The Pattern of Creation
Genesis 1: 26-27;2:4-25
Traditional viewpoint: What we see in the creation (story) is God’s definitive design for the human race: Man and Woman. Any variation (i.e., man-man, woman-woman) is a violation of creation’s plan.
In this view, there is usually the implied (or stated) supposition that the original, ultimate intent of the man and woman relationship was procreation, since that’s a central part of the story. (cf: 1:28) Many (especially from the Roman Church tradition) will argue against same-sex relationships because of the inability to produce offspring.
Those who espouse this view are typically the ones who will remind us (as if we’d never heard it before): “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” (Lack of originality aside, in point of fact, God not only created Adam and Eve, God created Steve, Carl, Jane, Melissa….)
For me, this approach to the creation story actually ‘creates’ its own set of problems:
1. The issue of human sexuality is far too complex to be covered in this simple story, and that is clearly not the purpose of the narrative. To make definitive statements (and policy) about sexuality solely from this story is an injustice. (If we want to get persnickety, we could ask questions about who the sons of Adam and Eve married and have the discussion about incest. But again, that is not the thrust of the story.)
2. Genesis addresses our need for relationship, but it’s doesn’t define (or limit) the nature of those relationships. If indeed the goal of this story is to show God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply,” of course it would involve a heterosexual couple. (Adam and Steve can’t reproduce!) However, the emphasis of our inherent need of loving, supportive relationships transcends the gender of the couple.
Note: In Genesis 2:18 God concluded that it was not good for the man to be alone. That is a wonderful testimony of our built-in need for relationships. In response to God’s own observation, God announced the intention to make a “suitable helper.” (KJV uses the term “help meet”). In the original Hebrew, the word connotes a custom-designed counterpart, something that is made to order, made to fit. (NASV uses the word “suitable” which does carry that meaning.) To me, that is such a beautiful illustration of God’s power and design; one size doesn’t fit all, so God makes sure that our “helper” (partner, mate) is customized especially to fit us. For the Adam in the Genesis story, it was Eve. He saw her and knew they were “connected.” But for another Adam, that sense of completeness may well be Steve. And a different Eve would be given the customized counterpart of Anna. (You get the point!)
3. As with any subject, it’s difficult to argue a case out of the silence of this (or other) biblical passages. If that were the case, since this story only mentions coupled relationships, does that mean single-ness is a sin? In other words, the absence of something does not imply it’s forbidden. (Any more than the mention of something implies acceptance.)
4. If “procreation only” is the primary application lesson of the story, then only those couples who had the possibility of procreation should be / would be allowed to marry. (What about senior adults, or infertile couples or couples who choose not the procreate?) In reality, the creation story is not a blueprint for marriage, but an examination (explanation) of human origins.
5. The creation of man and woman “in the image of God” should not (cannot) be reduced to physical, biological and/or sexual qualities. We are all created in the image of God, and that must include such elements as choice (volition), emotion, cognition (thinking), self-awareness and the ability (need) for relationships. It is not limited to the male-female relationship nor is it confined to the heterosexual.
6. This simplistic interpretation misses some of the wonderful, important (and obvious) lessons in the creation story, such as:
ü God’s handiwork (and diversity) in creation.
ü The inherent dignity of human-kind: we are created in the image of God and God’s assessment of creation was “It is good.” What a wonderful and glorious reality!
ü The reality of “evil” in the world; we are no longer living the world God intended.
ü The essence of sin as willful independence and desire to rule one’s own life apart from the Creator.
7. Though the story does includes the command to “be fruitful and multiply,” that can’t be the central theme of the story nor the primary reason for creation. In fact, nowhere does Scripture indicate that God’s ultimate design for sex was “procreation only.” The Bible actually presents various reasons for sex:
ü Pleasure Genesis 18:12
ü Expression of love Proverbs 5:18-19; Song of Solomon 2:3-6;4:1-15; 5:10-16
ü Intimacy/Union Genesis 2:24
ü Physical release I Corinthians 7:1-9
The creation narrative is about God’s presence and power in our world.
The crucial question being addressed is “Where do we come from?”
The answer: we are part of divine design.
Old Testament Passages
This argument definitely comes in when discussing same-sex marriage, even from those not from the Catholic Church. The argument: if you can’t produce children, you should not be allowed to marry. Obviously, it’s an inconsistent premise, but it is used often.
Yes, I know there are those who believe that God literally created the world in six day and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but to make this story the sum-total expression of the “human condition” (before and after the fall) is a theological stretch. Perhaps it was intended to teach us life lessons, not history (or anthropology) lessons.
The Church of Christ uses the argument of silence to forbid musical instruments in worship.
There are some who will yield slightly, saying that homosexuality (indeed, any variation from the original design of the creation story) is the result of humankind’s fallen state and the desires now come from fallen nature of the human heart. “It’s not God’s best,” is there way of noting the distinction. (“And we should only seek God’s best” would be their implied conclusion!) It’s much like the discussion in John 9, when the disciples asked Jesus about the blind man: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” In their mind, there had to be a direct connection between the man’s condition and some aspect of sin. Jesus gave the surprise answer: “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” In other words, it’s not always that easy to connect the dots!