|
 |
|
|
|
The well–known story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is often used to speak to modern issues of same–sex relationships, especially among the politics of the religious right. It seems, by most conventional interpretations, that the text offers a go–to model for what happens to a land that endorses homosexuality. However, I question here whether we have largely missed the point, projecting sexual orientation onto the text when the story is actually about something quite different.(i) This article will ask the question: What exactly was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, and can we continue to use this text in our modern discussion of same–sex relationships? Can we pause for a moment and consider whether it is at all possible that this text has been hijacked and treated with poor exegesis in the heat of our politics? Furthermore, if we have overlooked the true sin of Sodom, what is at stake in what we are failing to see?
(First, though, a caveat: this article is not attempting to cover proof texts at large on homosexuality, but rather looks at one significant text. Second caveat: this article is lengthy, because challenging the status quo can’t be done in sound bites. Therefore, the article will be divided up into two parts, to be published in consecutive weeks.)
Before diving into interpretative choices, let’s quickly review the main events of the story (you can skip this paragraph if you don’t need my Spark Notes): The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is placed in Genesis directly after angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18, where the patriarch and his wife graciously offer hospitality, and the messengers/angels of God announce to Abraham and Sarah the unbelievable promise of a child. As the men/angels leave, they explain they must go to Sodom and Gomorrah because the sins of the cities are great. Abraham pleads for mercy, asking God if he finds ten innocent people not to destroy the land. God agrees and the men venture on, where they meet Lot waiting at the front gate of the cities. Lot urges them to stay with him, which they do. A group of men emerge from the city, surround the house and demand “to know” the men whom Lot is housing. Lot prefers to offer his virgin daughters in exchange, not wanting harm to come to his guests. The mob refuses, growing violent. At this point, the visiting men/angels pull Lot back into the house, lock the door, and blind the men of the mob.(ii) Soon, Lot and his family are led away from town by the men/angels, and the cities on the plains become smoldering sulfur.
I will argue here (and in Part II) that key details within the story itself–when understood within an ancient Near East context– reveals this text is not about modern notions of sexual orientation, at all. Rather, this text is showing heterosexual, male–to–male rape that stems from xenophobia, pride, and a desire to dominate another, not sexual orientation. Rape is first an act of violence and power before it is an act of sex, and we must have that principle in our hermeneutic.(iii)
Three key details from the ancient setting and the story itself need to guide our reading of the crime at Sodom. Consider the following:
1. What is the function of male–to–male gang rape in a Near East context?
Scholars point out that in Middle Eastern culture, men are shamed when they are in the “passive” sexual role, which is seen as akin to the female position and therefore dishonoring in a patriarchal world. Manhood is about penetrating, not being penetrated.(iv) Near Eastern texts have been found which show that conquered male soldiers in war were vulnerable to being raped by the victors.(v) It appears that raping a foreigner signifies victory and dominance in an ancient Near East context.(vi) In fact, one scholar astutely argues that within this paradigm, it is the man on the bottom whose sexuality might be questioned, not the one on top.(vii) It is the man being raped who is shamed and dishonored and whose masculinity is seen as being effeminate and weak.
Furthermore, this practice of sexual dominance is not just found in ancient Near Eastern culture, but in fact “some contexts [in] Western society also allows sexual activity with other males to be part of male heterosexuality.”(viii) Most notably, examples of such rape are found in male prison environments, where to call such behavior ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual’ is “distort[ing] what is happening.”(ix) Additionally, studies of Western society have shown “that male rapists are primarily heterosexual men” and that “in many cases the perception that a man is gay/queer makes him a target of rape.”(x)
