2022.07.24 | Upon Further Review

Bulletin for Jul 24, 2022

“Upon Further Reflection”

Rev. Dr. Arlene K. Nehring

Eden United Church of Christ, Hayward, CA

Fifth Sunday after Pentecost 2022

July 24, 2022

 Gen. 18:20-32  (NRSV)

The late, great Dr. Maria Harris, Professor of Religious Education at one of my alma maters, typically began each lecture by walking into the classroom, setting down her shoulder bag, and stating her thesis for the day. She never had to ask the class to quiet down. The second we students saw her walk in the door, we shut our mouths and pulled out our pens and pencils. No one wanted to miss a word that she said. 

One day, for example, Dr. Harris walked into class, set down her belongings, and said; “Those who own the words own the world.” Then she went on to provide numerous examples of the “haves'' and the “have-nots” in the world of words.   

Living as we do in a multicultural community, it does not take much imagination to appreciate the truth of Dr. Harris’s thesis. Those who “own English” in the U.S. own our world. Every street sign, public service announcement, job application, medical form, and travel advisory in the U.S. is written in English. 

If we are fluent in English, we have a great advantage over those who are not, and we move through our day with relative ease. But if you do not read, write, or speak English, every element of your day is bogged down with the need to pull out a dual language dictionary, ask if the information we need is available in our mother tongue, or find a friend or relative to accompany us and translate essential messages and documents for us. If we don’t take these steps to understand the meaning of terms, and their meaning within the dominant cultural context, we may misunderstand and suffer sometimes dire consequences. 

II

The same is true with the Bible. Even though the Bible has been translated in more languages than any other book in the world, the Judeo-Christian Bible is filled with terminology, images, and metaphors that are sometimes more opaque to the average reader--even when reading in their home language--than they may appear. 

As a consequence, when a reader does not have the knowledge that would unlock hidden meanings, or describe ancient times or explain distant cultures, they/we are as vulnerable to missing or misunderstanding the Bible as a newcomer is to the US who only speaks K'iche' or Dari or Ukrainian. 

The story about Sodom and Gomorrah that’s referenced in today’s Hebrew Bible reading provides a profound example of how the knowledge and “ownership” of certain biblical words can lead to “ownership” (and consequently power, or the lack of it) in Christian theology and predominantly Christian cultures. 

Take, for example, the word “know.” One way to interpret this term is “to have knowledge,” as in, “Yes, I know that person, or no, I don’t know that person.” 

Another way that the term “know” is used in scripture is to refer to sexual intimacy. For example, if you grew up hearing the Christmas story read from the KJV, you may recall these words: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Mt. 1:25) This interpretation of “know” in the Christmas story is the basis for the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception. 

If you apply the first usage of “know” to the interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, you are led to think that Lot’s neighbors come to his house because they are curious and would like to meet his visitors. 

If, on the other hand, you interpret the term “know”  another way, then you are inclined to think that Lot’s neighobrs’ visit to his house was about either their desire to have sex with the newcomers, or worse--they intended to rape his visitors, which was an ancient act of humiliation practiced by rival warriors. 

Given the radically different ways that the term “know” can be interpreted in the Bible, I suspect that you agree with Professor Harris’s thesis: Those who own the words own the world. One interpretation leads to a nonchalant interpretation of the interchange between the townspeople and Lot’s guests, and the other sheds light on why homosexuality has been condemned and sexual violence has been normalized by others.

III

Just as etymology, the study of words and their meanings, can enlighten our understanding of scripture considerably, so can the study of literary genres. Most biblical scholars believe that the story about Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of an ancient morality tale that underscores the importance of desert hospitality, and the nature of God’s anger and judgment on those who fail to extend mercy to the poor and hospitality to strangers. Let’s review the story. 

Sodom and Gomorrah opens with three characters--presumably angels--who present themselves to Abraham and Sarah on the plains of Mamre. These celestial visitors reveal God’s plan to our ancient parents in the faith about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.

This message was very troubling to Abraham because his nephew Lot and his extended family had settled in those cities, and Abraham was afraid for their safety. Rather than accepting God’s judgment as a fait accompli, Abraham started bargaining with the angels. Please, he said, ask God if he would spare these two cities if 50 righteous inhabitants can be found there.”  

