An Exercise In Recognizing Privilege: "It's the Bi-ble, Not the Straight-ble," and Other Scenarios

Privilege is something many of us with privilege don't think about enough. I include myself in that category. I'm a white male living in the USA who identifies as Christian and lives above the poverty level. Sure, I could be more privileged, but not much more.

We in privilege often don't realize the oppression and ostracism we insert into the hegemony. I've been thinking recently about how we in privilege would feel if that metaphorical shoe were on the sore foot of the oppressed. Here are some of the scenarios I've imagined we would hear.

"It's the Bi-ble, not the Straight-ble."

Why do some people make their points so ineffectively and rudely? If someone wants to support their beliefs with their religion's traditions and holy texts, they should first make sure they are sharing their beliefs, not arguing. Arguments place everyone involved on the defense and nobody wants to listen to the other person or budge an inch. Arguing makes people believe their beliefs even more than before and without justification. 

This scenario basically is politics today. Democratic and republican politicians "argue" in front of a microphone in front of a ton of people who completely agree with them--the politician is one of the leaders of their party's hegemony--not people who oppose them. The arguments are full of pithy statements like the one I created above and simply make everyone involved believe their argument more, often haughtily looking down on the Other. I presume this is the reason we have bumper stickers and political ads that do nothing other than say something like "Change," "Vote Yes/No on Such and Such," and "Pro-life."

Next, it is important for people in privilege to recognize they understand the world from a point of privilege. Perspective necessarily influences (haunts?), well, perspective. If you've never considered what it is like to be someone else, than you've never truly understood anything.

"It was their choice."

You think being part of the GLBTQ community is a choice? I'm not positive if anyone was born straight or not. What I do know is that nobody chooses their genes or the environment that rears them. I never chose to have a Christian background or to become liberal. I was raised Christian, which included that culture leading me towards a point where I thought I was choosing that religion for myself and so I "asked Jesus into my heart" and, later, was baptized. Did I really choose Jesus, though, or did everything in my rearing convince me that I had chosen him? I still identify as "Christian" today, although I know many Christians won't allow me that term today.

And what about being heterosexual? If everyone is born that way and some people choose something other, when do people make that choice to accept their heterosexuality? I at least feigned a choice with religion, but I never made such a choice concerning my sexuality. Unlike many who think sexuality is a choice, I've actually interacted with people in the GLBTQ community and they don't recall making a choice, either. Instead, I hear stories where individuals simply find themselves sexually attracted to certain people. They simply learn/find out about themselves the same way everyone else does. Heterosexuals find out they especially enjoy people of the same gender, gays and lesbians learn they enjoy the same sex, and bisexual people find out they enjoy both. And often times those who identify heterosexual or gay/lesbian find out they even enjoy some situations involving those who don't fit their general, sexual identification. We are sexual beings first, then we are in a specific sexual community (sometimes).

Finally, if sexuality were a choice, then every heterosexual could choose homosexuality. What heterosexual thinks they can make that choice? That choice includes not only enjoying and preferring sex with the same sex, but also preferring the romantic love and companionship of the same sex over against the opposite. Trying to make that choice is a great exercise in understanding privilege.

"Look at that straight couple holding hands. What they do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business, but do they have to flaunt it in front of everyone's face?"

What anyone does sexually is their own business, as long as they don't hurt anyone (physically, emotionally, or developmentally), the latter point being why rape and pedophilia are unacceptable. But if one group of lovers can constantly engage in PDA, why not the others? Heterosexual couples are everywhere. They walk down the street and no one looks twice. They're in advertisements and products like condoms and lubricants are even advertised in a way catered to these people's sex life during the day time. Most movies have a heterosexual couple or two prominently featured and anytime a guy sings a song, the person about whom he is singing is assumed to be a woman.

Heterosexuality is everywhere. The GLBTQ community should be able to engage in PDA without people thinking it is "in their face."

"That waitress is so straight. I'm a pretty good straight-tective."

