonably isolated a 'sin' that is easy to categorize as
'other'-the 'sin' of being gay-in order to protect ourselves and
our presumed righteousness? Are we afraid to condemn
behaviors which are not conveniently isolatable to a group to which
most of us do not belong? After all, homosexuality is not a
behavior which tempts heterosexuals; behaviors such as anger,
mistreatment of our spouse and adultery, on the other hand, are
real temptations for all of us. If we condemn these too loudly, are
we afraid of condemning ourselves? A theologian of the cross must
wonder here if a theology of glory is at work. When will we
at last call things by their right names?
[31] Meditation 3: "That person does not deserve to be
called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as
though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have
actually happened.[13]" --Martin
Luther, Heidelberg Disputation
[32] The third and final insight offered by a theology of the
cross regards God. Because God cannot be fully known by us,
this section is of necessity the shortest of my three sections, yet
perhaps most noteworthy. We human beings ask, who is
God? And a theology of the cross answers: God is
Immanuel, that is, God with us. For Luther, the strangeness
of the gospel tale lies primarily in the fact that God was present
in such a humiliating place such as the cross. He writes, "Now it
is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize
God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the
humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom
of the wise, as Isaiah 45:15 says, 'Truly, thou art a God who
hidest thyself.[14]"
[33] The incarnation and crucifixion imply, therefore, that God
can be found anywhere-absolutely anywhere. This insight,
Luther well recognized, is simultaneously scandalous and
beautiful. On the one hand, it means that no place is so
remote that God is not present. In suffering, death, grief,
radical doubt, and even murder, God-Immanuel-is there. On the
other hand, this insight means that human beings cannot discern,
let alone limit where God's grace is at work and where it is not.
Indeed, a theology of the cross states that the work of God's grace
is invisible to the human eye, and therefore can be seen only with
the eyes of faith which hopes in things unseen.
[34] A theology of the cross also reveals that God judges and
condemns (crucifixion) and saves and redeems (resurrection.)
God is both judge and redeemer; human beings are ultimately neither
for they tend to misjudge and have no power to redeem. All
human institutions and endeavors thus stand under both God's
judgment and God's redemption. Because we cannot think the
resurrection without the cross, however, we are reminded that the
redemption of the world is proleptic and paradoxical. That is, it
is already but not yet. Until the eschaton, God uses
the raw materials of this world, including human beings, as
vehicles of his grace and justice.
[35] Who is responsible for sanctifying a marriage?
According to Luther and a theology of the cross, God alone
sanctifies marriage. Human beings and their actions cannot
sanctify or bless their own marriages. This gives new meaning
to Matthew 19:6, "What therefore God has joined together, let no
man put asunder." A theology of the cross insists that human beings
cannot domesticate God and limit God's sovereignty or workings of
grace in anyway. Marriage, in the sacramental view of most
churches, can function as a vehicle of God's grace to human beings,
should God choose to bless the marriage in this way. That
being said, do heterosexual Christians dare to have the audacity to
claim that God cannot and will not ever choose to use gay marriage
and love to extend his grace to human beings? Who are we to
limit God in such a way? Who are we to limit the possibility of
grace in advance for other human beings through our laws? Can
we say that god cannot join together homosexuals? A theology of the
cross cautions against such human domestication of God's
sovereignty, particularly because human beings, given the choice,
would certainly have denied that God could use the scandal of a
criminal's execution on the cross to work his grace on the entire
world. God's logic is not our logic. A theology of the
cross reveals that considering the two conflatable is pure
folly. In the words of C.S. Lewis, God is the great
iconoclast. This must not be forgotten.
[36] In conclusion, my essay disproves the claim that one has to
rely exclusively on social science and contemporary experience and
not the Lutheran tradition in order to argue for the acceptance of
gay marriage. Using the theology of the cross, an idea that
lies at the heart of the Lutheran tradition, I have shown an
alternative interpretation of the issue. Before God, I assert
my theology and resulting social ethic with great fear and
trembling, in the knowledge that my epistemology is scarred. Before
God, I cannot claim to know if my own position is sinful or just,
though like all human endeavors according to a theology of the
cross, it is probably an admixture of both. If my dialogue
partners cannot confess the same of their own positions, have they
truly heard the message of the cross? Before human beings, I
must confess that my conscience convinces me that
anti-homosexualism is the last acceptable prejudice in this
country. That homosexuals are humiliated on a daily basis and
stigmatized as being the only segment of our society
unworthy of the blessings of marriage, of this there is no doubt.
While some would argue that this humiliation is well deserved and
brought on by choice and by guilt, I cannot avoid considering the
alternative possibility that this humiliation is brought on by
scapegoating and unconfessed human agendas of political
self-interest and spiritual self-righteousness. In this
regard I ask to be heard, and invite responses. I close by
encouraging my fellow Christians, whatever their views, to remember
that the authentic desire to discern God's will for the people of
God provides a common ground all Christians, be they 'prayerful
progressives' or 'compassionate conservatives.' Where this insight
is lost, no authentic dialogue is possible.
© October 2005
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 5, Issue 10
[1] Robert Benne, "Reinventing Sexual
Ethics," First Things 121, March 2002, 12.
[2] Ibid 12.
[3] Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God:
The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 3.
[4] Martin Luther, "Heidelberg
Disputation," Luther's Works 31 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press,
1957) 53.
[5] Ibid 41.
[6] Ibid 43, 55.
[7] Ibid 63.
[8] Ibid 48.
[9] Ibid 50.
[10] Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court
in Turner vs Safley ruled in 1987 that prisoners were allowed to
get married, citing marriage as a fundamental civil right.
[11] Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter
from Birmingham Jail," in Wayne Boulton, Thomas Kennedy, and Allen
Verhey, eds., From Christ to the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
1994) 430.
[12] No doubt at this point many
protest that under this reasoning, polygamy too should be
permitted. For surely the defense of marriage acts also
discriminate against those minority groups who seek polygamy. To
this rebuttal, I have two brief responses. First, I can only point
out that those who seek polygamy have a strong scriptural basis for
their actions-i.e. models of the faith such as Abraham had multiple
wives. This of course only proves my point that everyone, whether
they confess it or not, consistently interpret the bible
selectively according to their own community and standards. Second,
however, polygamy is to be rejected by Christians because it is
inherently discriminatory and a violation of justice. Polygamy, it
should be noted, also qualifies for an unjust law using Dr. King's
definition. Those who seek polygamy mean by the term both in
concept and in praxis the practice of having multiple wives. At no
time do they mean the practice of having multiple husbands (for
which there is no scriptural precedent.) While many men, including
Mormons, would love to have multiple wives, how many of those same
men would be willing to share their wife with countless other men?
Men who seek polygamy have no intention of sharing such privileges
with women. Again I can only quote the Christian minister Dr. King,
this is difference made legal.
[13] "Heidelberg Disputation," 52.
[14] "Heidelberg Disputation,"
52-53.