Meg Warner ViaMedia.News Does the Bible Really Say….that Sodomites were sodomites?
Laudable Practice Newman, Keble, Pusey: High Church Parsons on Trinity Sunday
John Barton Church Times Richard Hooker and Puritans: Of sundry things, in the light of reason
“Richard Hooker’s engagement with the Puritans has much to teach those who debate scripture today”
Paul Bayes Thinking in Liverpool Believing in the Public Square
The Meg Warner piece requires more time than I have today but I am already worried about the accuracy of her arguments. She suggests that the unrighteousness wasn’t sodomy but Congress between the mob and the angels. The problem with that argument is that the angels had already been sent to destroy the city: their mission brief preceded their encounter with the mob. Her argument would also require us to believe that encounters between citizens and angels had occurred regularly and that the citizens knew that they were having congress with angels. (The angels themselves apparently were innocent.) Neither is… Read more »
I find it hard to believe that angels are physical beings, especially having power to blind people or turn a woman into a pillar of salt.
Kate, Contrary to your view I think that Meg’s piece is one of the most interesting and accurate commentaries on the Sodom texts that I have read in twenty years. You are right that the people of Sodom were criticised before the Lot incident, but as Meg points out the important question is what is their sin? The sin of sodomy (a male – male sexual act) is only one of many possible interpretations. The sin of sex with divine beings is another possible interpretation, and one that follows the stream of previous stories in Genesis. Because we have inherited… Read more »
Continued from previous It is also interesting to look at Shamhat’s status. Modern Christian interpreters invariably use the phrase “temple prostitute”. But Stephen Mitchell says “actually we have no word in English for what Shamhat is. The Akkadian words do not mean prostitute in our sense of the term, a woman who sold herself for personal gain. She is a priestess of Ishtar, the Goddess of Love, and as a kind of reverse nun has dedicated her life to what the Babylonians considered the sacred mysteries of sexual union. In opening to the anonymous man who appears before her in… Read more »
Simon Dawson Thank you for interesting post here but I struggled with your claim that – ‘Originally Adam and Eve were pre-conscious creatures, almost drones’. Isn’t the narrative clear God originally created them in his image. The language of ‘pre-conscious creatures’ or ‘drones’ sits oddly alongside that. I find nothing in the story that suggests they started out as inhuman robot gardeners.
David, thank you for your reply. I think the issue is with the word “originally”. I am sorry if I was unclear. My suggestion is that in certain “origin” myths the idea of a pre-conscious person is present, with various different Promethian style mechanisms explaining the transition to conscious human. Then at a later stage the authors of Genesis took this original myth (or myths) and gave it their own particular spin for their own particular reasons. We know from the Gilgamesh Flood narrative that certain Genesis and Babylonian stories appear to flow out of a common source. So my… Read more »
Thanks Simon. One to take further over a coffee some time …. Best wishes
David, if I am respectfully allowed a second chance to answer your question. It has suddenly come back to me that your quote “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” is from Genesis chapter 1. Yet the sexual content is in Genesis chapter 2, where the relevant introductory description of Adam is “Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. . . . . . . . The Lord God took… Read more »
In the Genesis 2ff account there is a good bit of “dawning of consciousness” and coming to awareness (and self-awareness) in the fruit of the “tree of knowledge.” The awareness of the naked human condition can be read as the transition from an earlier state of innocence.
Revisionism knows no end. Ezekiel refers to the text with the language of sexual immorality. No one doubted the text was about that until our present era.
“Revisionism knows no end.” Christopher of course it doesn’t. That’s rather the point of revising things isn’t it? And it’s what biblical scholarship has done for several thousand years. Hence the whole tradition of rabbis interpreting the texts – Halakha and Talmud for example. Hence Jesus himself interpreting the texts. Hence the church interpreting the texts. It should never have an end should it? Why would it? There is still more light and truth…..
CRS – I glory in the fact that revisionism knows no end. If the revision of Christian belief was not allowed then slavery would still be legal, and my husband David and I would have been burnt at the stake years ago. Bring it on!
Best wishes.
The conservative tradition’s belief it its own interpretative inerrancy knows no end. Ezekiel 16: 49ff “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.” So, what form was the ‘sexual immorality?’ Unless it was an all male town, presumably the women were involved as well, which rather gives lie to the conservative homophobic interpretation. One has to really, really twist the texts to get… Read more »
Thanks CRS for this succinct argument for the authority of tradition over scripture.
CRS I do not think this is true. It is true that when addressing the crisis of his exiled people Ezekiel makes repeated comparisons with the sin of Sodom. The language of adultery and sexual immortality are often used metaphorically. But I am not aware of anywhere the Hebrew scriptures speak of the sin of Sodom as sexual, let alone homosexual.
“The language of adultery and sexual immortality are often used metaphorically.”
As when the ancient states of Israel and Judah are said to go “whoring after other gods” when, in the minds of the Biblical writers, the people aren’t sufficiently faithful to God, for example.
PS: Thank you to the Thinking Anglicans moderators for the “edit” function!
It is simply an exegetical fact that when one reads Leviticus 18 and repeatedly sees reference to to’evah in the context of sexual immorality; and then tries to make Ezekiel 16’s reference to to’evah about inhospitality simpliciter–and this is the present move by revisionists–it smells of special pleading. This is not scripture vs tradition, as is wrongly implied. It is about scripture and tradition in agreement. My larger sense is that if “EXPERTS DECLARE GENESIS, LEVITICUS and EZEKIEL in agreement about ‘abomination'” were to appear as a headline, it would change nothing for the cause of revisionism. I would prefer… Read more »
“My larger sense is that if “EXPERTS DECLARE GENESIS, LEVITICUS and EZEKIEL in agreement about ‘abomination’” were to appear as a headline, it would change nothing for the cause of revisionism.” Well I think you’re right. That’s my own position. I accept that it is likely that the religious communities out of whom the scriptures emerged were opposed to men having sex with other men. And considering no revision of that probable view is attempted by the New Testament authors, I think it’s reasonable to suppose they were opposed to men having sex with men as well. So we have… Read more »
Susannah, Ref your statement “I accept that it is likely that the religious communities out of whom the scriptures emerged were opposed to men having sex with other men”. With all due respect I would argue that this is too simplistic a view. It assumes that everybody in the community was of the same mind. I think we need to take a much more nuanced approach. To use the current Church of England as an analogy, the current official position, and the most dominant public voice, is opposed to same sex relationships. But you and I well know that many… Read more »
CRS, thanks so much for the engagement! I want to respond to the accusation of special pleading. You are, of course, quite right that the language of ‘abomination’, or to’evah, is the same in Leviticus 18 (and also 20) and Ezekiel 16. The problem with the reference to abomination in Ezek 16:50 is that it doesn’t say what kind of abomination it means, because of course there are many kinds, and they are not only sexual. I can’t know what kind of abomination is in mind there any more than you can, except by reference to clues in the text.… Read more »
Ezekiel 16 refers to Sodom. It uses the word to’evah. The word does not refer to inhospitality. You have to do the work of imagining an abomination that is other than the plain sense, and as you say, you really have no idea what that might mean. If 16:49 is sufficient, it would be odd to say the same thing twice, now using the word most frequently used for illicit sexual congress. I prefer not to imagine things. The sexual abominations in Genesis involve males, and so too Leviticus 18, as you note.
The feminine language of Ezekiel 16 emerges in the context of a metaphor: Zion as unfaithful woman, who sexually prostitutes herself. The prophet is not speaking about women in Zion. He is using a metaphor. This further allows the acerbic Ezekiel scope to declare “she”–Zion–has a “sister” — another part of his very typical figural usage. This “sister” is Sodom! How terrible a condemnation. The entire context of chap 16 is using sexual infidelity and illicit congress to condemn the unfaithful remaining in Zion. Ezekiel was exiled in 597. There is a remnant in Zion. They declare themselves spared from… Read more »
There we disagree. Ezekiel 16 uses the exact same word for abomination as is found in Leviticus 18. Being a close reader of Hebrew the resonance is unavoidable. He could have avoided this altogether and provided a one verse summary about wealth and inhospitality. He did not do that. In a way, the implication in his text is that wealth–Lot chose the high-end regions– breeds this conduct. To whom much is given, much will be expected…Lot failed. Abraham did not. He graciously demurred and gave his kin the first, and best, choice. His was the better way. He preferred to… Read more »
CRS “no one doubted the text was about that until our present era” is I’m afraid completely false. Origen, a third-century Christian writer declared the sin of Sodom was about those “who avoid a guest as an enemy”, and made it clear this was about inhospitality. So in fact did Tertullian (another Christian writer) and of course Jerome, who called out the sin of pride and glutony, but not same-sex relations.
Of course they did this. But never to the exclusion of the well-known assumption that at base the text was about illicit sexual conduct, such as is directly addressed in Leviticus 18 and Ezekiel. That such conduct was hand-in-hand with the luxurious decision of Lot to go to the high-end region, in distinction to Abraham, follow on from that in the mind of later readers. Hard as it is to believe today, same-sex relations had about them an aura of shame. Paul himself could speak of “unthinkable things.” That idea is today out the window in the (luxuriant) West. I… Read more »
As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the Holy Spirit gives us the knowledge we can handle…based on our culture and level of scientific understanding. As those change, the Spirit offers us new insight. So, yes, revisionism knows no end, because the Spirit’s gift is, likewise, endless.
Ezekiel 16:49 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. This verse, like the whole of the Gospel of Jesus, is sacrificial and costly to the comfortable and powerful. Judging “sexual immorality” is much, much easier than doing the work of creating a just society. Rape, multiple wives, and women as chattel is part of our story too, but those aren’t the parts that lead to salvation or loving one’s neighbor. Even if the sin of Sodom was the rape… Read more »
“bizarre rules from a pre-scientific era” — yes, just like Leviticus 19:18. A strong rule from a pre-scientific era, in the same running context of rules from a pre-scientific (and thank God for that) era. Identical in form. Exactly as you put it. A strong “rule.”
But, of course, Jesus himself raised the rule of Leviticus 19:18 to the level of one of the two great commandments, and added “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” We have no record of him saying anything equivalent of all those Levitical “abominations”.
Read Acts 15. Where did the rules laid down upon gentiles come from? Directly from Leviticus 18-19, for the ‘sojourner in the midst.’ James, the brother of the Lord, presiding.
James is not his brother…and nowhere is Jesus quoted directly. I stand by my earlier point: The only Levitical instruction Jesus ever specifically endorsed was the one about loving God and your neighbor….raising them to the highest of levels.
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
All the rulings pertaining to Gentiles come straight out of Leviticus 18-19.
PS–I didn’t realise I was dealing with a “red letter bible” believer.
You’re not…but if we are going to talk about what Jesus said and did, let’s keep it to what the Gospels say he said and did, not what his followers did after he left them.
I actually think I am, oddly enough. It is a barking idea to think one can just ‘get the words of Jesus.’ It also is belied by Jesus, whose stated purpose was to raise up followers who would be his communication. We just celebrated Pentecost… Marcion liked your way of thinking. He eliminated the OT altogether. It followed, however, from that move that he eliminated all of the Gospels as well. Only Luke, shorn of opening and closing chapters (too much reliance on the OT), remained. So his ‘Jesus only’ Bible was chiefly Paul’s letters (!) and Luke. One of… Read more »
And yet Paul…and later the whole church…absolved non-Jewish followers of Christ from strict obedience to the dietary laws, the laws about beards and hair, the laws about mixing fabrics, even the one demanding circumcision. They were for the people of the Convenant…the descendants of Abraham. Why do some insist that the ones regarding sexuality still need to be followed?
This reading of Ezekial 16:49 is highly significant. In one reading, my wife and I are an abomination. In the hospitality reading, the treatment of children and refugees at the US-Mexican border are the abomination. This really matters. With prayer, discernment, study, and formation, I’ve made my choice.
So, God only knows (literally!) how many millennia have passed, how many hundreds of generations of the sons and daughters of humanity have passed from this Earth, since the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were smote (“smitten” doesn’t seem to work in this instance) by God, if the cities ever existed at all — and modern day GLBT people must still bear the burden of their destruction?
NO!
My understanding of Sodom’s sin was mistreatment of strangers, lack of hospitality. The story was probably handed down after the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt, and the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) are full of admonitions to treat the stranger with hospitality, for the Israelites were once strangers. Lot even offers up his own daughters for their sexual pleasure so the men of the town won’t attack the two strangers, but when the men of the town refuse, yet a different angel blinds them all. The sexual desires of the town were just a symptom. If the tale was solely about sexual… Read more »
This is simply a straw argument. Those who believe marriage is an estate as traditionally understood have never reveled in Sodom and Gomorrah as somehow relevant. This is just the typical kind of fake victimisation that serves no one. WHAT PEOPLE OBJECT TO is manipulating texts–in this case about rape and to’evah–into something different, so as to further the cause of…fill in the blank. So we get a story of abomination at the level of sexual conduct restricted, so that NOW it means not being hospitable and that is all. “But that doesn’t stop the morally uptight in our present-day… Read more »
Why must this Anglican thread be always concerned with sex. It is so sad, and in my opinion it is the same folk talking. Having said Morning Prayer, I have been reading Paul Bayes address at the University of Liverpool. Having trained at St Aidan’s Theological College from 1959 to 1963, and done parish placement at All Saints Stoneycroft, and spent many happy hours in Liverpool Cathedral, it reminded me of the Spirit of the City, and places of faith. Thank you Bishop Bayes, and The Table is on my book list.
Fr John Emlyn
Why must this Anglican thread be always concerned with sex.
Because I am trying to prevent issues of mental illness and suicide caused by current Christian teaching.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11299263/Christian-teenager-takes-her-own-life-over-misplaced-fears-about-telling-family-she-is-gay.html
Is that a bad thing?
“Why must this Anglican thread be always concerned with sex” Perhaps because no other subject so divides us? Because one part of our community insists on interpreting a Bronze Age text (in translation, no less) as applying literally to a computer-age society? At least as far as that subject is concerned that is…they have no problem with ignoring so many other strictures of that same ancient document–the ones about food, clothes, hair, etc.–while maintaining that the proscriptions as to sexual relations and gender roles must remain inviolate. Do not blame both sides of this disagreement for the continuing dispute. Those… Read more »
We agree. Sadly the debate is enjoined, as you note. There have been similar moments the Christian Church could not finesse — Marcion, Arius, et al. Those of us who are moderate, and consistent with the vast, vast majority of Christians worldwide–in Asia, S America, Africa, China to be sure (how many Christians are there? 100-50M?)–hold that the positions of previous generations on marriage are valuable and worthy of preservation and continuation. Those in the other camp, who believe in departing from this, insist they are right in their revision. They are revisionist. They believe that revision is what our… Read more »
“Those of us who are moderate, and consistent with the vast, vast majority of Christians worldwide…”
Since when have Christians determined that right, justice and ethical morality are a matter of how many people believe something? If that is our method of determining the truth of Scripture, then we are decidedly outnumbered by the non-Christians in the world…and we should cease trying to run things as if we are the majority.
The burden is always on those who seek to change what has been held true and valuable. This is not a matter of present Christian presence worldwide, only, but also communion with the saints through the ages. How are Christians throughout the ages ‘out-numbered.’ It has never been the case that one tots up world religions and then says, “how many Christians are there? If there are more zorastrians, they are right.” That makes no sense. We are speaking here of Christians living and Christians who are on another shore, the saints of prior fidelity and practice.
“The saints of prior fidelity and practice” once regarded the Bishop of Rome as the head of church worldwide. Are you suggesting we should return to that belief? Again, the Holy Spirit’s work did not end on the first Pentecost…nor when the church fathers decided on which books should be considered canon in the Bible. (Indeed, the many denominations of Christianity still differ on that issue to some degree.) It is ongoing…and, today, in the western provinces of the Anglican Communion, the Holy Spirit is saying that loving our neighbors as ourselves requires treating our gay and bisexual and transgender… Read more »
This is just so simplistic. Find something you object to in the past and then eliminate any normativity to what has been always considered–esp by Anglicans–as our heritage in the faith. This is more akin to mormonism and other New World ideas of progress. Any competent guide can explain to you why having the Wisdom of Solomon (or not) weighed very little in Christian divergences. (I am writing the section on hermeneutics for the new Oxford Press volume on Orthodoxy). The Holy Spirit is saying no such thing. What you are, Mr O’Neill, is saying is “I and my friends… Read more »
We believe the Holy Spirit is *expanding* on what has been claimed for the Holy Spirit in the past. It is widening our understanding of love, of who our neighbor is, of how we treat and love our neighbor as ourselves. We know more about our neighbor now, thanks to science, and we should let the Holy Spirit use that new knowledge to guide us in new ways.
And I have never believed the Holy Spirit “spake” only by the prophets. I believe the Holy Spirit speaks to all of us, all the time…we simply do not always hear completely.
I was merely citing the Creed (that you presumably cite). Which also states Jesus was “in accordance with the scriptures” (that is, the scriptures he said referred to him, were testimony to him, etc; our Old Testament).
The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself. New ideas out beyond the scriptural witness is something Joseph Smith believed.
The Holy Spirit is only contradicting itself (I refuse to use the masculine for that person of God) if you believe we have always interpreted what it was telling us correctly. I do not believe that is so. God’s plan and wisdom will always be beyond our complete understanding.
