The and

by B. L. Mauser, Princeton Theological Seminary Ulrich Mauser, educated in Germany and Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary, has taught at three theological schools during his career, serving as academic dean at one of them. All along he has focused on the meaning of the scriptures for what we actually believe and do as a people of faith. His books and articles focus not on texts by themselves but on their theological meaning, often in relation to real world issues. His most recent book, for instance, is The Gospel of Peace: A Scriptural Message For Today’s World. During the last two years, Professor Mauser has joined some of his colleagues at Princeton to issue public statements on burning issues in the church: one of these focused on the ordination of homosexuals. He is not the sort of Bible scholar who hides in the library.

On September 29, 1994, Walter Wink identified sin of ” implying nothing to do with the Gospel one way or and I made presentations and engaged in in this statement that the church’s another. dialogue on the issue of the ordination of opposition to homosexuality, which had 2. Unambiguous Biblical homosexual persons. The event took informed Christian teaching and practice Condemnations of Homosexuality place at Central Presbyterian Church in for centuries, was not only wrong, but There is virtual agreement among all Montclair, New Jersey. My thanks are sinful. At the same period, in one of our who participate today in the due to sponsors of this event, and to my student publications at Princeton homosexuality debate that Old and New colleague Walter Wink for the open and Theological Seminary, issue after issue Testament contain some unequivocal fair way in which he debated the issue. contained letters by students who said condemn ations of homosexual practice. The following pages are based on my they were coming out of the closet, that These sentences are: presentation in September 1994, but they they had found homosexuality to be a reflect also some of the points raised in gift of God which they were celebrating “You shall not lie with a male as with a the debate, and they are substantially re- with thanksgiving, and that they were woman: it is an abomination” (Lev written as a result of further work which charging anybody who would question 18:22). I have done after the meeting in their sexual orientation with hypocrisy “If a man lies with a male as with a Montclair. and with disobedience to the spirit of the woman, both of them have committed an 1. Homosexuality in the Church - A Gospel, which offers God’s all-inclusive abomination: they shall be put to death: New Situation grace to everyone without distinction. their blood is upon them” (Lev 20:13). The debate has reached the point at Israelite-Jewish traditions, together with “God gave them up to degrading which the defence of the traditional an almost unanimous Christian voice, passions. Their women exchanged stance of the church regarding have for millennia judged homosexual natural intercourse for unnatural, and in homosexuality is declared morally behaviour to be contrary to the will of the same way also the men, giving up reprehensible. A group organized in God, and destructive to human natural intercourse with women, were January 1995 which calls itself “Semper community. At times they did so against consumed with passion for one another. Reformanda” identifies advocacy for the pervasive cultural trends in societies Men committed shameless acts with men Gay/Lesbian movement with the pursuit where homosexuality was an accepted and received in their own persons the of justice which is mandated by the practice, at other times they succeeded in due penalty for their error” (Rom 1:26- Gospel. The group’s founder stated in a moulding public attitudes and social 27). telephone interview their concern for mores and laws. The situation today is “Do you not know that wrongdoers will justice and peace: “whether it be justice radically different. The Gay/Lesbian not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not on behalf of women or other campaign for public recognition of marginalized people - gay and lesbian be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, homosexuality as a morally and legally adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, people. It’s part of our obedience to legitimate lifestyle has not only made thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, Christ to bring justice in the life of deep inroads into the media and into the world, and that that’s an essential robbers - none of these will inherit the cultural institutions, but it has produced kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). part of the mission of the church” (The an advocacy in the Church which calls Presbyterian Outlook, July 10, 1995, p. The condemnation of the law applies for for a new reformation in which 3). With all due respect to fellow those “who kill their father or