Reclaiming Sodom

The story of the destruction of Sodom has become one of the more uncomfortable stories in the Bible. Often hailed as a dark foreboding of what comes of failing to be "tough on sin," it is a flagstone of the religious homophobic movement and used to justify atrocious behavior. On the other hand, it is also uncomfortable in that it takes what we dare to call a "loving God" and shows an act of mass murder by that God. The fact that some will call it justice, rather than murder, only drives home the homophobic point; it only makes sense if you assume that homosexuality is a sin, one worth killing someone over.

A point very at home at Westboro Baptist, but one even your more conservative Christians would probably stumble over, because even if you do believe homosexuality is a sin, punishment on that scale does not seem to fit the crime for most people. And so the story of the destruction of Sodom falls by the wayside, ignored except to be held up as an example of just how ridiculous the Bible is, anyway.

But I feel this is all based on a misreading of the story of Sodom which is a story, I believe, that actually does represent an important point about Justice.

We first hear about the wickedness of Sodom from God in the story, as God says that he has heard the "outcry" about the wicked city. Discussing this with Abraham, God says that the city will be dealt with appropriately. Abraham then goes to bat for the city with the Lord, asking for the city to be spared if there are fifty good people there. Then Forty-five. Then Forty. Finally Abraham gets the Lord to agree to spare the city if ten people who are righteous can be found.

The precise "wickedness" of Sodom is then shown, as the angels sent by God arrive in the city and are met by Lot, who immediately begs them to come with him, rather than go to the city center. His fears are explained when the "men of the city" arrive and demand that Lot hand the strangers over, so that they can have sex with them.

This is an example of a particularly vile cultural habit of the time, whereby out-of-region strangers would be raped when they came to a city. Like with how we understand rape today, it wasn't about sex, but about power, a way to claim dominion over the one being raped. And so we see the "wickedness" of Sodom was not Homosexuality... but rape. God's judgement is given, and Lot is given time to escape with his family before Sodom is destroyed.

But what about the ten righteous that Abraham was promised? We never hear about the search, or about the rubric used to determine righteousness. The story says that the whole city came out to get a hold of the strangers, but presumably they couldn't all have planned to rape them. So why does the city still get wiped clean with fire and brimstone?

This is open to interpretation, but here is mine: Other than Lot, no one spoke out against it. You can make the #notallsodomites claim all you want, but when the masses came to rape the strangers, no one besides Lot stood against them, and so the city was judged... and destroyed.

It still sounds harsh by our standards, I know. What about the women, what about the children? But that's getting too literal, missing the point of the story. We're not dealing in history but in a mythology where, even IF based on real events, the lesson would be valued over actual events every time, and the lesson is this:

A civilization where rape is not only practiced, but implicitly condoned, is a civilization that, according to moral authority of the Bible, deserves to be destroyed. Even if not everyone is participating, if people cannot even bring themselves to object, for whatever reason, then they are ALL a part of a bad system, and all included in the judgement on it.

Don't get me wrong, the story is still problematic. It's from another time, far more interested in collective sin than personal, and the attitude towards Lot's daughters (both before and after the destruction of the city) is awful. But that's not the point of the story, any more than the fact that wolves are endangered is the point of Red Riding Hood.

This is the story I want to tell, the version of Sodom that, instead of being useful to condemn a very specific (and already marginalized) part of our population, is used to to point the finger at ALL of us, and show us not how great we are, but rather, how much work there is yet to do. I want to reclaim Sodom, and change the definition of Sodomy, to where Sodomy is not about who you choose to have sex with, but rather, the act, or implicit condoning, of rape.

And then say, in a clear voice, that the practitioners of Sodomy have been judged, and if they haven't been destroyed yet, it may only because there exists a handful of people who speak out against them. But still, wouldn't it be great if the same fervor some people currently have against homosexuals went, instead, against Rapists?