"When in Rome..."

Romans 1

A gospel song released several years ago by Angie and Debbi Winans entitled, It's not Natural, sent shock waves through the lesbian, gay community, and even the African American community. It met with strong denunciations from both the music industry and the African American community - and rightly so. But something in the minds of those two women gave them the impression that not only was the song and its content acceptable to do, but that it was socially, culturally, theologically appropriate and the "right" thing to do. Now why is that? Where did they get it from? Who told them it was okay to do that? We did. Every time we, same-and-both-gender loving people stood by in silence - which implies consent, it implies shame - we said it was okay. We gave them a green light every time preachers, teachers and politicians quoted and/or cheered others on who referenced one of the most quoted biblical text used to condemn homosexual and bisexual people - Romans 1:26b, 27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" - and we said nothing.

It wasn't okay then and it ain't okay now.

Today, theological studies calls for the "whole" person to be present when we encounter our faith systems. That is, we enter our faith from a personal, social, gender and geographical context in order to get the full measure of our individual influences and thought processes relating to our religious and spiritual inquiry and exploration. For example, I must enter the biblical text fully - as a (former skinny), little, ugly, nappy-headed, black bulldagger. I can't enter the discussion as an upper-middle class white man or woman. I can't enter the discussion as an African American heterosexual man or woman. Each of these persons carry within them separate and completely different social, cultural, religious and environmental conditioning that is theirs and theirs alone. The same is true for the writer of Romans - your friend and mine - brother Paul.

Paul, aka Saul, is no exception, and our understanding of Paul should be based on the same criteria. So, let's meet Paul shall we? He was Saul, a Jew and a Pharisee (a school of thought responsible for producing the normative tradition Judaism), observing the traditions above and beyond the Mosaic law (laws of Moses). Saul, a persecutor of Jesus, his disciples and followers, "still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters (warrants) to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:1-3). But wait..., before reaching Damascus, he's struck blind and thrown off his ass. While still on the ground, he hears a voice saying, "'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'" Unable to see, Saul asked, "'Who are you, Lord?'" Jesus replied, "'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting...'" (vv. 4b, 5).

As the story goes, Saul - who officially becomes Paul at or around chapter 13 - is chosen by Jesus "to bring [Jesus' name] before the Gentiles and Kings and before the people of Israel (9:15). That is, to spread the gospel of Jesus to the Gentiles and to proclaim to them that "It is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). A charge that was expressly his by way of his conversion when Jesus knocked him off his ass onto the ground on the way to Damascus! Now, imagine all the baggage we take from one relationship to another. Imagine all the influences - right, wrong or indifferent, good, bad or ugly - of our past, our childhood, of friends, foes and family that impact who we are and how we engage and encounter relationships, people and situations today... While we may have the best intentions to do so, rarely are we able to shed all that we've acquired - willingly and unwillingly - from whence we came. Do you think Paul was any different? I think not.

It stands to reason, therefore, that although Paul had an amazing "come to Jesus" moment, he was still a Jew, from a particularly strict school of thought. The equivalent of say a Roman Catholic Priest to a southern Baptist. Oops, under the present circumstances, that may not have been a good example - but you get what I mean, right? Okay, and although he was a prolific writer and skilled orator, he was, nevertheless, a product of his early development. As such his understanding of what was "natural" and "unnatural" was based upon his teachings and understanding of the fundamental purpose and function/nature of men and women - to "be fruitful and multiply." In other words, the only time women and men were to engage in genital sex, was to procreate. Anything short of that was wasteful, sinful and they should be put to death! For women who are having sex and know they are unable to have children - burn 'em! Men doing the same thing and who may be sterile - bust his head open to the white meat! And all this birth control and condom use - I'm calling the President for the codes to our nuclear weapons for that!

So for all you folks out there who are just having sex because it feels good and bringing a child into the world is the last thing on your mind - shame, shame, shame on you! Stop it, stop it right now! I don't care if you call out God, Jesus, Peter, Paul and Mary, Joseph and all 12 Apostles! STOP IT! Whew! Umph.... I think I got a little excited just thinking about it. Perish the thought! Crossing myself, "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Say 15 of those and call me in the morning - and don't leave out one detail about the part when you called out God and Jesus and all 12 Apostles.
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"She Played the Whore"

Judges 19 

For those of you new to this blog, I created this blog out of the need and desire to communicate with members of my "Sexuality and the Bible" bible study class. In the class, I asked them to compare and contrast Judges 19 with Genesis 19. What I learned was shocking. As a woman, this has got to be THE most difficult scripture I have ever had to read. What is even more difficult is hearing from people - who boast about being readers of the "Word" - how few are familiar with this story.

