"You and Me, Us Never Part, Makidada"

Ruth

"You and me, Us never part
Makidada
You and me, Us have one heart
Makidada
Ain't no ocean, ain't no sea
Makidada
Keep my sistah way from me
Makidada"

I know, I know... But I promise, it is not my practice to use songs to introduce my blogs. Yes, admittedly, in recent postings, the spirit has moved in such a way that songs and the lyrics to those songs have been so perfectly complimentary to the sentiment being conveyed that I can't help but to incorporate them within the text. Remember, "All things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to [her] purpose." And, it's further affirmation that the sacred is secular and the secular sacred. So, cut a sistah some slack would ya!

Alright, really, the book of RUTH is one of my favorite books in the bible. And yes, when I was trying to get my mind and thoughts together about this posting, I couldn't help but sing the little song that Celie and Nettie were singing in the movie, "The Color Purple." And, if any of you have read the book (which I suggest you do), or seen the movie, you know that a bond existed between those two little girls that "Nothing but death" would tear apart. Well, there is yet another bond between two women that was so strong that not even death would separate one from the other. Yes, I'm talking about the bond or rather, "relationship," between Ruth and Naomi. Whoa, whoa, whoa... Wait a minute! Hold on, now.... Geez Louise! Don't go getting your panties in a wad before you hear me out.

Listen, there are only two books in the entire bible where the central characters are women! No doubt, women play very prominent roles throughout the bible - somebody had to give birth to all those fascinating and powerful men! But nowhere else are the effects of women felt more profoundly than in the books of RUTH and later we'll see in ESTHER. But first, the "relationship," and yes, this time I do mean "relationship" between Ruth and Naomi, is one that deserves and demands our attention, respect and reverence. As one of the participants in my class so aptly pointed out, this is a story about love, loyalty and redemption - sorta. Let's take a looksee.

The narrative begins with a short background sketch. We learn that Naomi, a blessed woman with a husband, two sons and two daughters-in-law (Or'pah and Ruth) is adversely affected by famine in the land. She loses her husband and two sons (1:1-6). In an attempt to weather through the famine, Naomi sets out with her daughters-in-laws to the land of Judah, for she heard the "Lord had considered his people and given them food" (v. 6). On the way, she remembers herself, her plight and what lies ahead for young women with no husband and no male children. Selflessly she urges them to turn back and return to their mother's house for a chance to "find security, each of you in the house of your husband" (vv. 8b, 9a). The two women hold fast to their love for Naomi and initially refuse her request to turn back to the land of their people. But out of that love, Naomi persuades Or'pah, who relents, parts with a kiss and returns to the land of her people - Moab. But, "Ruth clung to her"(vv.10-14). Put a pin there... While I agree this story is about love, loyalty and redemption - kinda, I also believe, however, it is much deeper and much more complex and complicated than that. For what comes next is one of the most commonly incorporated and recited biblical verses in commitment ceremonies, and yes, "legal" marriages. For clarity's sake, I am compelled to invite you to reach for your King James Version of the bible as we venture to understand an important Hebrew translation of the word "clave." Okay, take the pin out.

Let's go back, "And they lifted up their voice and wept again: and Or'pah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clave unto her" (KJV 1: 14). The Hebrew word translated here as "clave," is identical to that used in the implied marriage between Adam and Eve, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh" (KJV Genesis 2:24). Compare that to this eerily similar verse, "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me" (KJV Ruth 1: 16b, 17). Hable por favor en inglés... "Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge, your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die - there will I be buried. May the Lord do this and so to me and more as well, if even death parts me from you" (NRSV Ruth 1: 16b, 17)! Sounds like "one flesh" and "one heart" to me. But don't you think it is amazing that words spoken to seal a covenant - between a woman and a man before God, was actually spoken from one woman to another - in the bible! Is there a difference and if so what is it? Uh, uh... Nope, don't be lazy, come up with something else other than one is between opposite genders and the other is between the same gender. The words are translated the same, therefore, ought not the meaning of them be the same? Hmmmm? Two different concepts of "relationships," yet the same covenant? Caller you say what?

