EXCERPTS FROM "SIN, SEX & SODOM"
             A pamphlet prepared by James A. Hammond, 1980
               (copyright, James A. Hammond, 1980, 1995)


        I start with a presupposition:  things are not always what 
they seem to be on the surface; more particularly for our use here, 
people are not always what they seem to be on the surface. The study 
of prejudice has taught us that we often find our initial impressions 
and perceptions about others to be wrong, a fact especially clear to 
us when meeting those who are different from us -- be they of 
different color, religion, physical capability or appearance, or 
simply different in sexual orientation and/or preference.  People are 
not always what they seem to be on the surface. 

        The Anglican approach to Holy Scriptures has historically 
insisted upon adding the test of reason to the authorities of 
scripture and tradition.  We look with thankful hearts to the 
principles of biblical scholarship for we, as Anglicans, need not 
exercise ourselves about two orders of creation in Genesis, words like 
myth, questions of the authorship in the letters of Paul, or indeed, 
the fact the Bible was not written originally in the tongue of King 
James English by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants!  Things are not always 
what they seem to be on the surface. 

        In order fully to understand what the Bible says about human 
sexuality, then, we have to pay close attention to the principles  of 
biblical scholarship if we are to be at all clear and precise about 
what the authors of the Hebrew and Greek meant to tell us through 
their words.  These principles of biblical scholarship include but are 
not necessarily limited to:  first, translational difficulties (what 
English word best transfers the meaning of a given set of Hebrew 
characters?); second, source difficulties (do we have to be at the 
mercy of the Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible, as were the 
translators of the King James version, thus making our access to the 
Hebrew Testament third hand, or are there alternatives?); third, 
redaction, or editorial, complexities (why did the editors of Holy 
Scripture always want to add, "truly, truly, I say to you," to 
everything that came out the mouth of Jesus?).  Additionally, 
underlying always all of our attempts to understand the words of the 
writers of Holy Scripture needs to be a certain degree of cultural 
humility, the recognition that not everyone lived and learned, wrote 
and spoke, in the culture in which we live and learn, write and speak.  
I am, therefore, not interested in a literal, word-by-word rendering 
of the King James Bible; I am deeply committed to the application of 
fundamental biblical principles, as I can ascertain them, to the 
living of my life, and, hopefully, to the lives of all Christians. 

        So, then, what is the first thing to say about human sexuality 
from a biblical perspective? The Bible says that God made us in God's 
image, male and female, and that God's creation is good.  Sex is good: 
we are to rejoice in it, not hide from it.  If anything good has come 
from the twentieth century it is that we no longer need to fear our 
bodies:  God made them and they are good.  Sexual pleasure is exalted 
in the Song of Songs, the erotic love poem of the Hebrew Testament.  
Jesus, himself, speaks of the sanctity of sexual love.  Even Paul, 
(and we all know about Paul!) says that it is better to do it than to 
burn.  Sex is good:  God made it that way --that is a principle of the 
Bible.  Norman Pittenger, a famous Anglican theologian of our own day, 
formerly of the General Theological Seminary in New York City, and now 
in residence at the King's College, Cambridge, England, says that the 
difference between sex in the so-called "lower" animals and sex in 
human beings is the purpose to which it is put.  Quoting Pittenger, 
"For man the sexual desires and acts have acquired the new possibility 
of expressing and sharing a total personal relationship, a union of 
life with life which is all-inclusive and all-enriching.  Love is the 
meaning of human sexuality....  To put it simply, what in animals is 
the reproductive system in man has become ... the unifying system."  
Sex has a purpose in recreation as well as procreation, Pittenger 
seems to be saying.  To be sure, Pittenger did not write the Bible, 
and he is not my personal guru by any manner or means, but his view of 
the purpose of human sexuality coincides with my reading of Holy 
Scripture exactly.  I suggest that the notion of sex as fulfillment of 
human relationships is a principle upon which healthy human beings can 
agree.  The focus of the question is not who is doing it, but rather 
how much love is being done.  Persons of the same sex who love each 
other as they are loving one another are certainly closer to the 
biblical view of sexuality as I see it than are persons of the 
opposite sex who hate each other even as they are loving one another.  
The often quoted statement of Jesus about lusting in your heart says 
little to me about marriage, per se, but says a lot to me about love 
rather than lust as the motive for Christian sexual union. 

