For reasserters the the category of sexuality seems to be explained by Gagnon's thesis that homosexuality is essentially a problem of differentiation. This argument assumes that homosexuals are, fundamentally, disordered or defective and should either be celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex. This is called, I gather, a sacral architecture theology, that God created maleness and femaleness. The second implicit assumption is that this understanding is essential to being a Christian [one is a Christian WOMAN or a Christian MAN]. Interesting to consider, but one worth rejecting. You don't need to be a Christian to recognize that men and women procreate, have children, and this is, numerically, most human beings. But the story, is, fundamentally, a myth - one that explains something about our world, but has little ethical content. It is still an important story to tell. Surely differentiation is a part of Judeo-Christian culture, but it is not an essential part of Christian theology. The hermeutical challenge is to differentiate between the parts of scripture that are merely cultural; and those that are properly part of Jesus' reign. This is hard work because God speaks through words, which are always culturally laden. If words did not have cultural cues or connotations, they would be incomprehensible.
Where we should truly begin is not Genesis, but John 20:18. "I have seen the Lord" which is, really, an anti-myth. Continue until 20:23. "Peace be with you." The resurrection, not the fall, is where I begin my theology.
If we are living as resurrected in Christ, then our old selves have already been liberated, and perhaps for gay people, that liberation means being unshackled from the closet, and free, finally, to love without fear or resentment. And this is what it means to be clothed in Christ.
Thus the sacral architecture theology is rendered irrelevant. It is a story about how we got here. But it is not a story about where we are. And it is surely not a story about where we will finish.
Questioning Christian discusses this at length, also.
The second implicit assumption is that this understanding is essential to being a Christian [one is a Christian WOMAN or a Christian MAN].
Interesting, since Galations 3:28 says that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Further: scientifically invalid, given the existence of intersexed and transgendered people. The problem is an inability to accept the world's diversity - its natural variation. And the question concerns humanness, not gender or social status or race or nation. As Paul understood long ago.
The first convert from the larger world into Christianity was the Ethiopian eunuch.
God does things differently than we do, apparently.
Posted by: bls | Feb 01, 2005 at 01:34 PM
I read D.C.'s take on this over on "The Questioning Christian," but I really got it just now from your entry.
While I agree with him that the creation story in Genesis should be read symbolically as it's "ahistorical, pre-scientific speculation of 3,000 years ago," I think you've cut to the chase quite nicely with your point that "where we should truly begin is not Genesis, but John 20:18." The question is, indeed, to tease apart the bits of Scripture which are merely cultural.
Well stated! Thanks.
Posted by: David Huff | Feb 01, 2005 at 01:53 PM
Be careful though, David. The temptation since the Enlightenment in NT studies has been to separate the eternal truth (the kernel) from the cultural milieu in which it was embedded (the chaff). Of course, given the course of scholarship this inevitable came to mean "separate anything that could be construed as 'Jewish' from anything that fits a 'suitable' philosophical system."
Speaking theologically, *if* we understand the Incarnation process operative in Jesus as also operative in Scripture (I do, but it's still a big if...) then if Jesus was fully human and fully divine at the same time, it suggests the same of Scripture: it is capable of being fully human and fully divine as well. That is, it is completely culturally conditioned but is also completely capable of revealing divine truths.
Experientially, I may--through the motion of the Spirit--find myself amazed by a divine revelation even while reading something my analytical brain recognizes as a patriarchial position. Does it mean that patriarchy is right? No. Does it mean that passage is therefore always and everywhere helpful and liberating? No. It means that the Spirit can work through it despite its cultural elements. The problem comes, imho, when we try to nail the Spirit to certain passages and make them say what we want rather than listening to the Spirit speaking through them.
That having been said, Incarnation and Resurrection really are the starting places.
Posted by: Derek | Feb 02, 2005 at 10:41 AM
Derek, No arguments from me. The problem, however, is that "the Spirit" seems to speak radically different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, things to different people.
If we can't find some way to tease apart the "real" Spirit in these situations, we're stuck at square one. It just becomes a "he said" vs "she said" schoolyard squabble - with all the lack of civility and intellect which this implies :)
Posted by: David Huff | Feb 04, 2005 at 07:33 AM
Ahhh, serendipitous post over at The Questioning Christian - A Tire Gauge for the Holy Spirit?
.
Posted by: David Huff | Feb 04, 2005 at 07:39 AM