2. Why would the men of Sodom want to dominate Lot’s guests?
To answer this question, we need to first consider how Lot is viewed by the men of Sodom. When the narrator initially states Lot is positioned at the front gate of this city (19.1), this opening detail is highly significant to understand Lot’s role in the city and the coming events in the story. In ancient Near East literature, “sitting at the gate” has been found to mean sitting as the judge and gatekeeper over a city.(xi) Thus, for an ancient audience, this opening detail explains that Lot is likely acting as an authoritative figure whose task is to guard the entrance to the city. Furthermore, Genesis 14 suggests that Sodom had recently been at war, so Lot’s position to screen foreigners and keep the city safe becomes even more important of a role. Yet, we do not know whether Lot assumed this authoritative role or was actually assigned it.(xii) We do know from earlier in the Genesis narrative that Lot is not native to Sodom but has moved there with a considerable amount of wealth. Perhaps even as an outsider, his wealth has given him status in the town? Either way, Genesis 19:9 suggests that certain men of Sodom were not pleased with Lot’s position or his hospitality to the foreigners. The mob says in response to Lot’s refusal to offer up his foreign guests: “Get out of the way…This fellow [Lot] came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge. We’ll treat you worse then them.”(xiii) Whether Lot’s power as gatekeeper was assumed or assigned, the men who come to him from Sodom are angry about it– an important detail to keep in mind to understand the motives of the coming violence.
3. What does it matter that Lot offers his virgin daughters to the raping mob as an exchange for his guests? And why would the mob refuse Lot’s offer?
In response to the men’s violent demand “to know” his guests, Lot explains he has “two daughters who have never known [same Hebrew verb] a man. Let me bring them out to you.…You can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof” (Gen 19: 8).
If we assume that Lot has some familiarity with the sexual orientation of the men of his city, then why would he offer his virgin daughters to homosexual men? Lot's counteroffer assumes “a heterosexual context for the situation.” (xiv) Yet, some will argue that the men’s refusal of the virgin daughters further proves their homosexuality. In contrast, the men’s refusal is key to their true intentions which has nothing to do with modern notions of sexual orientation: the frenzied mob desires to do violence and target the foreigners, bringing shame to both Lot and his guests.(xv) I argue that the mob wasn’t interested in violating Lot’s daughters, not because the men were gay, but because their intentions were about violating the outsiders. (Furthermore, 19:4 shows that Lot’s daughters were pledged to be married, likely to men within the city. And thus under ancient Near Eastern practices, they were legally the property of the men to whom they were betrothed, not their father Lot.(xvi) If the men at Lot’s door were to rape his daughters, they would be bringing shame to men of their own community, not to Lot and his foreign guests, as they intended.(xvii))
Clearly, reading Genesis 19 as though it is about modern notions of same–sex relationships is not a comprehensive, nor arguably even an accurate hermeneutic. Much more is at play in this ancient story. Furthermore, the reader ought to remember that Genesis 19 should not be read apart from the preceding chapter– Abraham and Sarah’s encounter with the angel– which provides a foil story to Sodom and Gomorrah.(xviii) In one account, divine presence is seen and honored. In the other, the men so fail to see divinity, that in the end they are physically blinded as a consequence for their behavior. The ultimate hubris is trying to rape angels of God. The tale of Sodom is seemingly layered with more theological meaning than often given credit for. A myopic condemnation of homosexuality as the exhibited wickedness arguably misses significant clues as to the fuller nature of the story. When, we surrender sexual orientation as the focal point of the text, the narrative’s details begin to breathe with new meaning.
Next week in Part II, we will consider how other passages of Scripture– most notably Ezekiel and Jude– handle the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Then, we will ask why this all matters? What is at stake in re–orienting our understanding of what happened in Genesis 19?