        Just so I will not be misunderstood, let me be very clear:  
first, God made creation and it is good;  second, the measure of 
sexual morality in the Bible is directly proportional to the amount of 
love present in the acts of loving; third, on the issue of sexual 
activity, per se, the Bible may be read as neutral -- neither 
affirming nor rejecting homosexual (or for that matter heterosexual) 
activities; and fourth, the Bible does affirm the beauty of sex as a 
part of the good creation, and it does affirm loving -- God made us 
and we are good. 

        But, Jim, your position makes no sense in the light of all 
those passages in the Bible which seem (on the surface) to be so clear 
about homosexual activity, and which are so frequently quoted as proof 
texts by those who cannot in good conscience affirm homosexual 
behaviors by themselves or by others.  You know, you can proof text an 
excellent case for segregation, for denying women their humanity, and 
indeed, for probably almost any position you wish to take on almost 
any issue.  I find proof texting particularly unhelpful as a tool in 
comprehending the Bible, and I tend to ignore it as a method.  Several 
biblical passages are so frequently cited in the argument against 
homosexual behaviors, however, that to ignore the many 
misunderstandings which proof texting creates is not an option open to 
me. 

        So, let's begin with  the beginning'.   Let's begin with 
Genesis and the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Isn't it true, many 
people ask, that God destroyed those two cities because homosexuals 
were living there?  D. S. Bailey, and other scholars, maintain that 
the significant Hebrew word in the Sodom and Gomorrah passage is, 
`yadah,' meaning, "to know," as in "to be acquainted with," as well 
as, "to know," in the biblical sense, meaning, "to have intercourse 
with."  `Yadah' appears in Hebrew Scripture 943 times, of which only 
ten appearances denote "knowing sexually."  In each of the ten latter 
cases, `yadah' denotes heterosexual intercourse; the Hebrews have 
another, very specific, word for homosexual intercourse!  Since Hebrew 
has a specific word for homosexual activity, since `yadah' is only 
used to express heterosexual activity, and that only in about one 
percent of its appearances in Holy Scripture, is it reasonable and 
logical to assume that `yadah' means in the story of Sodom and 
Gomorrah what it does not mean anywhere else in the Bible?  But, Jim, 
if that is not what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was, what was it 
that made them so awful?  Gerhard Von Rad and others tell us that the 
sin was inhospitality to strangers -- a test not too many of us would 
be willing to take today, I suspect! If you hear nothing else, I would 
like for you to remember that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is not 
homosexual behavior but inhospitality to strangers: and that despite 
what the English words in your particular translation of the Bible 
might appear to you to say. 

        On to the book, Leviticus, Chapter 18, verse 22!  Does it not 
say there, and quite clearly in other places in Leviticus, that 
homosexual behavior is a prohibited activity?  Yes, frankly, it does; 
I have to admit that:  and, in the very same chapter, not three verses 
away, Leviticus speaks with equal clarity about the filth of 
menstruating women.  Leviticus is truly a joy to read: it condemns 
eating meat not fully drained of blood (17:10); it condemns eating 
fruit from a tree planted in sacred soil for less than five years 
(19:25); it condemns an employer who does not pay his wages daily, 
before the sun sets (19:13);  and it even condemns the handicapped --
specifically those who are lame, disfigured, blind, hunchbacked, or 
dwarfed (21:20).  Those of you who can believe all you read in 
Leviticus and lead your lives by it, who believe those rules and 
regulations to be the will of God for Christians today, will find at 
least consistency in the belief that homosexuality is an abomination.  
Oh, I almost forgot.  If you are in the habit of wearing shirts or 
slacks or anything else made from more than one fabric (a blend of 
cottons, wools, one of the synthetics, any kind of polyester) you are 
as guilty before God in the eyes of Leviticus as is the homosexual 
(19:19)!  For myself, when I become legalistic I worry about 
hypocrisy.  As Bishop Coleman McGhee said before the 142nd convention 
of the Diocese of Michigan, concerning this `Holiness Code' in 
Leviticus, "For the Christian this Jewish legal code has been 
superseded by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We certainly cannot take 
these laws out of their concrete historical situation and make them 
normative for our day."  Neither can we pick and choose from among 
them only those with which we happen to agree! 