"Gaydar," really? I hope the person who coined that term never felt proud of it. In fact, in the USA today, no one should think they can tell who is GLBTQ by the person's mannerisms or other characteristics and forms of self-expression. Granted, we all make inductive inferences. Stereotypes exist for a reason and, yes, there are certain characteristics that we currently see more often from a gay man than a straight man or a lesbian in comparison to a straight woman. However, even if we haven't personally met people who defy this stereotype, the world, even the media, is ripe with examples of people who destroy this type of induction.

My favorite example is Capt. Stephen Hill. You may remember him from the Republican debate back in September 2011.

This guy fits no GLBTQ stereotype. Just because you correctly infer someone's sexuality a few times or multiple times doesn't mean you have gaydar or, more so, that the GLBTQ community can be correctly stereotyped. At least, no more than any other community. Inductive reasoning's downfall is counterexample.

I would also like to point out that Santorum says sex has no place in the military. That statement is exactly like the previous scenario I imagined, because heterosexuality is in the military everywhere. The men and women in the military can talk about their heterosexual loves all the time. The GLBTQ service members deserve the same freedom. I don't currently believe the military is engaged in fighting for our freedom, but they are available and ready to do so. If people of the GLBTQ community will fight physically for my freedom, then it is our duty to fight for theirs politically.

"I had a straight/white/Christian roommate in college once. It was pretty weird."

As a Student Affairs professional, I feel comfortable saying that the roommate experience is a weird one, regardless of the identification process of your roommate(s). If your roommate is the same gender as you, but part of the GLBTQ community, you should not assume that roommate will want to have sex with you. And even if he or she does, that doesn't mean they are going to act on it or constantly desire it. Lots of heterosexual men have female friends with whom they would have sex or about whom they occasionally fantasize. That's simply how some men are (N.B.: not all men are as horny as many believe they are). However, they don't act on it or necessarily even want it in reality. GLBTQ people are humans, too, and they know when relationships shouldn't involve sex and romance.

I hear a lot of people talk negatively and awkwardly about living with other races and religions, too. Or sometimes they talk about it as if it is the quintessential diversity experience. When someone tells me they had a Muslim friend or roommate, I feel like I'm supposed to be in awe that they managed to navigate living with someone who worships a "different God." Living with a person of color or a person of another religion is really no different than living with a person of the same race, ethnicity, or religion.

===

Many other things exist to be said about recognizing our privilege and being more sensitive about it. What statements do you hear a lot that display ignorance of a person's or your own privileged status?

The Community of Acts 4:32-35: An Inspiration for Equality Today

But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
--Xenophanes (c.570 - c. 475 BCE), in H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker.

If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.
--Voltaire (1694-1778), Notebooks

Thousands of years ago Xenophanes recognized Greek religion was humanity writ large. Greek gods were often criticized for being less moral than humanity, which is likely why Xenophanes made his comment, although we don't have the context, since his only extant writings are quoted by others.

Hundreds of years ago Voltaire criticized more modern religions, specifically Christianity for the same reason. When we're honest, we see Hebrew and Christian scriptures reflect their culture and authors just as much as the Greek poetry creating their gods.

The authors of the Bible were most likely men living in an age where patriarchy and misogyny were the norm. There's no hiding that a lot of misogyny permeates through the Bible. People certainly try to hide it, but it is only hidden by those who don't want to see it.

Fortunately, the Bible also houses a lot that uplifts women, placing them on equal footing with men. Unfortunately, many people fail to see these parts. Some of them are hard to miss and others are hard to find.

Acts 2 and 4 both carry short descriptions of an early group that Acts describes as people who believed. It would be anachronistic for us to call these people "Christians," since Christianity as we know it today was not extant. These descriptions are a brief snapshot into gender equality in the Bible. 