And we understand a great deal more about the science of human behaviour and relationships. Christopher: do you believe the Holy Spirit was doing a new thing in allowing those who committed adultery not to be stoned? Or in allowing women to be Rabbis and Priests? Or in allowing women the vote? Isn’t it simply that our understanding continues to deepen? Surely if you consider the behaviour of homosexual people to be so immoral you need, for consistencies sake, to campaign for that behaviour to be re-criminalised? Your current railing simply looks like the disgust of those who find certain… Read more »
This is so ignorant it doesn’t rise to the level of discussion.
It is ignorant to think we do not know and understand everything about God? Or that we may misunderstand the Spirit’s message to us? Rather, I think to believe we are always correct in our knowledge and understanding is the sheerest hubris I can imagine.
I think what you mean is that you don’t have any answers to these pertinent questions.
No, what it means is what it means. “Pertinent questions?” — what a big bowl of clichés.
Sadly Christopher calling other people ignorant whilst ignoring their questions simply displays an inability to engage. The mental gymnastic you need to undertake to do some things according to the scriptures but ignore others is amusing to watch but ultimately gets you nowhere. See Peter Gross below.
Have a wonderful weekend Christopher
Reviewing the range of views on this thread–“the sexual desires were a symptom”; “considering no revision of that probable view is attempted by the New Testament authors, I think it’s reasonable to suppose they were opposed to men having sex with men as well”; “I find it hard to believe that angels are physical beings, especially having power to blind people or turn a woman into a pillar of salt”; “if the sin of Sodom was the rape of men, or angels, by men, it’s still rape”–one thing we can safely conclude. A series that purports confidently to tell us… Read more »
Dr Seitz, I think what the series is doing is providing voice for the half of the Church of England that does not in all conscience and belief agree with the ‘status quo’ asserted by the leadership. That voice may have diverse expressions, but I think it highlights the often glossed over reality: that there is NO ‘status quo’ position of actual belief in the Church of England on issues of human sexuality. The Via Media series highlights this diversity of belief in our Church, and that is something that has to be lived with, and dealt with. Given that… Read more »
The whole “status quo” idea of the Anglican Communion claim really needs to be challenged. Whatever beliefs are held by people in the “worldwide Anglican Communion,” it is clear from ACC16 and 17 that the diverse leaders from this Communion are not interested in taking up the primates culture wars. My own experience with Anglicans from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East was that I was not really their flavor, but they were fine leaving it to God. And writing a statement of unity with women in the Anglican Communion despite the divisions being sown by the primates (“Walking Together”… Read more »
This raises the question “Does the Holy Spirit speak only to the church as a whole, through its leaders–or does it speak to every individual, offering them an insight to God’s wisdom befitting their own needs and ability to understand?” If the former, then the Romans, with their strict hierarchy and belief in the Pope’s infallibility, have it right. If the latter, then every Christian (indeed every human being) can read Scripture and find meaning.
“Those of us who are moderate, and consistent with the vast, vast majority of Christians worldwide–in Asia, S America, Africa, China.” Would gay people in Nigeria (and indeed, most gay people in the UK) regard these conservative ideologues as “moderate”? I would argue that Christianity, by failing to open to new understanding, emerging revelation, and downright common decency to loving couples, in line with for example the vast majority of people in our society today, has become extremist. It propounds almost a fascism towards gay people… an alienation of hundreds of thousands of decent people as “other”, practising abomination in… Read more »
“they have no problem with ignoring so many other strictures of that same ancient document–the ones about food, clothes, hair, etc.–while maintaining that the proscriptions as to sexual relations and gender roles must remain inviolate.” Nailed it! The literalists cite blankets floating down from Heaven with “unclean” critters, or they say Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the Law — how does one fulfill a law? If I drive at the speed limit, or if a police officer pulls over a driver for running a stop sign, did I or the officer fulfill the law? If a Supreme Court says that this… Read more »
“Puritan – A pious gentleman, who believed in letting people do as – he – liked.” Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil’s Dictionary.
“A puritan is such a one as loves God with all his soul, but hates his neighbour with all his heart.” London lawyer John Manningham (1602).
I hope TA will be posting recent essays from The Living Church from bright younger clergy in the Anglican Church of Canada on the upcoming synod vote. Not every new development is a manifest ‘work of the Holy Spirit.’
This too has appeared. Re: ACoC.
https://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/open-letter-to-archbishop-melissa-skelton/