I'm not going to go into detail about the similarities and the differences, but I urge you to read them both, as we preachers like to say, "for your own edification." Instead, what I am going to do is touch on the most troubling elements in the text. First off, we learn "there was no king in Israel." Next we are introduced to a "certain Levite" (the priestly tribe of Israel), and entering stage right - his concubine - who "played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house" (KJV v.2).

As the story goes, after "four whole months," the Levite "went out after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again(v.3)." Ooby kaby... Here we go. Now listen, I don't know about you, but right away, I smell something foul. I know right off the bat something in the soup ain't chicken! We are told from the start, in the first two verses, that 1) the woman was a concubine and 2) she played the whore! That ain't the kind of woman I'm gonna write home and tell Mama about! You can certainly believe when she parts from me I'm not going to go after her - unless of course I was a Levite and she was considered my property. And, the reclamation of my property was what I "went after," and not some harlot who had brought shame to me and embarrassed me in front of my people! Instead, the offensive colloquial phrase "B!^@H betta have my money" comes to mind. Okay, okay, for you hopeless romantics out there, maybe he was going to whisper sweet nothings into her ear to get her to come back.

Maybe, but what does happen is that after reaching her father's house, retrieving his property, I mean whore, I mean concubine, and staying longer than he intended, the Levite, along with his asses and servants head back. On the way, they opted not to "turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel." Instead, they went on to Gibeah (which belonged to the Israelite tribe of Benjamin)(v.12-14). Initially, no one took them in! What? His own people would not take him in? Wow... "It's getting hot in here..." Finally an older man takes the Levite and his crew in - to wash their feet, and gave them food and drink. Then suddenly, like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of the town beat at the door saying, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him" (v.22). And like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, there is a virgin daughter and a whore, I mean a concubine available that is offered up to the crowd by the older man saying, "humble ye them, and do with them what seems good unto you" (v.24). This time however, the whore - I'm sorry, I keep messing that up - the concubine is thrown out to the angry crowd. She is beaten and raped throughout the entire night until morning. Finally, at daybreak, she's released and makes it back to the man's house where she "fell down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold" (v.27). Talk about a "humbling" experience. Good Lord! Believe it or not, it gets worse.  

Here is where I'll end this post. I'm exhausted, irritated and it's late. But, riddle me this; could this story be out of place? Can you imagine the wailing cry of a woman being beaten and gang raped throughout the entire night? Could you stand by and let it happen? Do you think God did? Could this be the "great outcry" of Sodom and Gomorrah that warranted a divine visitation and investigation - ultimately ending in the complete destruction of several cities? Could the mistreatment, devaluing, and rape of a woman really be the truth about the sin that did Sodom in? Dare me to say it! Double dog dare me! 
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010 

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"The Rest of the Story!"

Genesis 19:8-36

Let's talk now about other elements that may have led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Isaiah 1:10-20 talks about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah beginning with unacceptable sacrifices to the Lord, "trampling" God's courts; and a harsh warning that "incense is an abomination to [God]." It continues with a charge to "cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, and plead for the widow. Jeremiah 23:13, 14 speaks of idol worship, adultery and lies, that they "strengthen the hands of evildoers and no one turns from wickedness." Ezekiel 16:48-50 tells us the people of Sodom and her sister cities "had pride," lived in "excess" and with "prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and the needy." With all of this, why then do we continue to accept the notion that Genesis 19 is God's "divine punishment" for homosexuality? Because it is a way for members of an oppressed group, African Americans, women, the poor, etc., to claim an identified "difference" that affords them at least one level of privilege over and against another identified lower standard. Uh oh - what's that I hear off in the distance? Someone crying out, "I may be black - I may be a woman - I may even be poor, but at least I'm not gay!" Wow... Really?

What is the benefit? With the media's obsessive coverage of the "Tea baggers" and their underlying racist motivation brought to light with the shouting of racial epithets and spitting on and at civil rights leaders who are now members of Congress, it is clear that those who have bought into this "lie" have gained very little. They still hate you! Your participation in the oppression of a lesser protected group has not gained you any ground in the dominant group's acceptance of you - and though it saddens me to say, but this is the true cause of God's judgment of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

As a young woman growing up, I often asked myself, "If I had lived during the time of chattel slavery, reconstruction or the civil rights movement, what would I have done?" Would I have assimilated? Would I have accommodated the dominant culture or would I have taken a stand? I don't know what I would have done then, but I do know that "Just for such a time as this," I have been called into a particular purpose that demands my obedience to "Set the captives free."
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"You Lie!"

Genesis 19

I tell you it was nothing but the confidence that comes with unadulterated arrogance and white male privilege that Sen. Wilson shouted "You lie!" at the first African American President of the United States during the State of the Union address. I was floored, embarrassed, angered and saddened at the blatant lack of regard for the Office of President now that a black man is filling that position. But, "For just such a time as this!" We have a President with the intelligence, fortitude, style, grace and temperament that he stood still, unmoved and undeterred. Praise the Lord!

