Sodomy – but not as you know it.
‘Sodomy’: A cultural perspective
If you take note of many loud and boisterous voices
these days, not only is homosexuality the ‘sin of Sodom’ (still referred to as
sodomy in many legal jurisdictions around the world), it is also (apparently)
the unforgivable sin – which, as we have seen, it clearly is not.
And if you consult a dictionary, many will inform
you that ‘sodomy’ is one of three things: a) sexual intercourse using the anal
orifice; b) sexual relations with animals; c) any sexual activity considered
perverted. Or perhaps it is all three.
Now while I understand that language is a cultural
construct, and that languages evolve over time, the use of the word sodomy to
describe various sexual sins is neither honest nor accurate to the related
original historical data. Culturally,
sodomy is not exclusively sexual.
Many of the loud and boisterous voices I refer to
will gladly tell you – and anybody else in ear-shot – that sodomy came from the
evils of the inhabitants of the town of Sodom in the time of Abraham and his
family. Given that Sodom is generally
linked to nearby Gomorrah, it is puzzling that homosexuality is not similarly
linked to this town; perhaps it was just too hard to think of a way to say it
simply – so sodomy would have to do.
Abraham was Lot’s uncle and as the nomadic family
and their herds increased in size, the need arose for Lot to separate from
Abraham and find his own place in the world.
Abraham let Lot choose and he selected the fertile lands at the south of
the Dead Sea in the Jordan valley. Many
believe that the site of Sodom and its neighbours is now under the waters of
the Dead Sea.
You can read the story in Genesis 14. Cut to the end of the story and Lot and his
family are in a lot of trouble and need to flee – which they do. However, Lot’s wife loses her life and the
towns of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.
According to the biblical record, they were destroyed because of their
evil ways and their perversions.
There is ample evidence to suggest that some of the
perversions of Sodom were sexual in nature – hardly unexpected – and some were
homosexual in nature. This is the reason
for today’s dictionary definitions of ‘sodomy’.
However, accepting the cultural, linguistic and
dictionary definitions without question very often leads to the neglect of
God’s definition. English dictionaries
are only a few hundred years old and at the time of their earliest compilation,
the Church held great sway over society and over what were considered ‘public
morals’, including (emphatically) pubic morals.
However, if you stay only with the text of the
story in Genesis, you miss what – specifically - God thinks of the matter. We all need to take a good look at Ezekiel
16.
But a brief note before we go there is
warranted. Virtually all of what modern
“Christians” think about homosexuality comes from God’s old will
that is now null and void. It is most
often referred to as the Old Testament.
At the end of a lot of research, I concur with William O. Walker Jr on
the website https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/
as at October 17, 2019:
Proposition 2: “At
most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament [what
I call God’s new will] that refer to
what we today would call homosexual activity” (Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1
Tim 1:8-11);
Proposition 3: “Two
of the three passages that possibly refer to homosexuality are simply
more-or-less miscellaneous catalogues of behaviours that are regarded as unacceptable, with no particular emphasis
placed on any individual item in the list.”
Proposition 4: “It
may well be that the two lists of unacceptable behaviours—1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1—do not
refer to homosexuality at all.”
The lists in some translations refer to ‘male
prostitutes’ (Greek word meaning soft,
cowardly or lacking in self-control) and ‘sodomites’ (Greek word meaning
literally ‘to bed a male’).
Walker cites Dale B Martin whose research clearly
demonstrates that there is no certainty at all as to the most acceptable
translation of these two words used by Paul in these lists. Like many words we use today, they can be
taken literally or not. Martin’s
conclusion is that when this second word (sometimes translated ‘sodomites’) is
used independently, it is generally NOT used to name some sexual immorality but
rather economic injustice or exploitation.
Martin concludes that it means “exploiting of
others by means of sex, but not necessarily by homosexual sex.” [Sex and the
Single Savior, Dale B Martin, Westminster John Knox Press 2006, page 39.]