Endnotes:
i. Certainly, this would not be the first time the church has distorted a passage because of its anxiety over sex: consider that for hundreds of years, Song of Solomon was not read in the genre of erotic poetry, but only as an allegory of union between Christ and the church. In this case, the church feared sex and wanted to take it out of the text. In ironic contrast, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the church fears homosexuality and therefore reads sexual orientation into the text.
ii.The Genesis 19 story is thus in contrast to a parallel story in Judges 19, in which no angel intervenes when a crowd of violent men surround a home that has taken in strangers for the night. The travelers– a man and his concubine– were passing through town and needing safety and hospitality. The mob demands to rape the foreign man, but instead the man’s concubine is offered up to the mob; she is raped and violated all night, and found dead on the doorstep in the morning. From a theological perspective, the evil in Judges is so great that God has seemingly withdrawn his presence, whereas in Genesis 19, He still intervenes.
iii. In the anti-rape movement of the 70’s and 80’s, it was critical that people began to realize that rape needed to be viewed as violence, not just somewhere on the continuum of sexual activity. This shift was also much needed in the church, which has historically tended to view rape as sexual immorality/sexual activity, while overlooking the violent nature of the act. (Thus, marriage between rapist and victim has at times been seen as one way to repair the crime, particularly when the rape involved a virgin.) For more on this issue, read Marie Fortune’s Sexual Violence. While Fortune believe it is still necessary to differentiate sexual activity from sexual violence, she also recognizes that with the eroticization of violence happening in the media and in pornography, more and more rape is as erotic as it is violent. Thus, the issue remains complicated. But, my argument here is that we must nuance our understanding of rape, and that in the Sodom and Gomorrah passage, the rape is about violence, not the sexual orientation of the perpetrators.
iv. Michael Carden, “Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah: A Response to Ken Stone, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 87.
v. Holly Joan Toensing, “Women of Sodom and Gomorrah: Collateral Damage in the War Against Homosexuality?” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21: 22 (2005): 68.
vi. Carden, 90.
vii. Ibid., 87.
viii. Ibid., 88.
iv. Ibid., 87.
x. Ibid., 88.
xi. Scott Morschauser. “ ‘Hospitality', Hostiles and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1-9” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27: 4 (2003): 464
xii. Toensing, 66.
xiii. All Biblical citations are from the NIV.
xiv. Toensing, 72.
xv. Ibid., 72.
xvi.Ibid., 72.
xvii. Ibid., 73.
xviii. Brian Doyle. “ 'Knock, knock, knockin' on Sodom's door': the function of GTH/DLT in Genesis 18-19” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28:4 (2004): 435.
Kimberly B. George is a writer, teacher, and graduate student living in Seattle, Washington. She is currently writing a book on issues related to gender and Christian faith. She blogs at faithandgender.blogspot.com, and can be contacted at faithandgender@gmail.com.
|
Wow, how hard is this author trying to avoid the plain meaning of the text?? The distinction she makes between supposed "modern notions of sexual orientation" and ancient Near Eastern ideas on sexual orientation seems very forced. Human being have not changed that much in the ensuing millenia. How often do heterosexual men ever engage in homosexual sex merely for the sake of power? Heterosexual men are generally disgusted by the idea of having sex with men. It is doubtful that human nature has changed that much in 3000 years.
Moreover, the Bible's prohibitions of homosexual activity focus on homosexual behavior, homosexual acts, not so much on some kind of homosexual identity. Leviticus says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman. In that case, the actions the men in the text about Lot desire to commit are still equally reprehensible whether they are "homosexuals" or not. It is the homosexual act that is prohibited in Scripture. From that perspective, the traditional interpretation of the Lot text is correct.
I gather the author of this article desires to change the church's entire view of the issue of homosexuality. You can follow post-modern culture if you want to, but you are just a slave to the culture. The Bible is often counter-cultural, and here is a case in point. The Bible's teaching run counter to the views in our permissive culture.
I have a slightly different take on the whole idea of what the "Sin of Sodom" was really all about...and it comes from the Bible.
We might make an inference from what we see in the account of Sodom's destruction, but the clearly stated "Sin of Sodom" is found in Ezekiel 16:49-50 where God tells us "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were proud and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
So, according to God the "Sin of Sodom" was arrogance, pride, gluttony and a lack of concern for the poor...and oh yeah, right at the end he does add "did detestable things" which could also contain those sexual sins, but the specific sin mentioned involves pride and a lack of concern for those in need in need around them.