mother, for homosexuality is affirmed as a Christian Christians who hold different opinions, it murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave form of life, demanded by the Gospel has become impossible to avoid the traders, liars, perjurers” (1 Tim 1:9-10). and infused with God’s spirit. problem whether a self-assertive and It is debated which precise social Some examples can illustrate the new open homosexual lifestyle is a form of behaviour is meant by “male-prostitutes” situation. In a statement of January 22- confessing and living the Gospel, and “sodomites” in the last two quotes 23, 1993, the Synod of the Northeast whether it is a denial of the Go spel, or but it is not controversial that they expressed the belief that the Presbyterian whether it is a neutral question which has include homogenital activity. Church USA “should repent its already Other passages in Old and New creation. The drive which causes a man 1:27); woman was made from man and Testament are often understood to to leave behind his old family unit to in order to complement man who, incriminate homosexuality also: the form with his wife a new union of life without woman, would be utterly alone gang-rapes told in Gen 19:1-11 and Judg (Gen 2:24) is grounded in an antecedent and helpless (vs. 7-8, referring to Gen 19-21 may not see the homosexuality act of divine creation, the calling into 2:18-24), but man and woman are co- involved in the narratives to be the crime being of a single human being in the two dependent on each other, woman coming deserving punishment, although Jude 7 is different forms of male and female (Gen out of man but man also coming out of evidence that in New Testament times 1:27). As God’s creation there is only woman (vs. 11-12). The point of the the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was one human being who exists in two argument is the insistence that faith in read as prime illustration of “sexual separate, distinct, and different forms of Christ, the new being in God’s spirit, immorality” and “unnatural lust”. We male and female; and vice versa, they are does not eliminate God’s good creation will omit discussion of any ambiguous in their separateness, distinction, and of human life in the essential difference passages. difference one single human being. In of male and female. 3. The Ethos of Human Sexuality in this simultaneous oneness and duality, d) Ephesians 5:21-33 goes as far as to the Bible male and female together are the image say that the love and care which of God, receive the blessing of God and The few unambiguous condemnations of husbands and wives exercise for each the unrestricted approval of their Creator homosexuality in the Bible are other are a mystery which embodies in to be “very good” (Gen 1:28, 31). surrounded by a fairly broad stream of the form of actual, mundane history the texts which speak of a very high b) In 1 Cor 6:12-20 Paul has to contend transcendent love and care which unite evaluation of human sexuality. There is with a group in the Christian community Christ and his Church. And again this is an ethos of sexual life in Old and New that considers it perfectly legitimate for a said to give final validity to God’s Testament which must not be left out of man to hire the services of a prostitute. creation of male and female as partners consideration when the issue of Paul’s uncompromising “no” to because “for this reason a man shall homosexuality is discussed. The terribly is, again, grounded in an leave his father and mother and be joined dark shadow cast over homosexual appeal to the creation of Adam and Eve: to his wife, and the two shall become activity in the Bible can only be “Do you not know that whoever is united one.” (Eph 5:31 citing Gen 2:24). understood as the contrast of the great to a prostitute becomes one body with The mystery of seeing in the union of an light which is shed on the creation of her? For it is said, `The two shall be one earthly marriage, understood as the unity male and female which elicits the flesh’ (Gen 2:24). But anyone united to of two who are essentially different, an judgment “very good” by its Creator the Lord becomes one spirit with him” image of the union of Christ and the (Gen 1:31). It is my contention that a (v. 16). In contrast to the Corinthian Church, picks up on the frequent use of great many discussions of the issue of party which considers genital activity to marriage metaphors for the relation Gay and Lesbian claims in relation to the be a purely biological function, which unites God and God’s people both Biblical message suffer from the virtual comp arable to the digestive process (v. in Old and New Testament. For the isolation of this problem from the 13), Paul argues with the creation prophet Hosea, the infidelity of Israel positive sexual ethos in Scripture. We narrative that the physical union of a toward her god is expressed in the image shall, therefore, first sketch this positive man and