The angels run to God with Abraham’s proposal, and surprisingly, God agrees to the deal.

Having discovered that God was willing to barter, Abraham continued to bargain. First he lowered the number of righteous to 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally 10. Each time that Abraham lowered the number, the angels conferred with God, and God accepted the new terms.

Finally, the angels got tired of bartering, and they got up and went to Sodom and Gomorrah and assessed the situation. 

There they met Lot at the city gate. He invited them to his house, and offered them food and shelter. Towards the end of the evening, a mob from town gathered around Lot’s house and called for his visitors to come out.

Lot was reluctant to send his visitors into the street, because he had been taught by his father to extend hospitality to foreigners, even though he knew that Sodom and Gomorrah forbid this practice.  

Understandably, Lot feared for the safety of his guests. So rather than sending them out to the mob, Lot insisted that his guests remain in the house while he tried to dial down the drama with the neighbors.

Lot’s de-escalation practices were horrific by our standards. His leading idea was to call his daughters out to distract the mob, and serve as surrogates for the visitors. 

The story comes to a climax when the angels pull Lot into his house, blind the mob, and tell Lot and his family to pack their bags and head for the hills in the morning

Lot advised his wife, daughters, and would-be sons-in-law to follow the angels’ guidance. But the men thought the proposal was rediculous, and declined the invitation. When morning dawned, only Lot, his wife, and his two daughters left home. 

When they were safely past the city gates, God rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, and everyone who stayed behind perished. 

Lot's wife turned back to see the city, although she had been warned by the angels not to do so, and she was turned into a pillar of salt. 

In the end, only Lot and his daughters survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and they went on to found the nations of Moab and Ammon, Israel’s neighbor nations located then on the eastern banks of the Dead Sea.  

IV

Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about God’s anger and judgment. In particular, it explores what human behavior most upsets God. One interpretation is that sodomy is what angers God most. The other is that inhospitality toward the poor and outsiders is what infuriates God. 

The first interpretation--that sodomy angers God--has been traced back to theologians studying the Bible in the Middle Ages and was popularized in our time by televangelists like Pat Robertson. 

The other interpretation is that God despises the inhospitable. It is as old as the Old Testament book of Ezekiel and as modern as the work of Professor Mark D. Jordan at Harvard Divinity School. 

The Ancient Israelite Prophet Ezekiel was the first theologian, on record, to offer an interpretation in Genesis 18 & 19 of this story. In chapter 16:49-50, Ezekiel explains: 

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. 

In the gospels, Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah three times: 1) when he describes the mission of the twelve in Matthew 10:1-15; 2) when he describes the mission of the seventy in Luke 10:1-24; and 3) when he describes the end time, when the sheep are separated from the goats in Matthew 25:31-46.

Notice that neither Ezekiel nor Jesus makes mention of homosexuality in their comments about Sodom and Gomorrah? Instead, their criticisms of Sodom and Gomorrah are about the lack of care and concern for the poor and needy, and the failure to offer hospitality to strangers and sojourners who are similarly vulnerable. 

V

So where did the homophobic reading of Sodom and Gomorrah come from, you may wonder, if not from scripture itself?  

Professor Mark D. Jordan explains in his book The Invention of Sodomy that the homophobic doctrines of the Church were constructed during the Medieval period when theological  and political power struggless resulted in the scapegoating of minority groups such as witches and homosexuals and  led to the perpetuation of misogynistic and homophobic doctrines in the church.  

 Professor Jordan built his theory on the work of Stanford University philosophy philosopher René Girard who documented ways that various cultures have constructed narratives about their own superiority by “otherising” or ”scapegoating” foreigners or minorities within their home cultures who don’t fit the “norm.”  

Knowing what you know now--that the definition of biblical terms matter, that Sodom and Gomorrah were archetypes in ancient literature, that this story’s purpose was to describe what angers God and that God despised inhospitality, not homosexuality, and knowing that scapegoating plays a powerfully negative role the human psyche, human history, and human cultures--perhaps you agree with Professor Harris and me--those who own the Biblical words own the world of Christian theology and cultures. So it behooves us to dive into scripture and take a learned approach to its interpretation, rather than leave the Bible to the ignorant haters, who may otherwise use it as a weapon to subjugate minorities and claim their own superiority. Amen.