Okay, okay, moving right along. Ruth and Naomi continue on and arrive in Bethlehem at "the beginning of the barley harvest." There was a kinsman of Naomi's husband there in the land, a wealthy and well respected man, named Boaz. Ruth asks Naomi to allow her "to go to the field and glean among the ears of grain, behind someone in whose sight I might find favor" (2: 1,2). Now, I don't know about you, but I'm smiling bigger than the Cheshire cat in Alice and Wonderland. It is rather exciting to finally see women working together and consciously exploiting the culture and traditions of the day for their own benefit. Back to the story. Now it just so happens that Ruth gleaned in the field owned by none other than, Boaz. Surely I don't need to tell you that Ruth caught his eye, as was her intent. After inquiring and learning who she was, and who she did and/or did not belong to, Boaz says to her, "Do not go to glean in another field, or leave this one, but keep close to my young women. Keep your eyes on the field that is being reaped and follow behind them" (vv. 8, 9a). Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, SCORE! For her love, care and loyalty to Naomi, Boaz rewards her by allowing her to hang out, get some food (of which she saves a portion for Naomi), and gather about a bushel of barley. Although she lived with Naomi, she "gleaned" daily, keeping close to Boaz's women until the end of the harvest. The next move toward security for Ruth and redemption for Naomi comes by way of Naomi.

As a young woman, thinking I was smarter than Mama, I remember her saying to me, "Little girl, everything you are thinking about doing, I've already done!" Indeed Wisdom is a woman! It is with that wisdom that Naomi sets a plan into motion that will result in Ruth's security and her redemption. She knows Boaz and the other men of the village/neighborhood are going to the threshing floor to loosen the grain harvested. She also seems to be aware that the men would be eating and drinking as she instructs Ruth in the way of "getting her man" saying, "Now wash and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, observe the place where he lies; then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do" (3: 1-4). In other words, "go get yourself together, put on some sweet smelling fragrance, the sexiest dress you have and wait until he's tired, full, and drunk and then, "service him," I mean "uncover his feet." Now if the only thing that happened next was Boaz catching a cold from his feet being exposed, I would be finished with this post, but it isn't. Instead, Boaz is so moved by Ruth's "virtuous" actions and deeds toward him throughout the entire night, that he swears "As the Lord lives," he will "act as next-of-kin," thereby "covering" her and, re-establishing an inheritance for Naomi (vv. 6-13). That must have been some really good service. Oh, I'm sorry, she must have really known how to "uncover his feet." Um hmph... Where you going? Don't go nowhere, I'm just getting warmed up!

After Ruth slips out before day break ---------- Just wanted to let that sit with ya for a moment, Boaz goes to the village gates and sits down to inquire of a kinsmen of Naomi that is closer in kin to her than he is about his desire, ability and willingness to fulfill the duties of a kinsmen to a previously deceased kinsmen, ensuring the continuation of the lineage of the deceased. The other kinsman of Naomi declined and thus Boaz was allowed to purchase the land and all that belonged to the deceased now belonged to him, including Ruth. Satisfying the customary practices of exchange and transactions of the day, Boaz took Ruth as his wife and she conceived a son. But wait, the women celebrate Naomi, shouting, "Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin, (one who redeems) and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him." Naomi then takes the child to her bosom and nursed him. Then the women of the village/neighborhood gave the child a name saying, "A son (Obed) has been borne to Naomi" (Ch. 4). Wow! Really? And to think, out of this relationship of love, loyalty, redemption and um.... surrogacy, Naomi and Ruth become the Matriarch that brings forth Jesse, the father of David and eventually, the "one who redeems," the "restorer of life" - Jesus... Believe it or not!

"You and me, Us never part
Makidada
You and me, Us have one heart
Makidada
Ain't no ocean, ain't no sea
Makidada
Keep my sistah way from me
Makidada"
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Both Of Us Got Babies Now..."

Genesis 16; 21:1-21.

As an African American and a woman, without a doubt, the story of Sarai and Hagar rings particularly loud in my heart, mind and soul. That I am a relatively young woman, no, I have not personally felt the sting of a slave master's quirt or whip on my back, nor have I endured the pain of watching my children sold away from me, my husband beaten for trying to protect my honor or having my womanness taken against my will by the slave master. No, I have not endured first hand, the effects of chattel slavery. But I have experienced the byproduct of it. Yes, every time I had to greet Mama at the door after she returned from a long day cooking and cleaning for a white woman and her household. I have had to go to bed without the comfort of Mama's arms tenderly wrapped around me, as she did the children of white women - I'm sure humming some old Negro spiritual that lulled them to sleep. I have washed and caressed Mama's feet to relieve some of the aches and pains caused by standing too long serving guest at her white woman's house during a dinner party. And finally, I have had to stand by and feel my body swell with rage, watching and hearing white men, women and young white boys and young white girls call my Mama - the mother of 7 - "girl" or "gal."