Acts 4:32-35

At the very end of Acts 4, the storyteller tells us "the whole group of those who believed" were a community in a way sounding almost like socialism (v. 32). According to these verses, an echo of 2:42-47, none of those who believed--it would be anachronistic to call these people "Christians"--"claimed private ownership" (4:32). Instead, each individual or family unit thought mi casa es su casa, to introduce another anachronism. But it wasn't just their homes, it was also their fields and the crops therein. Since crops involve labor and care, one person's time was another person's time. To add to the oddness of this group, they managed to eradicate poverty in their numbers by selling any excess they had and giving the money to the apostles. (I assume this passage is the basis for the idea of a benevolent fund in today's churches.)

This sort of community stands against its own scriptures. They were Hebrews, but the concept of ownership is decently clear in Hebrew scripture. Even the "big ten" gives an implicit concept of ownership, specifically ownership of one's wife. Exodus 20:17 considers a wife a piece of property that should not be coveted, in the same ranks as another man's ox, servant, or even his ass (although, we're not talking about homosexuality ... yet). And the Ten Commandments aren't the only place making this implicit statement in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

In Acts, the Israelite believers claim no "private ownership of any possession." "Of any possession" would include a house, wife, servant, ox, ass, or anything else. Personally, I doubt wives were shared with the entire community. Rather, giving up private ownership means wives are no longer possessions. They aren't something you own to complement or balance you in the home or in raising children, rather they are partners and equals--"of one heart and soul," like everyone else in the community (v. 32).

Deciding on Egalitarianism

These verses are simply examples of the contrasting view of the genders in the Bible, views that reflect the individual communities and constructed to be divinely right. Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures experience this contrast within themselves. Both display misogyny that many prefer to construe as complementarianism, the idea that men and women are inherently different in their societal roles, but are best when together in heterosexual marriage (Rachel Held Evans rightly calls it "soft patriarchy" http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-definition-terms). 

The Hebrew and Christian traditions and scriptures are also filled with examples of women who are powerful, holy, and independent of men. Since the scriptures display many sides within the spectrum, any "biblical" theology of manhood and womanhood is a delicate balancing act of what you want to believe. Just as the community described in Acts decided men and women are equal, we, too, must decide. When it comes to religious communities today, the impetus to decide what is godly, just, and right remains with us.

And when we look at the world around us--including the world throughout history--and the world within us, I can't see how our decision could be anything but equality. Women and men everywhere are equals in virtue, leadership, business, art, entrepreneurship, religion, politics, and more, unfortunately including mistakes. The only area in which men and women are complementary is reproduction and balancing prospectives on life that are connected to one's sex. Men cannot fully understand life in relation to the menstrual cycle, child birth, and breast feeding--a perspective one might deem gynocentric or at least largely gyno-influenced--just as women cannot understand a man's necessarily phallocentric or phallo-influenced view on life. Men and women can balance each other and, indeed, need each other, but no more than white people need people of other races to balance them, Christians need people of other religions to balance them, and heterosexual people need the LGBTQ community to balance them. That is how we should understand complementarianism.

In making this decision towards equality, it cannot simply stop at sex and gender either. The community of believers in Acts took a dangerous leap of faith when they banished the concept of ownership from their midst, a decision that is very marginal  even today, especially when it comes to what we consider the continuation of those believers (viz., the Church). We, too, whether people of faith or not, need to take a similarly dangerous leap of faith by continually speaking out for equality of all humanity--equality of sex, gender, religion, race, nationality, gender expression and identity, and sexuality. And we need to work--not fight--for this equality in our personal lives, religious communities, and political communities.

When we make this decision for true egalitarianism--one that includes and goes beyond men and women--then we are honoring and living in the spirit of this community in Acts 4.

Five Things I Want Added to North Carolina's Constitution

Or, Things About Which Christians Should Start Worrying

   1. Definition of the Sabbath

The Sabbath is neither now nor will it ever be Sunday. Stop referring to it as such. The Sabbath begins on sundown Friday and continues through sundown Saturday. That was the definition of the Sabbath when God created the world a few thousand years ago and that is the definition today. Because, you know, definitions don't change. When they "fetched a compass" in the King James' Version of the Bible of Acts 28:13, they had a handheld tool invented in China that nobody used for navigation; church always meant a group of people and the building housing that people, also a group of people meeting for Christian worship, never mind that the Greek "ekklesia" existed before Christians and church buildings, or that few churches look as much like they did in the 1st century CE as some might think they do; and the words "martyr" and "persecution" have always had connotations of events that are not life threatening, like getting made fun of or having people point out bigotry.