My point for this comment is that I want to demonstrate that many of us believe things about the Word of God without actually knowing what it really says.
So...be careful what you accept at truth or fact. Go to the source. Study the Word of God yourself to be sure of what it says.
My work here is done...
kg
I would venture that Morgan's comment equating "Lying with men as one would a women" with rape only goes to prove the above comment.
Interpretating of "the plain meaning of text" based soley on the English translation of ancient Hebrew without taking into context the actual behaviour, mores, and culture at the time is not, in fact, proper interpretation, but is prooftexting, which also proves the author's point.
Thanks Morgan, Keith, and Todd for your comments. I few thoughts come to mind as I read through your thoughts:
1. In the second part of the article (to be posted March 1st) I go the direction Keith goes– meaning I use Scripture itself to critique whether or not homosexuality is a good focus for our reading of the sin of Sodom. I won't go into my arguments here since they will be developed in Part II, but I will say I do think Ezekiel and Jude both offer commentary on Sodom that is quite countercultural to evangelical thought. I think Scripture is countercultural for both secular culture and Christian culture, and we need to pay attention to how it offers critique to accepted Christian paradigms, too.
2. Morgan: I just wanted to specify that I am not trying to change the church's entire position on the ethics of homosexuality, as you were wondering about. As I stated in the article, I wanted to consider how one text has been mishandled and be curious about why we have mishandled it. What I do want to change is how the church has had tendencies to focus so much on homosexuality that we miss other important moral issues (like sexual violence, which I believe is a huge issue the church should step into and a pressing issue in this story). I can see why you get nervous and are not sure where I am going with my arguments. I appreciate, too, that you don't want the Word of God distorted. But, my argument is that the dominant exegetical paradigm for Sodom and Gomorrah found in most evangelical churches is already distorting Scripture. (Part II will speak more to my arguments about that, based on how other passages of Scripture critique Genesis 19.)
Also, you are right that Leviticus talks about a man lying with another man as an "abomination." (However, there are many other other things called abhorrent and unclean and detestable in ancient Levitical law that we rarely bother ourselves with: for instance, according to Lev. 11:12, eating certain seafood is "abhorrent." If we use Leviticus to proof-text homosexuality, then we also need to be consistent and start living by the rest of the law stated there, too. But, I don't want to take this conversation too far from the point of my article, which is the exegesis of Genesis 19. I do not want to start proof-texting homosexuality: I want to debate whether we have read Genesis 19 poorly and so overlooked what the story is about. And, I want to consider with one another why we have missed the other implications of this text: what is it about the way the church has focused on homosexuality that we might be missing other important matters?
Finally, as far as your general disgust over the idea of a heterosexual man raping another man, I am disgusted, too. But that doesn't change the fact that it happens in certain environments outside "normal" situations, like prison environments, or as one scholar I cite says, in some ancient practices of war.
Kim, regarding your response to Morgan and the verse in Leviticus: I would point out Acts 15:29 where the council in Jerusalem were discussing what was required of gentiles to become believers in Christ.
"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So you and I can eat shellfish, but any kind of sexual immorality is still wrong. This includes homosexuality. No where in scripture does God ever glorify it or say that He would allow it. There were never any anointed gay or lesbian couples. If God doesn't want us engaging in it, then it is something that goes against his design of us. Is homosexuality the only issue we should be concerned about? No. But it doesn't mean that we should avoid the issue or tell people that it doesn't matter if they want to live that way.
I believe that people can come out of that lifestyle and that God can heal them. I realize that others might disagree. But if Jesus can deliver people from drug addictions, he can surely deliver the homosexual.
Holly: Thanks so much for your thoughts, especially regarding how the early church dealt with the law. Thanks also for sharing your convictions on homosexuality and your hope in how you believe God has designed us and can heal us.
Also, if it is possible in the midst of a very loaded issue, I am wondering if as commenters we could return again to the Sodom and Gomorrah text. More specifically, the question I am raising in my article is not whether other texts in Scripture condemn homosexuality, but what might we be missing in the Sodom story if we assume it is just about homosexuality? Furthermore, can the Sodom story speak to modern issues of same-sex relationships, or is it actually about something quite different in its ancient context?
Thoughts?
How truly sad it is to read the disgruntled ramblings of LOST people like you and the others here at this site who disgrace the glory of the creator God in your silly attempts to squeeze Him into such petty little social constructs and liberal politics. You seem to impress one-another with all of your attempts to sound scholarly and/or in-touch with pagan academia; perhaps some of you are, but many of you are merely trying. What folly! I have the ethos to speak on this because I have a Ph.D and an M.A.; I teach in the bastion of a very liberal department of a very liberal institution--a career goal I set out to achieve when I was a prodigal and rebelling against the Lord God in graduate school. After I repented of my love of carnality and the world (something I suggest so many of you do), I found myself--as a theologically conservative and reformed believer--stuck in the place I made an idol. In this position, I work with countless people who boast in their atheism, agnositicism, and apostacy (one is a former pastor). They are all at least "authentic" because they declare openly what they are, and where so many of them believe they are going when they die (hell). I don't know who you folks at the ooze and other emerging sites think you are fooling, but I see no difference whatsoever in all of you and my fellow professors, except for the fact that they are honest in their rebellion against God and you are not (you all still insist upon saying you are Christians). Don't get me wrong here, I would never think less of anyone who does not find "success" in actually becoming a pagan academic, or a pagan in general, as this should hardly be the goal for a follower of Christ. However, such seems to be one of the primary objectives among emergents.
Thanks, Kimberly. I look forward to the rest of the article. Very interesting.
Steve: I have hesitated the past few days with whether to respond to your comments, but I decided I wanted to at least try, especially because you have been in my thoughts and heart as I process your words. Perhaps it is just the medium of on–line communication that makes is so easy to make assumptions and bring our words with such harshness? After I read your words, I was left wondering how things would be different if we were face to face? Since you are a follower of Christ, I assume you would desire to bring your truth with grace and kindness; since I am a follower of Christ, I would want to explain why I believe God himself has asked me to speak into the church on these matters I have raised in my article. I very much can respect the fact that you and I have very different interpretations, but for the sake of a broken world, I want to learn to dialogue better across these differences. Whether or not you think I am a “real” Christian or not, I am not sure that God gives you the place to judge that, especially since you have never even seen my face, and I am guessing, have glimpsed so little of my heart.
This is what happens when one interprets Scripture from the perspective of "eisegesis" instead of proper "exegesis". Interesting article, but I think it falls short of the original intent, interpretation (historical, cultural, philosophical), and bypasses the timeless priniciple that applies to us today.
Kimberly,
Not sure if you're still checking in on this one, but is homosexuality a sin or not?
Thanks...
|
|
|
|
(19)
Wow, how hard is this author trying to avoid the plain meaning of the text?? The distinction she makes between supposed "modern notions of sexual orientation" and ancient Near Eastern ideas on sexual orientation seems very forced. Human being have not changed that much in the ensuing millenia. How often do heterosexual men ever engage in homosexual sex merely for the sake of power? Heterosexual men are generally disgusted by the idea of having sex with men. It is doubtful that human nature has changed that much in 3000 years.
Moreover, the Bible's prohibitions of homosexual activity focus on homosexual behavior, homosexual acts, not so much on some kind of homosexual identity. Leviticus says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman. In that case, the actions the men in the text about Lot desire to commit are still equally reprehensible whether they are "homosexuals" or not. It is the homosexual act that is prohibited in Scripture. From that perspective, the traditional interpretation of the Lot text is correct.
I gather the author of this article desires to change the church's entire view of the issue of homosexuality. You can follow post-modern culture if you want to, but you are just a slave to the culture. The Bible is often counter-cultural, and here is a case in point. The Bible's teaching run counter to the views in our permissive culture.