        References found in the books of Deuteronomy, I Kings, Job, 
Jeremiah, Jude and Revelation, which are often cited in the argument 
against homosexuality, are all references to the fertility cult of 
temple prostitutes.  At issue in those passages clearly is the problem 
of prostitution (sex for money), not at the issue of homosexuality per 
se.  I make no claims for prostitution, which is clearly an offense 
against the biblical concept of sex as love, yet as all heterosexuals 
are not guilty of prostitution, certainly not all homosexuals are 
either.  The offense in these references is prostitution, not 
preference of gender. 

        The Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 17, is often quoted as 
testimony to God's abhorrence of homosexuality.  It is, of course, 
merely a reference to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which we already 
know is inhospitality to strangers.  It is interesting and 
informative, however, to read in Luke the list of things the people of 
Sodom and Gomorrah were doing for which God was supposed to have 
destroyed the cities.  I am quoting from Luke; see if you can see any 
reference to homosexuality:  "It will be as in the time of Lot.  
Everybody kept on eating and drinking, buying and selling, building 
and planting."  That is it -- nothing else there! 

        That leaves us with the works of Paul.  Right off the top, 
whenever I hear Paul and sex mentioned in the same breath, I cringe a 
bit.  It is Paul, you remember, who grudgingly concedes that it is 
better to marry than to burn (but only a little bit better!); it is 
Paul who tells women to keep hats on their heads when in Church, and 
their mouths shut; it is Paul who says that the husband is to be the 
head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church.  So I 
confess my uneasiness with Paul's reflection of his culture.  If you 
do accept Paul's culturally derived sexual biases, bear in mind that 
Paul was completely unaware of the possibility that homosexuals may 
not have any choice in their sexual preference and/or orientation.  To 
quote again from Bp. McGhee's address to the 142nd Convention of the 
Diocese of Michigan, "Let us remember that St. Paul said quite a few 
things about women, marriage and sex which would not be considered the 
most enlightened statements in the Bible."  Before considering the 
four references in Paul which appear fairly clear on the surface, let 
me make a distinction between homosexual activity, per se, and 
promiscuity in general, be it homosexual or heterosexual promiscuity.  
When talking of promiscuity, as with prostitution, the issue is not 
pure sexual activity, but rather frequent, unselective sexual 
activity, and therefore by definition unloving sexual acts.  When 
reading the words of Paul, keep in mind the concept of promiscuity.  
Romans (1:27) says, "... the men ... burn with passion for each 
other."  Does that sound like love as the center of union, life with 
life, to you?  In I Corinthians (6:10) Paul is ever more clear -- he 
uses two Greek words which when combined are best translated 
`homosexual perverts.'  Is it homosexuality which is being condemned 
by Paul, or simply homosexual perversion?  If it were homosexuality, 
per se, which he was after, why did he use two words to express 
himself when one would have sufficed quite nicely?  In I Timothy, the 
author speaks of `sexual perverts,' this time an even more clear 
reference to `perversion' and not, necessarily, homosexuality itself.  
As you read the Epistles bear in mind Paul's cultural biases, his well 
expressed feelings about sexuality of any kind, and the fact that the 
rest of the Bible is quite unsupportive of a conservative read of St. 
Paul. 

        Where does all this leave us?  Things are not always what they 
seem to be on the surface, but especially not the Bible.  People are 
not always what they seem to be on the surface, and especially not in 
their sexual orientation -- a well established fact.  The Bible says:  
1) God made creation and it is good;  2) the measure of sexual 
morality is the amount of love present in the loving; 3) it is the use 
of sexuality which is affirmed or rejected, and not the gender to 
which it is directed; and 4) sex as a part of creation is beautiful 
and good; God made us, we are God's creation, beautiful and good! 


