It all started with Lot

The archbishop of Canterbury has called a rare, emergency meeting of the leaders of the Anglican Communion because of the split caused in it by approving an openly homosexual person as bishop.

Fascinating. I applaud the approval. But as usual sex causes more of a stir than murder. Still, this got me thinking and I decided to reread those sections of the Bible that deal with homosexuality. More fascinating still. It all starts with Genesis 9 and this fellow Lot.

Seems these two guys - angels of the Lord - come to the gates of Sodom and Lot lets them in, giving them the hospitality of his home. But soon a crowd of men gather outside of Lot's home wanting "their way" with the strangers. (Sounds like a scene out of a biker movie of the '70s.) I guess they were tired of sex with the same old folks and two new men appealed to them. Lot is appalled and refuses to turn the men over to the crowd. But he offers an alternative. "Look. I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Wow! What a guy! This is morality? I guess it is Old Testament style. Like slavery and slaughtering every man, woman, and child of the enemy nation. Lot protects two strange men from this sex-crazed crowd, but offers his virgin daughters in their place! Anyone who wants to point to this as an example of God's law needs to see a psychiatrist. Show me a man who will turn his daughters over to be gang raped and I will show you a coward and a criminal.

All I get out of this story is a strong affirmation of the ancient patriarchal culture of the region and the extreme emphasis placed on hospitality - the protection "of my house" - within that culture. Interesting as insights into the culture - but bankrupt as a moral guide for how we should live today.

But please note - there is something going on besides sex here and it is of fundamental importance. What is going on is violence. What is going on is promiscuity. What is going on is forced sex. The real problem is not homosexual sex versus heterosexual sex. The real problem is force. The real problem is violence. The real problem is rape. These are the abuses of sex. These are the ways in which we take a joyous gift and turn it into something ugly. It is not the sexual acts that are ugly. They do not, in themselves, separate us from God. Done in love they bring us closer to God. What is ugly - what separates us from God - what is commonly called "sin" - is the force, the rejection of love in favor of lust - the doing unto others what we would never wish done to ourselves. That is the lesson of value from this ancient writing.

It is the old story. Someone points to God. We study their finger instead of looking at where they're pointing. So it is we get hung up on the sexual acts per se instead of the violence with which they are done. I'm not saying this is what was in the mind of the author of the story. I don't know what that ancient author was thinking. I am saying this is the only value I can draw from the story as told.

And if you look closely at the letters of Paul - at Romans 1:24-27, Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8 you will find something very similar. Yes, Paul writes in these passages of homosexuality. And yes, I think Paul appears to be condemning homosexuality in general. But as I look at the specifics I see something else and it raises a fundamental question: Is he condemning homosexual sex - or sex without love? Read these passages in context and you will see that in each case he includes the homosexual acts with a whole cartload of other evils. The common thread here is not the acts - but the abuse of the acts. Was that his intention? I don't know. Again, this is what I get out of reading it today.

In Corinthians, for example, he condemns "drunkards and revilers" in the same breath as he condemns "male prostitutes." Yet Jesus not only drank wine, but he urged his followers to drink wine in remembrance of him. And it was not only in this formal way that Jesus drank wine. Jesus drank it joyously at weddings and other social gatherings - and was, himself, a party goer. So Paul's condemnation of drunkards is not a condemnation of the act of drinking alcoholic beverages.

For me the lesson is simple. Good things - gifts of God - can be abused and it is the abuse that separates us from God, not the acts in and of themselves. There is nothing inherently wrong with sex, homosexual or heterosexual. There is nothing inherently wrong with wine. There is nothing inherently wrong with a joyous gathering of friends. But all these good things - and many others - can be wrong when we do them having abandoned love. This frequently happens when we pursue them in excess and it certainly happens when we pursue them for money.

Paul will argue for a celibate, monastic life. I would argue that such a life is unnatural - for me. Does that mean it was unnatural for him? Only Paul can answer that. I can appreciate it that some feel naturally inclined to celibacy. Perhaps they have no, or very little, sexual desires. But if they are not so inclined - if they are biting their lips and rejecting sex, then they too are separating themselves from God, for they are rejecting the gifts of God. But these gifts must be accepted in love and it is love that is the arbiter - not the act, but the spirit in which it is carried out.

It is not love, unless the feelings are mutual.

So the Anglican Communion is split over homosexuality. If I were still an Episcopalian I would try to remind my associates that the first commandment was to love God and the second our neighbor and how you get from those commandments to hating and fearing homosexuals is beyond me.

I honestly hope that in the end this controversy will prove helpful to the Episcopal Church - that it will make people face reality, consider significant issues, and consider what the true priorities of Jesus were. Come to think of it, the man was over 30, unmarried, and spent most of the time running around the dessert with a dozen other guys. Maybe the Episcopalians have been worshipping a homosexual all along?

OK, I'm being rhetorical here and trying to shock those who are offended by homosexuality, yet love Jesus. Of course there can be many reasons for a person to be 30 and unmarried. And in the kind of patriarchical society in which he was raised, it would certainly be natural for a man to choose all male leaders and surround himself with them. But the bottom line is we don't really know much about the historical Jesus and his sexual orientation. I think it's healthy to ask ourselves - what if we suddenly had incontrovertible proof that Jesus was a homosexual? Would it matter? Should it matter? Would we suddenly reject his entire message? The Man was all about love - he preached it and he lived it better than anyone before or since.

The real question is, are we so hung up on our sexual identities (and the demands of the body and evolution for procreation) that we would reject the "son of God" simply because we did not like his sexual choices? Do we really find such a Jesus less appealing than our man Lot, who is so eager to protect two strangers that he offers his innocent daughters to be gang raped? Christians need to ask themselves whether they want to live within the writings of the Old Covenant with their God, or the New Covenant - the New Being.

To give Lot his due, he did oppose the crowd. But his solution is as appalling as the crowd's desire, if not more so. One can argue that within the context of his time and culture it made sense. Exactly. We need to see all writing in context and we need to make our own decisions within our present context. As for me, I really don't feel I can learn much from the guy who was eager to sell out his virgin daughters, nor can I learn much from the writer who thought it was good to hold this man up as a role model.

Posted by Greg Stone at August 10, 2003 04:37 AM | TrackBack