So, no, I don't need the Pastor or some theologian to do amazing feats of hermeneutic gymnastics or exegetical analysis with or around the sacred text to find myself understanding the relational dynamics at play between Sarai and Hagar. The story of Sarai and Hagar is an all too familiar one. It is the story of two women in a struggle for security and power. It is the story of two different women belonging to the same man. It is the story of two mothers -- who give birth to two different babies, resulting in two separate nations. It is the story of two women, used, manipulated and abused within a male dominated society - God do we ever know that story!

Let's begin first with Sarai. She is the wife of Abram (the great Patriarch). She is a woman, without any rights or privileges and well into her twilight years. She is certainly past the time of childbearing for a woman, and, she has not even borne one male child. Back in chapter 15, when God said to Abram, "Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them... So shall your descendants be," Sarai undoubtedly hears of it. Impatient, she decides to take matters into her own hands (Genesis 15:5b). She knows well and understands that a woman without a husband or a male child is nothing. Funny thing, that seems to be the prevailing sentiment of many women today - hmph - but I digress. Anyway, she knows that she is incredibly vulnerable should anything happen to Abram and she is left alone, a widow and childless. Therefore, in chapter 16, she reasons that maybe God's promise to Abram will be fulfilled through her "slave-girl," Hagar! Sounds reasonable enough, right? I mean after all, Sarai appears to have acquired Hagar as a part of the "dowry" Pharaoh paid to Abram when he was deceived by the clever couple in chapter 12. Remember that? Sarai was instructed by Abram, to um, "give up some @$S to get some ass(es)..." Please refer to, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp." So, now Sarai has Hagar, the "slave-girl," and thus, her property. Thereby making any child conceived by Hagar the property of Sarai. Hence, God's promise to Abram fulfilled. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Let's go now to Hagar, the Egyptian woman, given into servitude - to another woman! Good Lord! Whew... I cannot even begin to fathom the thought of that! But there she is, removed from her place of origin, her people, protection, her culture, and traditions. Her care and treatment is at the whim and mercy of another woman. Consequently, her body (which does not belong to her) is used and exploited for the benefit and gain of someone else - Sarai, her Mistress. Sound familiar? Of course! So, when you hear the adage, "Hurt people hurt people," believe it. Because now, Sarai does to Hagar what was done to her. She is now in a position of power and as such, she betrays the sanctity of sisterhood by "pimping" out her "slave-girl" to her husband urging him to, "Go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children through her." Quite naturally, Abram "listened to the voice of Sarai..." and "went in to Hagar, and she conceived" (16:1-4a). Umph! My, my, my... Do I dare continue? No... Yes! I must, I really and truly must. I feel like singing... "I will go, I shall go... [let's] see what the end is g'on be."

Ahhh, alas, "I's pregnant now!" Hagar, has suddenly experienced a rise in her stock. She, understandably, starts smelling herself to the dismay of Sarai. Consequently, Sarai reacts and upon receiving instruction from Abram to "do to her as you please," Sarai did just that and Hagar ran away from her... Here we go.... An angel of the Lord finds Hagar by a spring and inquires where she is coming from and where she is going. Hagar tells the angel all that has happened to her. The angel, knowing Hagar is with child, instructs her to return to her Mistress and to submit to her - but first, a promise. The angel of the Lord says to Hagar, "I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude" (vv. 5-10). She is then told she will bear a son, "and you shall call him Ishmael, for the Lord has given heed to your affliction" (v. 11).

Okay, I believe I have enticed you enough to go read the rest of the story for yourself. So, very quickly, let me wrap this up. In chapter 21:1-21, God has changed both Sarai and Abram's names to Sarah and Abraham respectively. As promised, God also blesses Sarah and she too conceives a son - Isaac! But one day, Sarah observes Ishmael playing with her son, Isaac. She gets angry and says to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac" (vv. 9, 10). I'm sorry, but I can't help but hear her saying that in this way, "Get your whore and that bastard child outta my house!" Now, I'm sure there was a better way to put that, but sometimes, some words take on an entirely deeper and stronger meaning when said just the right way, with just the right inflection! So forgive me if I stepped out of bounds. I'll bet you got the picture though... And, I know you know Abraham did what Sarah told him to do. Sure, of course he was grieved, but God told him to do as Sarah had instructed him to do. And, to ease Abraham's anguish, God lets him in on a little secret S/HE promised to Hagar, "As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a nation of him also, because he is your offspring" (v. 13).