                   ADDENDUM, FOR SCHOLARLY INTERESTS

        Three vexing questions remain unaddressed by this perspective 
concerning the `sin of Sodom:' 1) how is the `sin of Sodom' seen in 
the rest of Hebrew Scripture; 2) when and why did a change in 
understanding take place; 3) why do some writers of the New Testament, 
and especially Paul, accept the redefinition of the `sin of Sodom'?  
Fortunately, scholars seem to have some answers. 
     
        There are two places in which the story of Sodom and Gomorrah 
is referenced in Hebrew Scriptures.  The first reference occurs in 
Ezekiel and the second in Jeremiah.  Both references occur 
historically before the `sin of Sodom' came to be identified with 
homosexuality.  That is, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah were unaware that 
homosexuality was an issue in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.  
Ezekiel says this (16: 49-50): 
       
        This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom:  she and her 
        daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and 
        ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.  
        They grew haughty and did deeds abominable in my sight, and I 
        made away with them as you have seen. 

        In case you are wondering about that word, `abominable,' the 
Hebrew referent is a word which is best translated as `idolatry.'  As 
for Jeremiah, this is what he says: 

        In the prophets ... I see a thing most horrible: adulterers 
        and hypocrites that they are they encourage evildoers, so that 
        no man turns his back from sin; to me all her [people] are 
        like Sodom and Gomorrah. 

        Neither prophet makes any reference to homosexuality as the 
sin of Sodom.  Rather, hypocrisy, idolatry and the failure to care for 
the poor seem to be the thrust of what Ezekiel and Jeremiah see as the 
fault of the twin cities. 

        Ezekiel and Jeremiah did not see homosexuality as the problem 
because it had not been identified with Sodom and Gomorrah until about 
the second century before Christ.  Judaism at this time was immersed 
in Greek culture, a culture not unaccepting of homosexuality.  
Orthodox Jews were quite naturally anxious to protect their religion 
from the influences of Hellenistic culture.  Controversy raged in the 
Jewish communities over such issues as dress, speech, athletic 
activity, sculpture and architecture as well as homosexuality.  
Interestingly enough, the rabbinic literature of the time does not 
support the secular Jewish literature in the redefinition of the sin 
of Sodom.  Even faced with the threat of Hellenistic cultural 
encroachment upon their faith and practice, the writers of rabbinic 
literature were careful not to change the meaning of the sin of Sodom 
and Gomorrah.  That task was left to Josephus, Philo and an extra-
canonical book called the Testament of Naptali. 

        Many scholars feel that it is indeed unfortunate that some of the 
New Testament writers, most certainly among them Paul, working as they 
did from a Greek translation of the Hebrew words which was influenced 
by the revisionists mentioned above, were unaware of what the Genesis 
story really meant to criticize.  Had Paul been aware that idolatry 
and inhospitality to strangers were the key issues in the account of 
Sodom and Gomorrah, scholars speculate that he might not have taken 
quite the hard line on homosexuality as some find apparent in his 
writing.  D. S. Bailey sums it all up: 

        It has always been accepted without question that God declared 
        his judgment upon homosexual practices once and for all time 
        by the destruction of the cities of the plain. But Sodom and 
        Gomorrah, as we have seen, actually have nothing whatever to 
        do with such practices; the interpretation of the Sodom story 
        ... turns out to be nothing more than a post-exilic re-
        interpretation devised and exploited by patriotic rigorists 
        for polemical purposes.  Thus disappears the assumption than 
        an act of Divine retribution in the remote past has relieved 
        us of the responsibility for making an assessment of 
        homosexual acts in terms of theological and moral principles.  
        It is no longer permissible to take refuge in the contention 
        that God himself pronounced these acts "detestable and 
        abominable" above every other sexual sin....  [Homosexuality 
        and the Western Christian Tradition, page viii.]