söndag, november 27, 2005

Genesis 1-2

The Paradigm of a Mandatory Heterosexist Order of Creation in Genesis 1-2 is often heard today in American Calvinism.
It's to underpin the Maître Pierre Chanteur late 12th century reading of Romans 1.26-27, which makes me suspect that they actually know it doesn't hold water...
And it seems to be a totally new Paradigm, borrowed from Rome's ideas on a Complementarity of 2 opposite Genders, not seldom including heavy stresses on the sub-ordination of women.
But even in Rome this can't be much older than the idea of antagonistic genders itself, which is 19th century.
Industrialism, middle class, modernity.
This new Paradigm is unknown in Sweden and personally I have not encountered it before the year 2000, nor have I been able to trace it further than 1978; Don Williams: The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? (haven't read it yet)
There are claims to a Karl Barth prehistory to some of it, though I would be very much surprised if there was anything like a paradigmatic reading there.
Also he should have been very well aware that Genesis 1-2 are two different stories, not one.
So my conclusion is that this is a 1970ies product of the post 1960ies Heterosexist Agenda.
Dr Dobson's child-beating Focus on the Family and such.
American anti-modern social politics in Biblical costume.
The mixing of State, Religion and Social Politics.
And to my mind Paul absolutely excludes the possility of any such interpretation in Galatians 3.26-29, saying ouk éni ársen kaì thelu, here is not male and female, denying the very gender-diffe-rentiation used in Genesis 1.27.
Galathians 3.26-29 doing away with (our) Ethnic, Social and Biological categories.
In the Congregation we are all one in Christ Jesus.
Also the Matt 19 reference to Genesis 2:24, which is part of this new Paradigm, is a bit odd, since Adam and Eve did not have any parents...
But, according to what I heard only the other week at the Queer Seminar, the Hebrew word used for "cling to" is used also in Ruth 1:17, when Ruth refuses to go back to her biological House:
... if anything but Death will separate me from thee.
So Ruth too "clings".
Ruth, by the way, is a fascinating story about some non kernel-family individuals (Naomi, Ruth, Boas) constructing a new House from nothing or next to nothing, themelves passing through most of the relevant structural roles (husband, wife, son, daughter) of the House in the process.
So this is about the wishes of the parties themselves, not about any pre-concieved law or Order - apart from the structure of the House itself.
And I cannot find any other model of husband and wife as the sole model for intimate sexual partnership in this, than just that: the expressed wish of the parties.
And personally, I have never read "in our likeness" as referring to bits, but always taken the "likeness" to be Personhood.
God has made us Persons, as God is a Communion of Persons, with the intent of communicating with us.
Fört över från Inclusive Church Forum (länk till höger).

Inga kommentarer: