BHP journal: Genesis 1-3: Creation Stories

The creation stories of Genesis 1-3 do not speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice.

Thank you. Can we move on?

So the general idea here of course is that God created them "male and female" and told them "to be fruitful and multiply" and because men and women fit together and make babies this is necessarily the only choice for all humans, forever.

You know? Fine. I get it. And it's a legitimate view. Why wouldn't it be? But a couple of things. First, he says,

The argument might be made that since the present problem of the earth is not underpopulation but overpopulation, the mandate for heterosexual coupling need no longer be the norm.

Interesting. Is that the argument people are making? It's valid, I guess, but how about instead we just go with what the New Testament says? Both Jesus and Paul recommend (and modeled) being single if you can handle it. And the Great Commission is about propagating spiritual babies, not physical ones, throughout the earth. It's shocking (and convenient) he doesn't mention this.

Further, and more significantly, frogs. I got this idea from Megan DeFranza in Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church. God created "creatures of the sea" and "creatures that move along the ground" . . . on two separate days! So when were frogs created? The water teems with little tadpoles, and then suddenly one day they begin moving along the ground. And yet Gagnon doesn't seem to have a problem with this atrocity. And of course the reason is, general categories are being spoken of here in grand language in the creation story, not every single exception is going to be mentioned. So frogs don't need a category of their own, and neither do sexual minorities, especially in a context where the "great commission" of the era is to physically populate the earth.

He continues,

The language of the narrative is, of course, mythic. The Yahwist "presumes that his hearers know that he did not shape the imagery himself, but is passing on very ancient traditions formed long ago." Yet the story remains authoritative for conveying the obvious complementarity (and concordant sexual attraction) of male and female witnesses to God's intent for human sexuality.

So, he does not think the creation account is literal - it is a myth. Adam isn't a literal person, adam refers to "man, an earthling, humankind." But for some reason, not stated, the myth is authoritative when it comes to human sexuality and it applies to all humans, forever. So again, like the Documentary Hypothesis, who is deciding which scripture to take at face value, and which bits are misunderstandings we can overlook or myths we don't need to interpret literally? And within these myths, which bits apply to all humans, forever?

One last word on this point,

It will not do to argue that nothing is said here about the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. Even though an evaluation of same-sex intercourse is not the point of the text, legitimization for homosexuality requires an entirely different kind of creation story.

As does the legitimization of frogs.

To conclude, and to be fair, he does make a stronger point with, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and become attached to his wife and the two will become one flesh." But I think the idea of general categories being spoken of here in the context of a command to populate the earth still applies. And further, in terms of my own view I allow that some Christians who are affirming of committed same-sex relationships may not be affirming of same-sex marriage. Perhaps interpretations similar to his of passages like this may contribute to such a view.