   2. Head Coverings

Women who pray need to wear head coverings and men cannot wear them while praying (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). But I'm not really talking hats, I'm talking long hair and something more akin to a veil. And since everyone is to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17), women should always wear veils. Really, this isn't a religious thing, even though I'm supporting my argument with Christian scripture. Everybody, Christian or not, knows men shouldn't cover their heads, because they are reflections of God (1 Cor. 7), but women look more like men than God. Also, because women are made in the image of men, they need to have a symbol of authority on their head (v. 10). Again, although my argument sounds religious, it is common sense. I mean, even the Muslims sorta do this with their hijabs. Plus, this is why we take our hats off as a sign of respect--it is natural, not something derived from the Bible. 

   3. Lord's Name in Vain

This is one of the Big Ten, people, the Decalogue. It isn't right, yet North Carolina continually allows the media to use it: movies, music, radio, books, etc. I know people might make a big fuss about freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, but think of the children. What if a normal, God-fearing, white Christian family sends their kid to a public school where they read books that use the Lord's name in vain? What if--God forbid!--the teacher says it? That family would be powerless to do anything. I mean, the family certainly couldn't simply explain that they have different values (see what NOM had to say about this issue). Christians always get the raw end of the deal when it comes to discrimination. Christians are the minority now, at least, the REAL Christians. And those Christians have a right to not hear people use the Lord's name in vain ... you know, with "empty phrases" or "vain repititions" (Matthew 6:7). We are one nation under God! God bless America and Merry Christmas!

   4. Levirate Marriage

Let's say you're a man. Your brother is also a man. He is childless (likely his wife is barren, because the woman is always the barren one). He dies. You should marry his wife. Not only is this a law given from Moses (I thought God said it, but Matthew 22:24 says Moses), but neither Jesus nor any other New Testament passage ever denies it. Plus, it is a pretty nice thing to do, to become the baron to your brother's barren widow and plant seed where he couldn't. She'll appreciate having you and her veil as a sign of authority over her and her body.

   5. Kisses Should Never Be Considered Sexual Harassment (also, men should kiss, but never with tongue)

The "holy kiss" or "kiss of love" is mentioned five times in the New Testament: Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, and 1 Peter 5:14. Lots of stuff Jesus said isn't even repeated four times in the New Testament (like the command to be "born again," which, by the way, was not a rite of passage for early Christians).

Sure, we all know that although the Bible was written in another time and culture, it gave timeless commands that transcend culture. The early church included it in church services as a sign of peace and peace is good (unless we're at war). And I'm not talking any of this sissy cheek kissing. I'm talking man-on-man lip action. The further back you go in art, you'll see what I mean. This sort of kiss was always seen as one on the smackers, at least until the gays told us we had to get used to their being queer and here.

If you still think your kids need to kiss dating goodbye like Joshua Harris so they can better practice abstinence, I think it safe to say this kiss was only meant to be between men, not men and women. The Greek words commanding--and I do mean commanding, the verb is imperative--are all masculine (take that TNIV and your gender-inclusive language).

I'm tired of being unable to kiss the other men in my work place. Every work place I've been to has seen that sort of fraternizing as "inappropriate," "distracted," and, for some reason, "unwanted." Why wouldn't some dude want my lips on his lips when he first comes into the office? I can get pretty alpha male and by putting my freshly capsticked lips onto his, I'm just saying, "Hey, let's work together instead of trying to dominate the other ... in terms of performance ... work performance." And I know that sentence sounds dirty, which is why it is so much easier to say by locking lips for a few minutes, I mean, moments.