Posted by Morgan | Posted at 02/26/2008 1:28 PMI have a slightly different take on the whole idea of what the "Sin of Sodom" was really all about...and it comes from the Bible.
We might make an inference from what we see in the account of Sodom's destruction, but the clearly stated "Sin of Sodom" is found in Ezekiel 16:49-50 where God tells us "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were proud and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
So, according to God the "Sin of Sodom" was arrogance, pride, gluttony and a lack of concern for the poor...and oh yeah, right at the end he does add "did detestable things" which could also contain those sexual sins, but the specific sin mentioned involves pride and a lack of concern for those in need in need around them.
My point for this comment is that I want to demonstrate that many of us believe things about the Word of God without actually knowing what it really says.
So...be careful what you accept at truth or fact. Go to the source. Study the Word of God yourself to be sure of what it says.
My work here is done...
kg
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 02/26/2008 3:10 PMI would venture that Morgan's comment equating "Lying with men as one would a women" with rape only goes to prove the above comment.
Interpretating of "the plain meaning of text" based soley on the English translation of ancient Hebrew without taking into context the actual behaviour, mores, and culture at the time is not, in fact, proper interpretation, but is prooftexting, which also proves the author's point.
Posted by Todd Erickson | Posted at 02/26/2008 4:16 PMThanks Morgan, Keith, and Todd for your comments. I few thoughts come to mind as I read through your thoughts:
1. In the second part of the article (to be posted March 1st) I go the direction Keith goes– meaning I use Scripture itself to critique whether or not homosexuality is a good focus for our reading of the sin of Sodom. I won't go into my arguments here since they will be developed in Part II, but I will say I do think Ezekiel and Jude both offer commentary on Sodom that is quite countercultural to evangelical thought. I think Scripture is countercultural for both secular culture and Christian culture, and we need to pay attention to how it offers critique to accepted Christian paradigms, too.
2. Morgan: I just wanted to specify that I am not trying to change the church's entire position on the ethics of homosexuality, as you were wondering about. As I stated in the article, I wanted to consider how one text has been mishandled and be curious about why we have mishandled it. What I do want to change is how the church has had tendencies to focus so much on homosexuality that we miss other important moral issues (like sexual violence, which I believe is a huge issue the church should step into and a pressing issue in this story). I can see why you get nervous and are not sure where I am going with my arguments. I appreciate, too, that you don't want the Word of God distorted. But, my argument is that the dominant exegetical paradigm for Sodom and Gomorrah found in most evangelical churches is already distorting Scripture. (Part II will speak more to my arguments about that, based on how other passages of Scripture critique Genesis 19.)
Also, you are right that Leviticus talks about a man lying with another man as an "abomination." (However, there are many other other things called abhorrent and unclean and detestable in ancient Levitical law that we rarely bother ourselves with: for instance, according to Lev. 11:12, eating certain seafood is "abhorrent." If we use Leviticus to proof-text homosexuality, then we also need to be consistent and start living by the rest of the law stated there, too. But, I don't want to take this conversation too far from the point of my article, which is the exegesis of Genesis 19. I do not want to start proof-texting homosexuality: I want to debate whether we have read Genesis 19 poorly and so overlooked what the story is about. And, I want to consider with one another why we have missed the other implications of this text: what is it about the way the church has focused on homosexuality that we might be missing other important matters?
Finally, as far as your general disgust over the idea of a heterosexual man raping another man, I am disgusted, too. But that doesn't change the fact that it happens in certain environments outside "normal" situations, like prison environments, or as one scholar I cite says, in some ancient practices of war.
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 02/26/2008 5:49 PMKim, regarding your response to Morgan and the verse in Leviticus: I would point out Acts 15:29 where the council in Jerusalem were discussing what was required of gentiles to become believers in Christ.
