kevin

kevinstarwheel on twitter

  • they/them

aka young wolfe tone, aka the true leveller, queer christian communist from kentucky

posts from @kevin tagged #christianity

also:

note: all quotations from scripture in this post are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Today the Vatican released a statement formalizing its long-stated informal opposition to gender affirming surgeries and "gender ideology," calling them a "violation of human dignity." I am not going to take the time to litigate the very long list of violations of human dignity which have been perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church itself, nor am I going to bother explaining why it is incoherent for them to say that the church should welcome trans people while condemning trans healthcare. Instead I want to talk about a particular point which was raised in the statement as a justifying argument for their position: the claim that God created men and women as biologically different and separate beings.

This claim that binary gender is enshrined in human biology is not unique to the Vatican. We've all seen TERFs and their ilk hide behind appeals to this faulty science. What sets the Vatican apart from their secular transphobe counterparts is their attempt to theologize this claim, that is, to say that binary gender is biological reality because God made it so. The scriptural proof-text given by Christians who make this claim is typically from Genesis chapter 1, verse 27:

So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
I believe that such a narrow reading of a single verse misses the broader point of Genesis 1 and that by examining the full story told in these 31 verses we will see that God's creation includes not only men and women but those who are both, those who are neither, those who are somewhere in between, all people regardless of their gender or lack thereof.

We must begin, as the scriptures do, at the Beginning.

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Here we see the main theological statement of Genesis 1: God spoke the universe into being, giving form to the formless void. Here also we see the first of many binaries which the author employs to illustrate God giving order to creation--the division of light and dark, day and night.

On the second day God creates the sky and another binary is established, that between the waters that are under the sky and the waters that are above the sky. On the third day God separates the waters under the sky from the dry land, establishing the binary of seas and earth. On the fourth day God creates the sun and the moon, setting the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night, again, a binary distinction. On the fifth day God creates all the creatures which swim in the sea and all the birds which fly in the air. On the sixth day God creates the wild animals of the earth, the cattle, everything that creeps on the ground, and finally, humankind in God's own image as we are told, male and female. Here is all of creation given form and divided into neat, orderly binaries.

But of course, these binaries are not actual binaries! There is no sharp division between day and night. The waters below the sky and the waters in the sky are the same waters, as any child who has been taught the water cycle can tell you. There are dry lands and seas but also wetlands and lands which are at times dry and at other times covered by the sea. The moon and the sun often appear in the sky at the same time. There are birds that both swim and fly. There are birds that swim and do not fly! There are creatures which live a portion of their life in water and another portion on land.

The author of Genesis 1 surely understood this. The purpose of the binary descriptions of creation is not to say that these things are inherently divided and immutable. The purpose is to illustrate that God created every aspect of the world and has authority over them. Unlike polytheistic religions might have a god of the day and a god of night, or a god of the sea and a god of the sky, Genesis 1 asserts that there is only one God and that God is the God of all creation.

Where does that leave us then with our final binary, that of male and female? It is quite simple: if we see that none of the binaries that preceded it are true binaries, and if we further see that the binaries are illustrative and not definitive, then we must conclude that the same is true for the male/female binary. Human beings are, like all of creation, wonderfully complex, and, like all of creation, our complexities are the work of our creator. The evening and morning are good to God just as the day and night are good; trans people in all our transness are good to God just cis men and cis women are good.

Trans life and trans healthcare do not violate human dignity nor are they contrary to God's creation. It is the denial of trans life and trans healthcare that violates human dignity and dishonors the beautiful complexity of God's creation. I pray that God will open the eyes and hearts of those who refuse to see this.

Amen.



christianity and sex-positivity are strange bedfellows. both the scriptures and the church (church here meaning the whole christian faithful, not any one particular denomination or tradition) from its beginnings through to today have taken a decidedly dim view of sex and sexuality. the general christian attitude towards sex ranges from "a heterosexual married couple can have as much sex as they want" to "sex is only acceptably when a heterosexual married couple are trying to conceive children". not a particularly broad range of opinion!

so where does that leave me, as a person who is both a christian and generally sex-positive? the easiest answer is simply to say that the scriptures were written by men in patriarchal cultures and the church is dominated by men in patriarchal cultures and they have a material interest in regulating and controlling sexuality, and therefore if one rejects patriarchy (as I do) then one can also reject patriarchal attitudes toward sex. and while this is fine answer and I do not begrudge anyone who comes to this conclusion and then stops there, I personally find it unsatisfying. I want to engage with scripture and tradition through my faculty of reason (shoutout richard hooker), rather than simply reject it out of hand.

when thinking about sex I find that the best place to start is with a comparison to another bodily activity--eating. like sex, eating has both a biological function and a pleasurable aspect. and while it has generally been regarded as a laudable act of pious discipline to eat only that which is strictly needed for sustenance, the church does not condemn anyone who eats for pleasure as a glutton. indeed, feasting has been a central part of the christian life for centuries. eating only becomes gluttony when done to excess, in ways that are harmful to the self and others, such as if one deprives another of food in order to satisfy one's own appetites.

why then should sex be treated differently from eating? again setting aside the patriarchal aspect, it is a simple fact that sex carries inherent risk that eating does not. not only is there the risk of unwanted pregnancy but also the potential spread of STIs and other diseases. this is still a major concern today; imagine how much greater the risk would be in societies before the development of scientific medicine. limiting each person's sexual activity to only partners whom they are in a binding legal relationship with, i.e., marriage, is a way to mitigate the risks inherent in sexual activity.

so what is different between then and today? today we have, through our wonderful god-given human ingenuity, developed other methods of mitigating the risks of sex--contraceptives. we have made it possible to have safe sex. if the material conditions of sex have changed, then I believe our theology of sex can change also. (as an aside, the catholic church by forbidding contraceptives implicitly acknowledges that contraceptives undermine their conservative theology of sex)

the word most often used in scripture to talk about pre-marital or extra-marital sex is πορνεία ("porneia"), most famously translated as "fornication" in the king james version. today the strict definition of fornication is generally taken as "sex between unmarried persons", but the meaning of the term as it appears in scripture is and has been the subject of much debate. conservatives tend to apply it broadly to a whole range of sexual activity; john calvin in particular believed that any sexual act not undertaken strictly for the purpose of conceiving children was fornication. but if the definition can be pushed in a restrictive direction, why can it not also be pushed in a liberating direction? why could we not say that fornication is a sexual act which causes harm, either deliberately or through neglect? that sex outside of marriage was not bad because it is inherently bad but rather because it carried great potential for harm?

this then is my position: safe sex is mostly fine, and not in and of itself a sin. I will not go so far as to call it a spiritual act as some of the more radically sex-positive people are wont to do, but it's fine! just like eating a supreme pizza instead of subsisting on bread and water is mostly fine. what makes sexual activity sinful is when it causes harm, whether physical or emotional. what makes sexual activity sinful is when it damages relationships. chastity is a virtue just as temperance is a virtue, but god will not reject you if you enjoy the gift of sexuality.