A queer reading of Genesis 1–2

Text by Emily Reimer-Barry*, published in Catholic Moral Theology (United States) on June 7, 2022. Freely translated by the volunteers of the Gionata Project.

Amoris Laetitia opened new conversations in the catholic church thanks to the way In Which pope francis urged an approach capable of Addressing “concrete Realities” (31) and which gave priority to discernment and conscience (37, 79).

Although he had taken up the previous teachings on marriage as an intimate communion of life and love (80), and although he had cited Humanae Vitae to reiterate the importance of openness to life through procreation, his use of the Bible throughout Amoris Laetitia placed emphasis on the themes of mercy, accompaniment and compassion.

These themes were also reiterated by the Pope in a message to LGBTQ Catholic people. However, when Francis invoked Genesis in AL 9–15, he was not questioning heteronormativity, the gender binary, or procreationism.

Queer biblical hermeneutics offers other ways to interpret Genesis 1–2. This short article can only offer an overview of possible queer readings, given space limitations. But for LGBTQ readers and readers in the Catholic Church who are thirsty for fresh perspectives on Scripture, I hope these resources can provide creative energy and hope in a month that celebrates queer life and love.

What does a queer reading of the bible mean, Concretely? Interpreting the Bible is not as simple as reading a Text. what the text says does not necessarily coincide with what the text means. The process of giving meaning in interpretation arises from the encounter between the reader, the text and the history of its reception.

A queer reading of the Bible, then, means—on the one hand—reading the Bible from the perspective of queer life. It means asking, as Ken Stone does, what interpretations would arise if homosexuality functioned as a legitimate condition of knowledge of the Bible.[1] The goal is not to ask what the Bible teaches on thehomosexuality, but allow queer readers to shape contemporary interpretations by describing their way of understanding the meaning of texts, read starting from their lived experiences. Mona West explains that queer biblical research adds the voices of LGBTQ people to the voices of groups who read the Bible from specific social locations.[2]

On the other hand, “queerizing” the Bible can mean an intentional method of questioning what has been considered normal, normative, natural, dominant, or legitimate. In this sense, to be queer is to be “different” in a good way, and a queer reading can help us see how dominant discourses can collude with injustice. Gerald West and Charlene Van Der Walt, echoing Itumeleng Mosala, add that a gift of queer research is recognizing the Bible as a site of "struggle" regarding what should be considered normative regarding sex, gender, sexuality and kinship.[3]

A queer reading of Genesis 1–2 can begin by asking questions about how two different creation accounts can coexist in the sacred text. Proposing two apparently contradictory accounts may seem “queer” to us modern readers. Were the first human creatures created at the same time (Gen 1.27) or at different times (Gen 2)?

Is God better represented as a powerful but distant creative force, or as a personal companion in the garden? Considering the editorial processes in which texts were regularly "collected and then composed, re-collected and re-composed", even the collection of these ancient tales presents a history of struggle, for the communities behind the text and for those who appropriate it today.[4]

Our first “queer” step, then, is to enter this struggle ourselves and adopt a symbolic imagination sufficiently open to multivalent interpretations. We risk bringing our questions to the text, knowing that we are not alone in the interpretative effort. We enter a space where we can appreciate a both/and encounter that opens up new questions and opportunities to think more deeply about assumptions we took for granted. We discover that the Bible—and life itself—is more complex than we thought.

Okay, but what does that mean? Genesis 1 presents the themes of order, blessing, joy, diversity, and dignity. Strictly speaking, the text does not describe God creating "from nothing": rather we have (in translation) God creating starting from a formless abyss, with darkness covering the surface of the waters.

To say that God brings order to chaos may be reductive, but certainly the theme of order is dear to the priestly editors, even while celebrating the diversity of God's creatures. In Genesis 1 God simply delights in creation. At each passage of the story, as the story unfolds, the Creator expresses pleasure and satisfaction: "God saw that it was good." In Gen 1.27 we read:

“God created man in his image;
in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

All human creatures, regardless of their sex or gender, are created in the image of God; the gender binary here can be read as an expansion of the imago Dei in each person, given the gender mentality of the era in which the text was composed and edited.

West and Van Der Walt explain that Genesis 2 has a “queer” narrative form: an incomplete creation, complications that follow, and a series of intertwining resolutions. The androgynous earthly creature that God formed “out of dust” was not satisfied without a suitable mate or mate; later, God creates two sexual creatures, man and woman.[5] What is “queer,” say West and Van Der Walt?