"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So you and I can eat shellfish, but any kind of sexual immorality is still wrong. This includes homosexuality. No where in scripture does God ever glorify it or say that He would allow it. There were never any anointed gay or lesbian couples. If God doesn't want us engaging in it, then it is something that goes against his design of us. Is homosexuality the only issue we should be concerned about? No. But it doesn't mean that we should avoid the issue or tell people that it doesn't matter if they want to live that way.
I believe that people can come out of that lifestyle and that God can heal them. I realize that others might disagree. But if Jesus can deliver people from drug addictions, he can surely deliver the homosexual.
Posted by Holly | Posted at 02/28/2008 11:02 AMHolly: Thanks so much for your thoughts, especially regarding how the early church dealt with the law. Thanks also for sharing your convictions on homosexuality and your hope in how you believe God has designed us and can heal us.
Also, if it is possible in the midst of a very loaded issue, I am wondering if as commenters we could return again to the Sodom and Gomorrah text. More specifically, the question I am raising in my article is not whether other texts in Scripture condemn homosexuality, but what might we be missing in the Sodom story if we assume it is just about homosexuality? Furthermore, can the Sodom story speak to modern issues of same-sex relationships, or is it actually about something quite different in its ancient context?
Thoughts?
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 02/28/2008 12:02 PMHow truly sad it is to read the disgruntled ramblings of LOST people like you and the others here at this site who disgrace the glory of the creator God in your silly attempts to squeeze Him into such petty little social constructs and liberal politics. You seem to impress one-another with all of your attempts to sound scholarly and/or in-touch with pagan academia; perhaps some of you are, but many of you are merely trying. What folly! I have the ethos to speak on this because I have a Ph.D and an M.A.; I teach in the bastion of a very liberal department of a very liberal institution--a career goal I set out to achieve when I was a prodigal and rebelling against the Lord God in graduate school. After I repented of my love of carnality and the world (something I suggest so many of you do), I found myself--as a theologically conservative and reformed believer--stuck in the place I made an idol. In this position, I work with countless people who boast in their atheism, agnositicism, and apostacy (one is a former pastor). They are all at least "authentic" because they declare openly what they are, and where so many of them believe they are going when they die (hell). I don't know who you folks at the ooze and other emerging sites think you are fooling, but I see no difference whatsoever in all of you and my fellow professors, except for the fact that they are honest in their rebellion against God and you are not (you all still insist upon saying you are Christians). Don't get me wrong here, I would never think less of anyone who does not find "success" in actually becoming a pagan academic, or a pagan in general, as this should hardly be the goal for a follower of Christ. However, such seems to be one of the primary objectives among emergents. Posted by Steve | Posted at 02/28/2008 8:06 PM
Thanks, Kimberly. I look forward to the rest of the article. Very interesting. Posted by Glenn | Posted at 02/28/2008 10:14 PM
Steve: I have hesitated the past few days with whether to respond to your comments, but I decided I wanted to at least try, especially because you have been in my thoughts and heart as I process your words. Perhaps it is just the medium of on–line communication that makes is so easy to make assumptions and bring our words with such harshness? After I read your words, I was left wondering how things would be different if we were face to face? Since you are a follower of Christ, I assume you would desire to bring your truth with grace and kindness; since I am a follower of Christ, I would want to explain why I believe God himself has asked me to speak into the church on these matters I have raised in my article. I very much can respect the fact that you and I have very different interpretations, but for the sake of a broken world, I want to learn to dialogue better across these differences. Whether or not you think I am a “real” Christian or not, I am not sure that God gives you the place to judge that, especially since you have never even seen my face, and I am guessing, have glimpsed so little of my heart. Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 03/02/2008 2:55 AM
This is what happens when one interprets Scripture from the perspective of "eisegesis" instead of proper "exegesis". Interesting article, but I think it falls short of the original intent, interpretation (historical, cultural, philosophical), and bypasses the timeless priniciple that applies to us today. Posted by hylander | Posted at 03/08/2008 9:43 AM
Kimberly,
Not sure if you're still checking in on this one, but is homosexuality a sin or not?
Thanks...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 09/26/2008 9:36 PM