But oh, hear me when I say, there have been a many Sundays come and go that I have wanted to shout aloud the very same words when listening to educated and uneducated, trained and untrained, "jump up" and installed preachers, teachers, lay-persons and the like speak about homosexuality as the cause for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you've spent any time in church, particularly in a predominately black church, or even if you have a cursory understanding of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, you have been conditioned to believe that the men of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah (two of the cities of the plain of Jordan) attempted to have sex with two men (who were angels) that had come down to investigate the "outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah." This is due in part to the misinterpretation and translation of the original Hebrew text of the word "know." It would take far too long for this blog to deconstruct this particular text, but you must "know" that in Ancient Near Eastern culture, it was customary to offer hospitality to foreigners by inviting them in to "wash their feet," provide them food, lodging/shelter, i.e. protection and, to register them with the city - officials of the city (leaders, chiefs, priests, etc.).

While the men/angels received the customary courtesy of hospitality from Lot (a foreigner himself), they were not registered with the city. Consequently, like the border patrols here in America and any other country, when a foreigner enters into its territory, officials of the city/government will intercept you and question your intent for traveling there. They want to "know" what it is you are doing there, who you are visiting, how long, what you have with you, and upon leaving, what are you taking with you. Whoop dere it is!

Now, "know" this, there is more to this story than meets the eye. A couple of virgin daughters (Lot's) are offered up to the "men of the city" to "do with them as you please." Really? Is that acceptable? Are we civilized women and men supposed to overlook this piece of information as if it is a footnote? Did God? I think not! I think there is more to this story and in an upcoming blog, you will begin to think so also.

For now, however, suffice it to say that the next time you or I happen to be "one in the number" in an audience or congregation where and when the speaker, teacher or preacher travels down that contrived road about Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed because men were having sex with men; we ought to "gird up our loins," summon the courage of the ancestors and speak the "truth crushed to the earth," with a simple, yet confident, unabashed - "You lie!"
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"It's hard out here for a pimp"

Genesis 12

This is a short chapter, so I'll be quick and dirty about it. Abram, aka Abraham - the great ancestor, has been instructed by God to leave his father's house and his country. He takes with him his wife (Sarai), slaves, livestock, possessions along with his nephew, Lot and all his family, slaves, livestock and possessions. After passing through several places, Abram heads to Egypt. Just before entering Egypt, he says to his wife, "I know well you are a woman, beautiful in appearance... Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account" (vv.11b-13).

As the story goes, indeed the Egyptians were quite taken by Sarai and when the officials saw her, they reported the beauty to Pharaoh. Consequently, Sarai was taken into Pharaoh's house and for her sake, Abram was dealt with rather nicely, receiving sheep, oxen, male/female asses and male and female slaves. Sound familiar? The woman is taken into the "house" and her man/pimp is rewarded/paid - for what exactly - her company, services maybe?

In today's economy, what Abram received on account of Sarai would be the equivalent to a rather nice chunk of change for the exchange and company of a woman. My, my, my... Could the sacred text also be a basis to argue for legalizing prostitution? Could the beginning of the "oldest profession" have gotten its start from the bible? Say it ain't so!

And where is God in all of this? Right smack dab in the middle of it! "But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife." Ah yes, the rest of the story! It is clear and has been clear from the beginning, 'man's' contempt and lack of care and respect of and for women. But, God is also clear about the worth and treatment of women. Here we see a divine response as God "afflicts Pharaoh and his house" on account of Sarai. Later we will learn that God will arguably destroy several cities on account of the mistreatment of a woman. Who'd a thunk it?
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Wine and Ham don't mix"

Genesis 9:20-27

Up to this point, we have had a lot of drama, no tears, but like an onion, keep peeling away at it and if your tear ducts are working properly, the effects of it will surely cause you to cry.

Take for instance, Noah, "a righteous man" - a man who "walks with God." A man, who at the tender age of 500 became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth (NRSV 5:32). "Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent." Well..., wonder where this is going? I tell you, there is nothing wrong with a little "drink" every now and again, but it appears Noah may have had a bit more than a "little" of his own personal reserve. I don't know about you, but I've heard it takes quite a bit of wine to reach a place of drunken nakedness. Good Lord! Suffice it to say, Noah had a bit too much to drink and apparently drank himself right out of his outer garments and there he lay - drunk and butt naked in his tent. Then, "along came a spider...," I'm sorry, a Ham. Yes, Ham, the "youngest" son of Noah, who had to be at least 100 years old (vs.11) happens upon his drunk, unconscious and butt naked father. The unfortunate Ham goes out and informs his brothers who the text tells us, "took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness." Noah finally awakens from his drunken stupor and curses poor little Ham, for he "knew what his younger son had done to him" (vs.24).