Ohhh wee... Lawd Hammercy! Umph, umph, umph... What's that I hear off in the distance? Butterfly McQueen, shouting from the heavens, "I don't know nuff'n bout birth'n no baby Miss Scarlett!" I hear ya loud and clear. Rest Mama - Rest easy.
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"A Mistress and her Slave"

"El-roi!"

"Oh Freedom! Oh freedom! Oh freedom over me.
And before I be a slave, I'll be buried in my grave;
And go home to my Lord and be free.
No mo' moan'n, no mo' weeping.
There'll be sing'n,
There'll be shout'n,
There'll be pray'n.
And before I be a slave, I'll be buried in my grave;
And go home to my Lord and be free."

Oh, that I was a child again. I remember getting ready for Sunday school and church every Sunday morning - hated it! You see, my grandmother and God were best friends. So we had to go to church every Sunday to spend time with baby Jesus, because that's when God would let all the other miscreants and misfits spend time with our Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ. I even remember wondering about Jesus' whole name. I pondered - as inquisitive little girls often do - if Jesus' first name is Jesus and his last name is Christ, then what is his middle name? I reasoned, I have a middle name, so what was Jesus Christ's middle name? I spent hours upon hours of prepubescent exploration trying to come up with a name as special and as wonderful as "Jesus" and "Christ." I couldn't come up with one name! Tired and weary, I finally asked, "What is Jesus' middle name?" The answer? Yep, you guessed it, "Jesus doesn't have a middle name!" And to support that argument, I was informed that Mama didn't have a middle name either! OH-MY-GOD! My grandmother and God really were best friends - they even named their children in the same way! WOW! Needless to say, Mama didn't have much trouble out of me after that - well not until those crazy teenage years.

Okay, okay, seriously. I often reminisce about the songs we used to sing in church - those old Negro spirituals that resonated so profoundly within me that I knew I could feel the earth shake from the joy of the ancestors upon hearing them. We don't sing those songs anymore - not the way we used to sing them. I believe a lot is lost as a result. But the one above speaks particularly to the dilemma and power dynamics at play between two women whose lives converged by acts of manipulation and exploitation of men.

Much happens to bring these women together and much happens afterwards. Two different women, with very different backgrounds, cultures, traditions and faith systems. Hagar, the slave girl who knows she's a slave and Sarai, the special little "Misses" who, in many ways, is also a slave, interact with one another and others around them to create a relationship narrative of biblical proportion. Both are blessed with a male child - fathered by the same man. Two different babies, two different nations - two different faiths... "Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows."

Oh, I'm a child no more, and now I can't wait to get to church for bible study on Sunday! Who'da thunk it!

© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Brand New Key"

Relationships in the Bible

In 1971, Melanie Safka wrote and sang the song, "Brand New Key." It was a very cute, kinda folksy tune that I've remembered since my childhood. And without fail, when being lighthearted about my own attraction to someone or a friend's attraction to someone else, I always sing the refrain of the song which goes like this:

"I've got a brand new pair of roller skates, you've got a brand new key.

I think that we should get together and try them on to see.

I been lookin' around awhile, you got something for me.

Oh, I got a brand new pair of roller skates, you got a brand new key..."

If you are too young to remember the tune, try to find it and listen to it. I believe you too, like me, will find it quite enjoyable and fitting when "relationships" is the topic of the hour. And that brings me to this particular blog.

The next bible study series will explore some of the most intriguing relationships in the bible. These relationships - though some are - are not always intimate or romantic, but have and will leave indelible imprints on our lives. To date (as I am open to suggestions), the following will be discussed over the course of seven weeks:

Sarah and Hagar

Ruth and Naomi
David and Jonathan

Vashti and Esther

David and Bathsheba

Jesus and Mary of Magdala - aka Mary Magdalene

Jesus and the Beloved Disciple

Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010

Time: 9:30am

Location: Sanctuary at Tabernacle Baptist Church, 475 Boulevard NE, Atlanta, GA 30308

Phone: (404) 876-3777

*Please bring a bible - preferably the New Revised Standard Version (I also like the King James Version as a compliment).

I hope to see you all on Sunday!

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

Theology is a way of life

"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!