Without History, In What Sense Do We Exist? A Re-flection on Sebastian Barry's "The Secret Scripture"

I walked into my building yesterday and a student was venting about the stress not only of taking finals, but also the stress of what these finals and the subsequent grades might mean about his future. Mostly, I listened. It was an amusing rant, because his friends had just heard it and were laughing, which I took as cue to mostly listen, sometimes joke, and throw out just one or two challenges to his thoughts (like how it isn't the grades that get jobs and grad schools, it is properly using experiences gained and knowledge learned).

During his rant, he talked about his history class. He started off with one of those disclaimers that belie themselves: "I know history is important and you've got to know it." By this admission, I knew he didn't think history was truly important. He thought you need to know history simply so it doesn't repeat itself. Certainly that adage contains some truth, but implies there is some judge who knows which parts of history are "bad" and therefore need not be repeated.

"But nobody wants to know it," he continued. "We've got to be worried about the present and the future." Although I am comforted about what could be the passion of a young idealist, I am disheartened by his idea of history. Perhaps his history professor did fail him in the classroom. Sometimes history isn't just about teaching the facts, but also about "history appreciation," to borrow a common name for art classes in many schools' core curricula.

***

I just finished reading Sebastian Barry's The Secret Scripture. The novel's story is told through two different speakers: William Grene, a psychiatrist, and Roseanne Clear McNulty, a 100-year-old patient at the mental hospital where Dr. Grene works. Roseanne's voice is heard as she secretly writes her story, which includes details and her reflections on her past and present with a few mentions of her future. Dr. Grene's journal begins as a professional tool for reflection on the case of Roseanne, but permeates the boundaries between personal and professional as he reflects on Roseanne's past, present and future and his own, although most of the details on his life are the immediate past.

When Roseanne began to recount her story, her history, she began with her father, even in the novel's opening, mystical meditation: "The world begins anew with every birth, my father used to say. He forgot to say, with every death it ends. Or did not think he needed to" (3). As she switches to details about her story, she begins with the life of her father, as if to say her story started before she was alive, as if to say we are all born before we live. When can a birth be said to have occurred? Penetration? Conception, as pro-life advocates are wont to reiterate? When the mother's water breaks? When the contractions start or dilation reaches a certain diameter? When the first body part breaches from the mother's body or when the last part emerges? When the umbilical cord is cut? 

Then, when can Roseanne say the world begins anew? Perhaps the world began/begins once with all personal beginnings, a confluence of all births into one that reverberates Genesis' "In the beginning" with every beginning. Indeed, Roseanne and her father suggest the world is not necessarily the planet Earth, but life as we know it, as the way we interpret the world from our perspective, as one's personal "world." And all of these worlds are interconnected, intwined, perhaps unified and atoned (in the sense of at-one-ment) by narratives, by history(ies) and her-story(ies) and scripture(s).

Even as the novel goes back and forth between past and present, between Roseanne and Dr. Grene, their stories become intwined and even conflated. Roseanne looked first to her father's story to understand herself and, in order to understand himself, Dr. Grene looked into Roseanne's story of herself and stories of Roseanne from others, piecing together yet another story of Roseanne in Dr. Grene's writings.

The novel borders on didactic when it brings the topic of history explicitly into question through Dr. Grene's journal: 

Well, I supposed all these things [about Roseanne and others]. It is not history. But I am beginning to wonder strongly what is the nature of history. Is it only memory in the decent sentences, and if so, how reliable is it? I would suggest, not very. And that therefore most truth and fact offered by these syntactical means is treacherous and unreliable. And yet I recognise [sic] that we live our lives, and even keep our sanity, by the lights of this treachery and this unreliability, just as we build our love of country on these paper worlds of misapprehension and untruth. Perhaps this is our nature, and perhaps unaccountably it is part of our glory as a creature, that we can build our best and most permanent buildings on foundations of utter dust. (293)

Personal history and corporate history of the sort my student disdains are one and the same, as the novel also portrays by continually referring to war, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the like. And history is not just how we maintain a semblance of sanity, as Dr. Grene says, it is who we are. Indeed, some of us cannot maintain sanity in history, as the novel brings into question the veracity or historicity of much history and also the sanity and clarity of the tellers, specifically Roseanne and Dr. Grene. But even as we question their sanity and their stories, we are prodded to consider our own history and sanity. Can we trust everything we've been told by family members? Would public records show something hidden? Where do our individual stories begin? Who could tell the most factual story of who we are, who could tell the most true story of who we are, and would those two stories sound the same? In what sense would we exist without any of these stories?