Although it is never stated, there has always been an implied undercurrent of sexual inappropriateness surrounding the reading and interpretation of this text. What is explicit, however, according to misguided and prejudicially motivated preachers, teachers, Christian conservatives and Old World scholars is the justification for chattel slavery: "Cursed be Canaan, lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers... Blessed be the Lord my God of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave (vs. 25-27). Alas, for the first time in the scripture, we are introduced to the word "slave." The result; for hundreds of years, it was the standard upon which proponents of slavery based their positions, arguing the "natural" plight of the enslaved Africans was the manifestation of God's divine order of things and their place on earth.

African Americans have and many still continue to think this is why the enslaved Africans and their descendants are cursed to live out our earthly time subservient to the power and authority of those who created and continue to benefit from the system of chattel slavery. It may also be the basis behind the notion of the African American male/female's sexual "prowess" and its twin, "deviance."

I tell you, after all that, indeed "my soul looks back and wonder, how I got over?!"
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Life Without the Possibility of Parole"

Genesis 4: 13-16

After Cain was banished from the garden of Eden/his home and family for killing his brother Abel, he chided God, arguing his punishment was too severe. The crime did not meet the punishment. Really? Killing your brother or another human being for that matter does not warrant ostracism and expulsion? My goodness, what would those who support the death penalty think of this? It seems to me, rather than take Cain's life for the life of Abel, God offers a lesser sentence (mercy, grace even) - one equivalent to say, "life without the possibility of parole." And even with this Cain thinks the punishment is too severe! Okay, so God apparently agrees on some level with Cain and to ensure no one harms him, God places that infamous mark on him so no one who meets Cain will kill him. I'm sorry, did I miss something? Are there other people out there besides Adam, Eve and Cain? Whew! This is a good ending place.

Questions: What is the significance of the exchange between Cain and God? Does it/should it have any weight today regarding capital punishment?

And what of this mark? Is this the infamous mark that many of our forefathers and foremothers have suggested is one of the theological arguments used to establish and justify chattel slavery?

"Caller you say what?"
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Sibling Rivalry"

Genesis 4: 2-18

"Am I my brother's keeper?" Yep, there it is, how many of you knew that from the "first family" we inherited a question of the ages. From the start we bear witness to several familia issues; favoritism, jealousy, anger and murder! One brother kills the other and is banished from the garden/home as punishment.

Whew! I am an only child - sorta kinda, so I never really had to deal with competing with other siblings. But, I was raised with a close cousin who in many ways was everything I wasn't. I learned early on how harmful distinctions made between children can leave lasting imprints on our lives. I learned early what the world thinks is beautiful, and what is ugly. I learned to compare my looks to others, always finding that I fell short in one way or another - never quite measuring up to prescribed standards that most people can't and don't live up to.

This method of establishing identifable differences feeds into the notion that some differences do make a difference as to whether or not they are celebrated or condemned. If it is determined not to meet the prescribed standard, they are exploited by the majority to subjegate and oppress the minority. Let's flip the script on this and make a concious effort to care for, expect and hope for the best for us all. We will then be able to answer the question "Am I my brother/sister's keeper?" with a resounding, Yes, I am!
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"In The Beginning..."

Welcome to my blog On the Other Side Of Midnight. This session consists of a bible study on “Sexuality and The Bible.”

But first, a necessary, albeit brief, introduction:

“I AM SHE” Rev. Dorinda G. Henry

- Masters of Theological Studies and Certificate in Black Church Studies; Emory University, Candler School of Theology, Atlanta, Georgia.

- Bachelor of Arts; Theology/Religious Studies, Seattle University, cum laude, Seattle, Washington.

- Founder, Executive Director, The TIP Institute, writer, preacher, public speaker, human rights advocate.

For more details, please visit my website: www.tipinstitute.org

I am not a biblical scholar! I am a woman with a particular “call” on my life and this is but one of the many ways that I have been given to carry it out. I am an open and freely thinking woman with a mind of my own. As I enter into this dialogue, know that I am bringing along with me, my education, personal experiences, and scholarly opinions and suppositions of others.

Toward that end, I hope to assist and insist that you approach the bible from a critical point of departure. To do that, I may have to first dis-empower you to empower you. That is to say that I hope this class challenge and shakes your faith in ways it has never been before. I seek to aid you in developing a deeper understanding of the bible and the imago dei (the image of God).

While in seminary, I had the opportunity to “sit at the feet” of many renowned scholars, preachers and teachers who nurtured my fervor for authenticity. Chief among them was a New Testament scholar, who wrote, “Theologia Habitus Est!” – Theology is a way of life. It resonated within me and remains a guiding principle for my life and one that I hope will inspire you as well.
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

“THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!”