"God's solution to the complication is to make a companion for the terrestrial creature (Gen 2:18). What is queer is that God begins by forming the animals, asking whether, perhaps, there is an appropriate companion among the animals (19–20). Even queerer is that God entrusts the terrestrial creature with the right to choose (20). God does not impose. The terrestrial creature is the subject of the act of recognition. When the terrestrial creature does not find a suitable companion among the animals that God has formed (20c), God follows un'altra via creativa. Ora costruisce un compagno dal corpo stesso della creatura terrestre (22). Poi Dio presenta il risultato alla creatura terrestre, come aveva presentato gli animali. La forma narrativa è identica. La creatura terrestre è di nuovo il soggetto del riconoscimento… Dio non decide che questa sia la compagna appropriata. Decide la creatura terrestre. La tradizione cristiana ha teso a enfatizzare il prodotto: una donna. Un'interpretazione queer enfatizza il processo: spetta a noi decidere chi sia per noi un compagno appropriato. Il riconoscimento e l'accoglienza di un compagno appropriato è responsabilità human. God creates and the human chooses.”[6]

This reading of West and Van Der Walt opens up space to talk more concretely about discernment and relationships for LGBTQ people today. How can Christians today create spaces where LGBTQ Catholic people take responsibility for thinking about what it means to be “appropriate companions”? If God creates and human beings choose, how do we train conscience to choose wisely, creating relationships that promote flourishing in the community?

Another queer element of Genesis 2.23–24 is that the human creature does not praise the difference or complementarity of his new partner with respect to himself. The man does not say: "This one, finally, is different from me! Our genitals match! I am naturally male and she is naturally female and we are as different as day and night!". On the contrary. Man focuses on similarity, on common humanity: "This, finally, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!". This, unlike the previous animals, is a real "counterpart".

But our interpretation for sexual ethics must not focus too quickly on sexual complementarity. What is celebrated is the miracle of finding someone to love, someone to share life with, someone to face the hardships of existence. At this point in the story, their bond is rooted in their common humanity. Genesis 2 describes the first human couple who become “one flesh” (Gen 2.24) and are naked without shame (Gen 2.25). Contemporary readers can recognize not only physical intimacy, but also spiritual intimacy and trust: a relationship founded on mutual love and justice.

In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis stated that “the essence of the family Is Love” (AL 13). queer interpretations Of Genesis 1–2 offer further avenues for interrogating this central theme of Love In amoris laetitia, while recognizing that the privilege accorded procreative heterosexual couples remains central to the moral doctrine of The catholic church. we should not fear asking questions of the text, challenging dominant interpretive frameworks, or welcoming traditionally marginalized voices into biblical hermeneutics.

Come ha notato saggiamente Sharon Bong, “Accogliere le persone LGBTQ+ alla mensa messianica della sovrabbondanza—come imperativo morale e politico—comporta mettere in discussione l’eterosessismo della Chiesa, cioè la discriminazione sistemica e sistematica, persino la demonizzazione, delle persone LGBTQ+”.[7]

Ci resta ancora molto lavoro da fare. E dove altro potremmo iniziare, se non “in principio”?

_____________

[1] Ken Stone, “Safer Text: Reading Biblical Laments in the Age of AIDS”, in Sexuality and the Sacred (Sessualità e sacro), 349. Qui Stone riprende gli studi di David M. Halperin e la sua teoria della politica queer come resistenza. Si veda anche Ken Stone, Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible (Commento queer e la Bibbia ebraica), Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2001, 16.
[2] Mona West, “Reading the Bible as Queer Americans: Social Location and the Hebrew Scriptures”, Theology and Sexuality 10 (1999), 30.
[3] Gerald O. West e Charlene Van Der Walt, “A Queer (Beginning to the) Bible”, Concilium (2019), 110.
[4] Itumeleng J. Mosala, Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa (Ermeneutica biblica e teologia nera in Sudafrica), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989, 125. Citato in West e Van Der Walt.
[5] Qui gli autori rimandano agli studi di Phyllis Trible.
[6] West e Van Der Walt, 113.
[7] Sharon Bong, “Becoming the Queer, Postcolonial (Eco)Feminist Body of Christ in Asia”, Concilium (2019), 77.

* Emily Reimer-Barry is a professor in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Diego (United States). She is the author of the volumes Reproductive Justice and the Catholic Church (Sheed & Ward, 2024) and Catholic Theology of Marriage in the Era of HIV and AIDS: Marriage for Life (Catholic Theology of Marriage in the Era of HIV and AIDS: a marriage for life, Lexington, 2015). He has published articles in the Journal of Moral Theology, Theological Studies, and in the Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America. He teaches courses in Catholic theological ethics at the undergraduate level.

Original text: A Queer Reading of Genesis 1–2 for Pride Month