***

I didn't share these musings with the student at the beginning of this story. He wanted to express himself, not listen to a lecture about history and identity. But he stirred something inside of me that I, too, wanted to express, something I often quote from Joan Didion's The White Album: "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." We exist in narrative, in fiction, in history. By understanding them--the sacred scripture, gospel, and Christ inside each of them--we understand and are saved from and to ourselves as individuals and as an atoned species.

That Pearl of Great Price: Pluralism and Inter-Faith Dialogue

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. (Matthew 13:44-36; NRSV)

In both of these parables, the Jesus of Matthew portrays two people selling everything they have to buy something. 

The first is just some person who found a treasure. I imagine the character in this story was wandering, traveling, or working and stumbled upon something precious. This precious thing was unknown (or un/undervalued) by whoever owned the field. The main character wants legal rights to this treasure and therefore needs to own the land.

Either this person was poor or this land must have been expensive (perhaps the owner did know about the treasure). The character "sells all [...] and buys that field." I choose to see this language as hyperbole, exaggeration to prove a point. Would anyone really sell everything and then walk naked and homeless to purchase a field?

But the hyperbole prods the mind to wander: how much did this person sell? Land? Home? Livestock? Clothes? Family heirlooms? Food? Tools? Body? Children?

And what is this treasure? Does the person want the treasure to sell it bit by bit and make money or simply to own it? Treasure is like the cake you can't eat and have at the same time. Treasure is for possessing and to selling, but you can't have it and sell it at the same time. You have to do one or the other. If you have nothing, of course you are going to sell it.

The kingdom of heaven is like something for which you give up virtually everything and then sell so that you can have more stuff than you sold to get it.

Jesus's second comparison is similar, but involves a character with a little more depth: this person is a merchant. Merchants buy things in order to sell them. Certainly, this merchant could have been looking for pearls simply to possess, but then Jesus had no reason to mention this person's vocation. This merchant wanted to make money selling pearls. I feel confident in saying this scenario does picture someone selling everything with the intent of buying it and more back.

The comparison is different in each metaphor. In the first, the kingdom of heaven is like the hidden treasure and in the second, the kingdom of heaven is the merchant. In both, the treasure is valuable, because the person sold so much to get a legitimate claim to owning it. Then the person will become wealthier than before by selling this treasure. We all eventually eat the cake. Unlike cake, after using the hidden treasure, the person gains more treasure.

And the treasures gained are the treasures of others. Their money, their valuables in exchange for your valuables. The characters get the treasure and the pearl and it is mutually beneficial for them and those with whom they barter.

I imagine not only an exchange of valuables, but also an exchange of value; not only mutual benefit of economics, but of ideas and ethics. I see these parables allegorically, exchanging religious, political, social, and philosophical ideas. The kingdom of heaven is not just something you want to own exclusively, but something you want to share. The hidden treasure hoarded is not as valuable as the treasure shared and multiplied.

And the same meaning comes when the merchant is the kingdom of heave, because the kingdom of heaven is not a singularity, but something that gathers from the world, growing in complexity and always changing.

The pearls are like the hidden treasure and the kingdom of heaven makes room for those that are the most compelling, those of the greatest price. But even after giving up some ideas to make room for one, that idea, too, is critiqued and sold for others. The kingdom of heaven is one that is ever changing, ever becoming better, and ever searching the world over for pearls. 