a woman establishes a bond in of a divorce: God as husband is divorced ethos which is the necessary backdrop which their very selves, their personhood from Israel as wife (Hosea 1-3). The very for the Biblical judgments of are involved, analogous to the bond marriage of the prophet is to be an homosexuality. between a member of Christ and the enactment of the loathsome union Lord himself. There are four passages in the New between a faithful husband and a Testament which deal with important c) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This section faithless wife as the palpable earthly aspects of the relation between men and deals with a question of hair-style and reflection of the history through which women by appealing to the creation head-dress during communal worship. God suffers with his people, and the stories in Gen 1 and 2. The four passages The circumstances addressed in this restoration of God’s covenant with Israel are: Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-9; 1 passage are obscure and all is presented as a new betrothal (Hosea Corinthians 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians 11:2- reconstructions are hypothetical. I follow 2:16-20). Jeremiah compares the positive 16; Ephesians 5:21-33. one such hypothesis which sees the issue relation of Ya hweh and Israel’s youth in in an attempt of some Corinthian women the wilderness to the devotion and love a) Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-9: to pray and prophecy in public worship of a bride to her bridegroom (Jer 2:2) and Pharisees challenge Jesus with the (v. 4) in a manner demonstrating that the Ezekiel likens God’s totally unmerited question whether it is lawful for a man to diffe rence between male and female is mercy toward Israel to the rescue of an divorce his wife. Jesus’ answer goes over done away with if one lives in the Spirit abandoned baby girl by a man, and their the head of Mosaic legislation back to of God. Therefore, they cut their hair in a subsequent marriage (Ezek 16 and in the creation stories. He says, “from the fashion usual for men and they discard a different form and expanded to two beginning of creation `God made them head-dress identifying them as women. women in Ezek 23). The New Testament male and female’ (Gen 1:27). `For this Paul argues for a retention of the custom, has inherited, expanded, and enriched reason a man shall leave his father and not in order to endorse a hair-style and a this imagery. Paul can say that he has mother and be joined to his wife, and the dress-fashion, but to counter the claim betrothed the Corinthian Christian two shall become one flesh’” (Gen 2:24). that the difference between male and community to Christ as a chaste virgin to Jesus’ answer recalls an order of female is no longer valid in the new her one husband (2 Cor 11:2). The new sexuality older and more pristine than creation. To that end he appeals heaven and the new earth in Rev 21 are later law. “From the beginning” alludes extensively to the creation story: Man cast into the picture of the coming down not only to a distant past but to the brings glory to God, as the female brings from heaven of a new Jerusalem as the bedrock of human sexuality as God’s glory to the male (v. 7 alluding to Gen bride of Christ. In Jesus’ parables and sayings, the image of the wedding feast and praise of God the Creator. The own desire leading to the degrading of is used to describe the arrival of the passage is Rom 1:26-27 and, here again, their bodies (1:24). The phrase kingdom of God in the world. Jesus’s the appeal to the creation story in Gen 1 “degrading of their bodies” in the second coming is the entry of the bridegroom at and 2 is crucial. mention of the “exchange” is not the wedding feast (Mark 2:19). People Rom 1:18-3:20 offers a long indictment specific. In the third step involving the invited to enter into the kingdom of God of human failing which leads to the “exchange”, however, the specificity is are presented as guests invited to the conclusion that, in the light of the palpable: “Women exchanged natural nuptials of the King’s son (Matt 22:1- revelation of God’s power of salvation in intercourse for unnatural, and in the 10), and the story of the virgins, (Matt the Go spel (1:16-17), no human being is same way also the men, giving up natural 25:1-13) uses the same imagery. justified by their own accomplishments intercourse with women, were consumed Of course, in all these texts, in Old and in God’s sight (3:20). The opening with passion for one another” (1:26-27). New Testament alike, the figures of section, 1:18-32, deals with Gentile Paul uses words for “men” (arsenes) and bride and bridegroom, husband and wife, religion and morality. Gentile religion is “women” (thleiai) in these verses which of wedding feast and wedding guests, foolishness (1:22) because it imagines are otherwise not used in his letters together with their negatives God in the likeness of created beings (e xcept in Gal 3:28). The words derive faithlessness, divorce, and harlotry are (1:23). The first lie of idolatry is from the vocabulary of the creation story images. We are dealing with metaphors, immediately fo llowed by moral in Gen 1:27 where the one human being similes, parables which are not directly degradation. “Therefore God gave them (anthropos) is said to exist in the form of identified with the reality to which they up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, the union of two, male and female (arsen refer. But this cautionary sentence must, to the degrading of their bodies among kai thly). The three uses of the phrase at the same time, be put positively. The themselves” (1:24). Religion and ethics “exchange” coordinate idolatrous sexual images, metaphors, similes, and belong together, but for Paul they are religion and homosexual activity. parables in Old and New Testaments yoked in a way that ethics is outcome Idolatrous religion substitutes the have the power to express in words a and consequence of religion. In the case worship of the only true God for objects truth which without these words would of Gentile religion the primal error of unworthy of veneration, and forever remain mute and unknown. The substituting the honour of the immortal homosexuality substitutes the language of God and God’s people as and invisible God with images of relationship established by the Creator bridegroom and bride, as husband and creation is followed by its necessary with a relationship that has no foundation wife, is creative in the extreme. It calls consequence in the degradation of in God’s creation. There is a precise into being a vista in which the existence morality. The very showpiece of this analogy between the exchange of the of a marriage, and in it the confirmation moral degradation is homosexual activity Creator for creatures, and the exchange of the prior dignity of human life in the (1:26-27). of the Creator’s act in ordaining the union of male and female for the union polarity of male and female, is elevated The indictment of homosexuality in Rom of members of the same sex. to become a reflection of the wonders of 1:26-27 is linked to the preceding God’s relationship with us, of God’s argument against idolatry through the 5. The Modern Debate about Bible fidelity to us, of God’s destiny for us. repetition of the word “exchange” which and Homosexuality This produces an ethic in which human is used three times. Paul states, first of The unambiguous condemnation of sexuality is enabled to be an imprint of all, as a general principle the Jewish homosexual practice in some Biblical God’s covenant with his people. But this conviction that Gentile religion is corrupt passages is not disputed today. But its ethic is predicated on the unalterable because it substitutes (“exchanges”) the implications for modern Christian ethics, polarity of male and female. In the glory of God for the veneration of and for the practice of pastoral care and covenant God remains forever clearly images of mortal beings. Gentile religion the ordinances of the churches, is sharply and unalterably distinct from us as our “exchanged the glory of the immo rtal controversial. I conclude by offering creator, as our Lord, and as our God for images resembling a mortal some theses about Biblical teaching on redeemer. The union between God and human being or birds or four-footed homosexuality in the modern context. humans in the covenant is a bond animals or reptiles” (1:23). The sequence a) Homosexuality and the Sexual between two clearly and eternally “human being, birds, four-footed animals Ethos of the Bible distinct partners. Exactly for this reason and reptiles” echoes Gen 1:26 which It is a fundamental mistake, in my view, can God’s covenant with the world be says that the human being will have to discuss Biblical statements on mirrored and expressed only through a dominion over the fish of the sea, over homosexuality in isolation from the human bond in which the unity of the the birds of the air, over the cattle, and positive ethos of human sexuality in partners preserves and honours the over the reptiles. The appeal to Gen 1:26 Scripture. As bits and pieces of Old essential polarity between them. serves Paul to emphasize that in the fatal Testament legislation, and of Jewish 4. Homosexuality in Rom 1:26-27 substitute of the true God for images, the heritage in the New Testament, the human being idolizes the very animals Homosexuality is not much of a problem sparse references to homosexuality could which in the story of creation were to be in Old and New Testament. The positive well be attributed to the social conditions subject to human dominion. ethos of the divine creation of the human of a distant past. But seen against the foil as male and female is so strong that only The first “exchange” of legitimate for of the extremely high valuation given to a few and isolated judgments of illegitimate worship