Walker suggests “that it might even refer to
exploitation that has nothing at all to do with sex.” Furthermore, there is nothing in the New
Testament that enters the nuanced world of initiator and participant, or
consent and willingness.
It is common in our language today and in many
languages over many years that we use sexual language when we talk about things
void of any sexual content. By way of
example – if you will pardon the use of a crude word – we often describe people
as ‘arseholes’ when we mean that they are generally nasty, exploitative or
corrupt people. We do not mean it
literally. That, I believe, is what Paul
was doing.
And I come to that position for two main reasons.
First, his writings are quite clear that all kinds of
sexual sins are: unacceptable for disciples of Christ; can prevent the
reception of the Kingdom of God; and are out-workings of idolatry (Romans
1). Homosexuality is NOT singled out as
any worse than unrestrained heterosexuality.
Both are regarded as expressions of sexual lust. And as John pointed out in his epistle, there
is both lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes.
Second, we can get a clearer view of how God sees ‘the
sin of Sodom’ simply by reading a different part of the bible. The Prophet Ezekiel agrees with some of our
present day researchers and teachers: “Behold, this was the guilt of your
sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless
ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”
(Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)
The sin of Sodom is NOT homosexuality; it is
arrogance, gluttony, greed, careless ease, disdain for poor and needy people
and being haughty – the outworking of which is committing abominations,
including all sorts of sexual abominations.
Homosexuality is simply one of many sexual symptoms of a form of
idolatry that is, at its heart, the worship of self. Sound familiar? As far as I can tell, the world has a very
large population of ‘sodomites’ many of whom are not homosexual; and many of
whom self-brand as ‘christian’.
The campaign against homosexuality is a deception
from the father of lies himself in order to deflect guilt from the real
sodomites. And in the 21st century, it would appear –
according to God’s definition – that many countries are run by sodomites and
many governments and private corporations overtly foster and encourage
sodomites. And that leads to one
all-important question: is there a ‘sin’ element or component in homosexual
acts – and if so, what is it?
The new testament – and the new covenant more
generally – makes no significant distinction between sexual acts of a homosexual
nature and those of a heterosexual or asexual nature. However, what they do underscore is that, in
either case, there can be a ‘sin’ element or characteristic to any
sexual act – or indeed any other act.
What is it that makes any act a ‘sin’?
If you revisit earlier posts in this series, you can find answers.
a) it ‘crosses a line’ – transgresses: it
contravenes an accepted fence-line or moral code, much like when a car veers
onto the ‘wrong’ side of the road, crossing the centre line. It is both dangerous and threatening not just
to the one transgressing but to others on the ‘other’ side of the road.
b) it ‘misses the mark’ – falls short: it is below
par; it is substandard; it’s power and force take it wide of an accepted
target. Again, it is both dangerous and
threatening to those involved and those around about.
c) it operates on a ‘seeing is believing’ model
instead of a ‘believing is seeing’ model: “I can’t see how this hurts me or
anyone else, so therefore it’s OK.”
Perhaps one ought to consider the thought, “I believe others elsewhere
have been hurt by this, therefore I’ll refrain so as not to put others in
danger.”
d) it interferes with – even breaches – the
principle of ‘personal sovereignty’ that is central and foundational to being
‘created in the image of God’ – the Ímago Dei.
A good question for all of us to ask – whether it
is regarding sex or money or power or any other temptation of man – is: is this
act characterised by any of these four principles? That’s what makes any sexual act a sin –
regardless of its being homo or hetero.
And God’s definition (in Ezekiel 16) puts up in
neon lights the acts of human beings that God hated and punished in Sodom and
Gomorrah. God hates rapacious, uncaring
capitalism as much as abusive, controlling, manipulative sexual relationships.
‘Sodomy’: A historical perspective
Early in 2018, ABC News Australia
ran an article with the title “In the age of #MeToo, how do we talk about
sexual violence against men?” This of course comes within the context of
Australia’s royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse. It begins with these two sentences:
There are around 1 million male survivors of
sexual assault in Australia.