All thought is to be critiqued and even one's most dear beliefs must sometimes be sold for other ones. I'm particularly reminded of Meister Eckhart's prayer: "I pray, God, to rid me of God." Or consider John Cobb, Jr.'s suggestion that christocentric belief is self-defeating, for faith in Christ means displacing Christ as the center. Following Christ means abandoning Christ as the only way, i.e., traditional Christianity, for pluralism and dialogue (both inter-faith and dialogue with those of no faith), which can be seen as no Christianity at all (Christ in a Pluralistic Age).

If you started this blog hoping for an exegesis, you have likely been disappointed. I have read myself into and out of these parables. You might say I have been caught in the net of the text, reading something old and finding something new, that is, finding me (cf. Matthew 13:47-52).

Really, it is no wonder that I see in both of these parables something I purport to do: to have no sacred cows in my ideology, no treasure or pearl that I wouldn't give up if need be. I think we all find bits of ourselves in the Bible and art in general, partly because of eisegesis and partly because the pursuit of God, meaning, or Truth is the pursuit of the self, of identity--of ipseity, which is another process involving the bartering of hidden treasures and pricey pearls.

In Defense of Sodom (and Gomorrah)

Sodom has quite the reputation these days. Gomorrah does, too, although Sodom seems to be more well-known in English parlance and in the stories of Genesis, too.

According to the story, Abraham is showing some men "on their way," when they "looked toward Sodom," which means they were going in the direction of Sodom (18:16, NRSV). As Abraham is still being hospitable, the men share some divine news with Abraham. They share this news because Abraham has been chosen by God to be great, to "[do] righteousness and justice." Abraham's 'chosenness' and future stand in stark contrast to what the men hear of Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently the sin is so bad that Yahweh has heard it and has to see it with God's own eyes, so to speak.

Before the men say anything about anyone being destroyed, Abraham asks if everyone will be destroyed for the sins, "the righteous with the wicked." Despite a lack of knowledge of this Yahweh character, Abraham assumes some sort of retributive justice where sin is repaid with destruction, even the destruction of life.

Abraham intuited correctly, it seems, and Abraham and Yahweh "discuss," if that is the proper word, what will happen if at least ten righteous people are found in Sodom. Of course, the discussion could imply specifically ten righteous men as opposed to people, since Hebrew, like popular English, uses masculine terms to imply both male and female.

Since Sodom and Gomorrah both likely included young children, I find it safe to assume Abraham and Yahweh are "arguing" over righteous men and therefore completely ignoring the possibility and probability of righteous women and children living in the area. Or, to be more precise: Yahweh mentions nothing specifically to Abraham about innocent women and/or children.

Of course, after I make my argument about innocent children, the story says the young and old men of Sodom come to Lot, presumably to rape the two messengers ("angels," NRSV, et. al.). Still, "young and old" must have a cut off. Infants, toddlers, and other youngsters must not have been involved.

Females, however, may have been involved. Like in English "man" and "men" could include men and women. In fact, the word translated as "men" in 19:4 most often signifies humans, not men. The original Sodomites might not have been as homosexual as we might think. The incident could have conceivably been in favor of a heterosexual or bisexual orgy to "welcome" the visitors. The KJV might give us a better translation here: "all the people from every quarter" as opposed to the NRSV's "all the people to the last man." Here, the word KJV translates "people" and the NRSV translates "man" is a word even more likely to incorporate a people group as opposed to a gender.

Homosexual or heterosexual, rape is not a great way to welcome newcomers.

But what if the culture of Sodom was one in which sex was hospitable? Certainly, my (post)modern mind always conceives of rape as wrong. However, I can understand a group of people wanting to offer an orgy as a welcome, as a doxological celebration of visitors before a god or gods, even. Such a celebration could cause a lot of people to relocate to Sodom. "Move here and get laid--guaranteed!" Could a bureau of tourism hope for a better motto?

