We concluded last time that the appropriate definition of sodomy is this:
sod.om.y n. 1. Pride. 2. Excess of food, wealth. 3. Apathy, esp. in respect to the poor and needy. v. (to sodomize) 1. To pass over the poor in an unconcerned manner. 2. Having an excess. Antonyms – see “thanksgiving”
There are two directions that we could take based on this observation. The first to wonder what role homosexuality plays in the Bible. Almost all Evangelicals consider it silly to undertake such a venture, for the answer is supposedly obvious. I would remind such people that it is/was also “obvious” to almost all Evangelicals that Sodom was destroyed because of its incessant sodomy (the old, incorrect definition). This is flatly disproved by Ezekiel. Therefore, if that assumption has been totally obliterated by making some very basic Scriptural observations, it’s necessary to wonder how many other “obvious” ideas about homosexuality need to be re-thought.
I want to take up that line of thinking later in the year, but for now, I want to go in the other direction, and let myself be amazed that God would be so harsh in response to the sin of apathy in regard to the poor. Does God really take this attitude seriously enough to destroy a civilization and a way of life over it? The answer, if you can believe Ezekiel, is yes. Perhaps shockingly, there are said to be over 2000 verses dealing with the topic of God’s attitude toward poverty (which is often then contrasted with ours). I haven’t counted myself, but a brief read-through of the Bible makes this believable. In fact, I would be willing to bet that this topic is discussed two, three, or four times more frequently than any other topic (with the possible exception of idolatry).
How could this fact escape the Evangelical world? Consider one of the classics of Evangelical Christianity, The Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges. I finished it the other day, and it is on everyone’s favorite book list for good reasons. Jerry Bridges is a great man and The Pursuit of Holiness is a great book, so I want to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, for that would be both unwise and arrogant. But we cannot sugarcoat the truth here. The truth is that Bridges’ book-length treatment of holiness includes many examples and gives many practical recommendations, but not one of them has anything to do with poverty or social justice. In the final chapter, he even goes so far as to quote James 1:27 this way: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this…to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” What’s in the “dot, dot, dot”? Only that pure and faultless religion is first of all described as looking “after orphans and widows in their distress”. Given the great weight the Scriptures place on economic and social justice, it does not seem possible to even begin a discussion of holiness while ignoring this topic. To attempt to re-cannonize the Bible this way (as the Gideons seem to have pulled off successfully) is several steps beyond ridiculous, and it is certainly un-Evangelical.