is followed by a the counterpoint of maleness and homosexual practices are needed. Only second in which the moral implications femaleness in God’s creation in the at one point has the issue been drawn are also introduced. Gentiles “exchanged Bible, the sole attribution to time-bound into a theological argumentation, but at the truth about God for a lie and modes of social norms cannot be that point homogenital practice becomes worshiped and served the creature rather maintained. On the background of the no less than the showcase for the ills of a than the Creator” (1:25) which is the positive ethos of human sexuality in Old world which has rejected the knowledge reason that God gives them up to their and New Testament, homosexuality and a patriarchal society are toward the sanctification of human life, becomes inescapably a denial of the presuppositions in much Biblical not to the indiscriminate approval of any goodness of God’s creation. literature, they are counterbalanced by form of conduct. Why have all New b) Love-Ethic and Sexual Ethos other aspects of Biblical teaching which Testament authors, who are after all the have been used successfully by very origin and source for our knowledge It is said in the debate today that the New advocates of the abolition of slavery and of God’s mercy and grace, insisted that Testament insists on an ethic of love to of women’s rights; but no such there are necessary boundaries to which everything else is subordinate. counterbalance exists in the Bible Christian freedom outside of which Love embodying the Gospel, it is argued, concerning homosexuality. In regard to freedom turns into enslavement? The breaks down legalistic barriers and homosexual activity there is no Biblical Jesus who turns to sinful people is also reaches out particularly to the evidence which might soften the the great healer who restores sick life to disadvantaged and the oppressed. The unambiguous stand adopted in the Bible. health and as the healer he has also validity of this insistence must be instructed his community with a conduct recognized without reservation. But it d) Homophobia versus Heterophobia becoming to discipleship. None of us can does not at all fo llow from it that Defenders of the heterosexual norm claim freedom from sin, and none of us Christian ethical thought, and ethical today find themselves accused with has the right to hurl condemnations at practice, must be restricted to the bare regularity of homophobia, an attitude sinners as though he or she had any injunction to love without consideration that has lately been elevated to the rank ground for faith but the sheer mercy of of the concrete forms of exercising love of a deadly sin. But the overused word God. But the healing community of the which correspond to the Gospel. Love is “homophobia” has caused a blindness to great healer would abandon the mission the fulfilment of the law, but this love is a whole set of other factors in our society if it did not diagnose sickness for what it not without its embodiment in actual which could well be characterized as is, and call for the rejuvenation, indeed concrete areas of human life. “Love is heterophobia. There is among us a spirit, the regeneration, of life in the discipline the fulfilling of the law” ... but this love and very much so in the midst of our of faith. fans out into the concrete forms of Christian communities, which makes commandments “you shall not commit men and women distrustful and f) Modern Psychosexual Theory and adultery; you shall not murder; you shall antagonistic toward each other. Males the Bible not steal; your shall not covet” (Rom advocate “male bonding” as their recipe A point often made in the modern debate 13:9-10). Neither Old nor New for salvation and women seek refuge in about homosexuality in the Church is the Testament assume that human common the idea of a “women’s church” in which observation that Old and New Testament sense, or a natural goodness of moral a special feminist theology based on had no knowledge of the difference sensibilities, lead everybody to a genuinely feminine experiences ought to between a homosexual orientation and universal understanding of what it means be established. There is, in my homosexual acts engaged in by to love. Rather, love must be thought assessment, a massive outbreak of heterosexually oriented people. The through and practiced in accordance with heterophobia among us today, and the observation is correct but it misses the the act and word of God in which love cry for the recognition of homosexuality point for two reasons. First, Paul in Rom receives its distinctive form. And in this in the church is one manifestation of it. 1:26-27 does not speak of individual context - it must be stated with One illustration, a quote from a Gentile life- stories but of a dominant unambiguous harshness - sexual relations statement by Kate Millett in 1970: orientation which establishes a between male and female