But Genesis tries hard to distinguish the seed of Abraham as culturally different from everyone else in the world. For them, hospitality and worship are not sex. And only men can have multiple sex-partners, not women. Even though Yahweh/Elohim/El spends some time talking with Sarah and Sarah is not always your typically suppressed woman in a patriarchal society, Abraham and his progeny lean heavily towards patriarchy, even into current-day Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Sodom, however, paints a picture in which a large group of people, young and old, men and women come to have a public orgy.

If you take Genesis as a single book (or as a part of a Pentateuch or Hexatuech), the sins of Sodom are not necessarily homosexuality. The "sins" of Sodom are not even necessarily worse than anything later developments of Abrahamic religions call sins. Whereas polygamy was OK and sometimes encouraged by the God-character, it has become wrong to many Christians and Jews today. Either God changed or peoples' understanding of God and history changed. Or both.

Regardless, it is hard for me to see as Sodom as necessarily bad. As far as we know, they may have attempted to be hospitable according to their definition of hospitality. When Lot refused them, they were upset because an outsider wouldn't respect their customs, an outsider wouldn't even give them the chance to offer newcomers the culture of Sodom.

From a pluralistic perspective, maybe the people of Sodom aren't the "bad guys" in this story.

It's Easter and I am looking back to Good Friday

Every year during Holy Week, I hear and read Tony Campolo's powerful, pertinent "It's Friday, but Sunday's Coming." Apparently I've got it wrong, though. It's Easter Sunday and I am looking back to Good Friday.

Specifically, I'm thinking of one sentence associated with the Passion story, a disputed sentence: Luke 23:34: "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing'" (NRSV).[1] Regardless of who put this sentence in the story and why, it portrays the Jesus of Luke asking for forgiveness of people ignorant of what they are doing. Likely, they lack full knowledge of the significance of what they are doing, since they obviously know they are crucifying a man. But what else are they doing? Perhaps squashing a revolt against Rome that could free, at the least, the Israelites in that area. Perhaps stopping a spiritual and moral awakening that could change society for the better. Perhaps killing a Messiah. Perhaps killing God or a god.

What did this Jesus think they were doing? Apparently something needing forgiveness, something I assume was not the will of God (unless Jesus' God punishes people for things they are meant/forced/divinely coerced to do). They did something wrong, something they may never understand to be wrong. In that moment, Jesus saw their deeds, judged them to be wrong, knew nothing of whether or not they would ever change or repent, and then he wanted their forgiveness.

I hear a lot of Christians talk about people needing to believe in God, "accept" the sacrifice of "his" son, repent, and then and only then will forgiveness and salvation be rewarded. Forgiveness, though, isn't part of a transaction. If a person does their part and God grants something deserved, something due and expected, not forgiveness. Paying a debt or fulfilling criteria equal righting a wrong, not being forgiven. Forgiveness is something done only by the forgiver and not merited by the forgiven. Forgiveness is a gracious act, not part of a deal. It is an act of compassion, to give someone what they don't deserve.

This Easter, I want that forgiveness to be resurrected. I want to look back to Holy Friday and see the goodness that came from Luke's Jesus (or some redactor's Jesus). I want for that forgiveness to be resurrected and be alive in my heart, my mind, and in my very body that forgiveness will be evident in my actions.

But it isn't. And to get preachy, I know few in whom it is alive. As for myself, I'm bitter and unforgiving. I'm enraged by politics, by waste, by economics, by greed, by religion, even by Christians and the Christ of most Christianities I encounter.

Easter will never be enough if we can't first look back and see what needs to be resurrected. It isn't the man, it is the life he lived.

===

[1] The sentence doesn't appear in a number of ancient manuscripts and may not have been in the original text. Since I don't look on any of the Gospel stories as factual accounts, I'm not too worried about whether or not the historical Jesus said that sentence or if the author of Luke included the sentence in the first place. These questions are important, but they don't hold the key to unlocking truths from this passage. For more on where the sentence appears and doesn't, including how ancient commentators deal with the subject, I recommend Nathan Eubank, "A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a," Journal of Biblical Literature 129.3 (2010): 521-36.