Abraham asked God not to destroy Sodom. Why? Why not ask for his relative, Lot, to be rescued and the rest of the evil people to be destroyed? But no, he asked for this terrible thing not to happen to these people - these evil people. Why?
And, by the way, what was so evil about these people? They were gay, right? Wasn't that it? Well, that's what I used to think; it's what I was taught; it's what I used to teach.
Let's look at this a little closer. The angels of God in the form of men came to Sodom and were welcomed into Lot's house. What did the men of Sodom do? They surrounded Lot's house and demanded that Lot turn these men over so that they could rape them (you can look it up here). Now, you might say, "see, there you have it, they were gay and that's how gay people are."
Oh, but how wrong you would be. Look what Lot does in response. Some way, some how, it made sense for Lot to offer his daughters to these men instead of his guests. (Now, if that is taking the moral high ground in Sodom, then you know something is amuck.) Lot must have thought that opposite sex rape might be appealing to these men as much as same sex rape would be. Opposite sex rape must have been as common as same sex rape. The men declined his offer, but that doesn't change the clues into the social norms of the city of Sodom.
So what can we learn about Sodom's sin from Lot's repsonse to the men? Their sin was not so much that they preferred gay sex, but rather that they felt entitled to sex with whomever and whenever they pleased. They felt comfortable imposing their sexuality upon anyone they wanted to. Not just their beliefs about sexuality, but the sex act itself.
At this point, it is important to understand the difference between sex and rape. Sex is a consensual agreement to an intimate physical exchange while rape is an extreme abuse of power perpetrated by one more powerful person upon one less powerful person. In rape, sex is merely the means of oppression - it's not really about sex.
So, Sodom had a city full of people who were bent on oppressing other people and that was what so offended God. Not buying it? There is another clue that points this way - and it has nothing to do with sex. Check out Genesis 14. Abraham had saved the king of Sodom's butt and his people and their stuff. The king of Sodom offers Abraham a bunch of stuff and Abraham declines. The reason he declines is the clue.
Abraham declines because he never wanted the King of Sodom to have any advantage over him - that he could claim that he made Abraham rich. That implies that this king is an opportunist and perhaps (likely) an oppressor. It's just like the king of Sodom to use anything and everything to abuse and oppress people. It was so obvious to Abraham that to receive anything from Sodom's king made him vulnerable to oppression that he declined the offer. It does not indicate that the King of Sadom was gay. That was not Abraham's struggle with the king. It was his reputation for abuse of power.
So, let's get back to the initial question: Why did Abraham plead with God to save Sodom?
Frankly, I don't know, but let's allow Abraham to teach us how to deal with people we think are sinful. Abraham had no real reason to love the people of Sodom, but he went to the Almighty God and begged for mercy - a mercy they never asked for, never wanted, and never thought they needed.
If Christians spent their energies begging God for mercy for the people they think are the most sinful rather than trying to straighten out these people through selective theology, legislation, and guilt, they might find themselves more pleasing in the eyes of God.
OK, fire away.
3 comments:
It's my humble opinion that Lot was preserved - not because of his sterling character - but because of the prayers of his uncle Abraham. Abraham was not perfect, either, but I have trouble picturing him offering a child of his as an object of rape, even to "friends" as Lot calls the men of Sodom. Not even in jest.
(I've wondered if Lot offered his daughters in jest to the would-be rapists because they were gay and wouldn't be interested in girls anyway. But the context and phrasing just don't support the theory.)
You're right, Fajita. Lot isn't the hero of this story. (In fact, I think he's pretty stupid for going outside at all, given his "friends'" threat to rape him, too.)
The hero is his uncle, who prayed for the entire city - maybe on the chance that he could haggle God down to saving Lot.
But it's undeniable that both homosexual appetite co-existed with oppression and desire for rape in the Sodom of this story. And I can't neatly separate them and say God destroyed the city for only one of those things.
Like Keith, I believe that homosexuality was a big contributing factor there as well... but thanks to Fajita I understand some of the other big contributing factors that deserve equal press. Because of how our Christian culture has fed its repulsion for gay sex, homosexuality seems to always overshadow everything else. No wonder we have a hard time seeing the person as lovable and redeemable and beautiful in the eyes of God.
In the words of Sheryl Crow, a change would do us good.
Even today, one of the most important virtues in this part of the world is hospitality. To the ancients, they would have seen the abuse of a guest as a greivous sin. In the US, we tend to sexualize everything in sight. While I'm sure that Sodom's sexual sin was a part of what God was punishing, it's difficult to see God doing the same thing if they had welcomed Lot's guests with open arms. I wonder what would have happened if the people of Sodom had responded like the people of Ninnevah.
It is interesting though how often this these of raying for your enemies comes up. Rmember, God came to Moses and offeredto start again with him and wipe out everyone else. Moses pleaded for a rebellious and sinful people. I wonder if we wouldo the same if God made the same offer to our little group. Would we plead for the atheists, femenists and pro abortion activists. Or to hit a little closer to home, would we pray for the Methodists, Baptists or even (gasp) those members of the COC who are more liberal/conservative than us? Hmmmm.
Post a Comment