And of the 6,875
survivors to testify at the royal commission into child sexual abuse, almost 65
per cent were male.
Is there historical precedent
for the kind of behaviours that have come to light in this inquiry? I’ll leave that to practicing
historians. One thing that is clear, I
think, is that in our English biblical record, we do not see any recognition of
the twin concepts of permission and consent.
A person might be ‘found guilty’ of ‘sodomy’ or of adultery or of ‘fornication’,
but it always appears decidedly one-sided with little to know concept of
perpetrator and ‘victim’, permission or consent. 21st century concepts and
understandings – and law – are far more nuanced.
While the ABC News article was attempting
to raise a serious question – the very title of the article – it also throws up
serious questions for Christians and other theologians around this matter of
the transition from old covenant ‘law’ to the new covenant in Jesus the Christ.
And this of course is the
subject of rape. In neither the old
testament nor the new testament – at least in our extant English translations –
is there any serious questioning of the theory of patriarchy and male
dominance. It is assumed that adult
males rule; and that females and children are chattels and ‘possessions’. Without ascribing guilt on anyone’s part,
abuse of a minor by a priest, teacher or ‘mentor’ in a position of trust stems
from the notions of possession and entitlement, with a massive power
differential. In today’s world, we get
that and understand it at least to some degree; in days gone by, let’s just
say, not so much!
So let me highlight a key
paragraph in the ABC News article referenced here:
Male rape has been
the object both of concern and of squeamish silence in Australian (sic) since
the earliest days of white settlement. Government documents of the time make
frequent reference to the problem of forced sodomy in the penal colonies, as do
court papers and letters to the press.
[We can safely assume the
dictionary definition of ‘sodomy’ I referred to earlier is in mind here.]
It’s well established that “female
factories” were a striking feature of early Australian penal settlements,
sitting rather like a prison within a prison.
Indeed, this is part of the story of Australia’s Granny Smith apple (see
Us Aussies by Mal Garvin): ‘Granny’
Smith used to bake apple pies for the offspring of the dalliances between the
women in the ‘female factories’ and the men in the wider prison community –
usually left to fend for themselves outside the prison after a certain age.
How many of those dalliances
were consensual and how many were rape?
We’ll probably never know. The
history also clearly shows “forced sodomy” – male rape – was treated, as the
author notes, with “squeamish silence” in Australia. One can fairly assume it was similarly
treated back in the British fatherland.
Here’s a few links I have found
useful and informative, if rather disturbing, in my pursuit of a humane and
more ‘christian’ approach to this issue.
This is my BIG QUESTION: with His absolute focus on justice, mercy and compassion, how does God see the people involved?
In my experience and opinion, we’re living in the age of “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. In our haste to hate, we criminalise people – most often the wrong people. And it has taken over 200 years to come up with a half-decent study or inquiry into the absolute travesty of injustice, intolerance and cruelty meted out to unsuspecting, unwilling and trusting souls.
If we can’t honestly, sincerely and credibly grasp the issue of sin and guilt – as God sees it in the new covenant era of Jesus – we need to stay out, hold our tongues and not presume too much lest we be found by God to be precisely that person in Matthew 7 who rages about the speck in his brother’s eye while completely ignoring the log in his own. In our pursuit of a guilty verdict for someone we despise, we become the guilty as far as God is concerned – and guilty of the sin of speaking and judging for God without His approval, permission or imprimatur.
Is there an unforgivable sin? Yes. But it’s not homosexuality; it’s attributing a work of the Spirit of God to the Prince of Darkness – a thing we can easily become guilty of if we pursue the line of ignorantly and haughtily prosecuting what and when God defends.
The story goes that the mid-sixteenth century English martyr John Bradford observed a group of prisoners being led to execution and responded, “There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford.” We err greatly when we presume to know God’s thoughts and ways when we clearly do not (see Isaiah 59) and then presume to be His executioner. That is precisely the story of some of the Pharisees Jesus faced and addressed.
Next: Disobedience – but not as you know it.
No comments:
Post a Comment