are not “Women’s liberation and homosexual characteristic pattern for a whole comparable in kind or in value to liberation are both struggling toward a community. Comp arable would be the relations between same-sex partners. common goal: a society free from dominance of the theory of the Heterosexual unions are an emanation of defining and categorizing people by superiority of Aryan people over German God’s creation: homosexual unions virtue of gender and/or sexual history between 1933 and 1945. Without practice the denial of it. preference. `Lesbianism’ is a label used the domination of that racial theory c) Call for a New Reformation as a psychic weapon to keep women German history in that period cannot be locked into their male-defined `feminine understood. But that does not mean that The modern dispute about homosexuality role’. The essence of that role is that a all individual Germans during that period in the Church has produced the argument woman is defined in terms of her adopted the Aryan theory. Second, the that we must be open to changes. The relationship to men. A woman is called notion of sexual orientation, or sexual history of the Church demonstrates that it lesbian when she functions preference, is based on the individualistic is necessary, from time to time, to re- autonomously. Women’s autonomy is idea that sexuality is determined by evaluate time-honoured traditions and to what women’s liberation is all about.” personal inclination or choice: what alter accustomed positions. It is often (From Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist individual desire dictates is the decisive said that the abolition of slavery and the Gospel, Wheaton: Crossway Books, norm for sexual conduct. Biblical sexual recognition of women as fully equal 1992, pp. 84f.) ethos is irreconcilable with this partners with men are issues in which individualistic approach. The Biblical Bible-supported positions had to be e) Grace and Forgiveness view of human sexuality as the union given up. Against this claim it must be It is said very often today that the between male and female posits a kept in mind that, first, nowhere in Old exclusion of homosexual practices from relationship with all its consequences as or New Testament is it indicated that permissible forms of sexual activity in the core of sexual relations. Part of these being a member of a given race, or being the church amounts to a contradiction of consequences is the lifelong acceptance a woman, is in conflict with being a part the free and unmerited grace of God, and of the gift and the challenge of the other, of God’s good creation, but constitutes therefore a denial of the all- the procreation and rearing of children homosexuality is said to be in that inclusive claims of the gospel. But the and the care for the family. All of that conflict. And, second, while both slavery dynamics of New Testament ethics drive involves that human sexuality is, as God’s creation of male and female, bound up with community and, therefore, with unselfish service, with discipline, and with the will to subordinate individual desires, including sexual urges, to the well-being of others. g) Ordination and Civil Rights The ordination of a person to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament is not a civil right. Therefore, the question of the ordination of self-affirming and practicing homosexual persons cannot be made a civil rights issue. The Church reserves the right to establish requirements for ordination which have nothing to do with civil rights. One such requirement is the achievement of a theological degree as a prerequisite of ordination. The setting of a boundary which excludes some persons from ordination is, for that reason, no infringement of a civil right. h) The Grace of God and Homosexuality The prohibition of the ordination of self- affirming and practicing homosexual persons is not tantamount to their exclusion from the Christian community. Christian congregations are communities in which sinners of all different kinds are invited to receive forgiveness, healing, and purpose. I have myself knowingly and willingly handed out the bread and wine of communion to persons whom I knew to be homosexuals. I have every intention to continue that practice. Ministers of the Church have no right to restrict the grace of God. But that does not mean that the ministry of the Church endorses the attempt of the Gay/Lesbian movement to promote homosexual practices as an alternative life-style. The grace of God is the power which makes creative choices possible which affirm life as God’s creation. Far from eliminating human responsibility, it is the free grace of God which alone enables heterosexual and homosexual sinners to make decisions in favour of life. That includes homosexual persons who, by the grace of God, can find new avenues of personal choices through which they can enrich the life of the Christian community in ways possible only for them.