John Pavlovitz and the necessity of bad exegesis for liberal Christianity

Now, bad exegesis happens.  And it's hardly unique to liberal Christians.  But like so many negative traits, it seems almost universal among liberals, especially liberal Christians.  That's because the liberalism they embrace rejects their Faith, its values, its beliefs, its entire worldview.  Therefore, trying to shove that square peg of Gospel into that round hole of the secular World demands some clever approaches to interpreting the Scriptures. 

John Pavlovitz demonstrates this here with a little exegetical trick call proof-texting: 

Mr. Pavlovitz knows darn well that nobody denies there were manifold sins within Sodom and Gomorrah.  The scriptural record is clear on that.  And that includes that hot topic of the ancient world, hospitality.  When my sons went through the ancient Greek literature part of their homeschooling, they concluded The Odyssey was one giant screed against bad hospitality.  

Likewise Pride is certainly a chief sin of the Faith, as demonstrated in the above scriptural passage (more on that later).  But so is sexual assault, homosexuality, and generic bad behavior, all of which were an afront to God's will for social virtues.  Here is Jude with a refresher course on some of the sins going on there that Mr. Pavlovitz seems to skip: 

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  Jude 7.

And in case we need a little mental jarring about what kind of 'fornication' was being demonstrated, let's go back to the hazy mists of Genesis:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”  Genesis 19.4-8 (emphasis mine)

Was Sodom guilty of manifold sins?  Yes.  Among these, and pointed out explicitly, was their desire to break the rules of hospitality.  And the way in which they wanted to do it was so bad, the men demanding sex with the men visiting Lot, that Lot would rather break other rules of virtue by handing his daughters over than to see such a wicked act occur.   As my ethics professor David Gushee said back in the day (c.1996), you can't deny that where the scriptural record is concerned, homosexuality is presented as the ultimate deviation from sexual morality.  To only focus on one sin of Sodom above all others is problematic.  To ignore or downplay sins explicitly detailed in the Scriptures and the traditions of the Faith, however, is far worse. 

We won't even get into the stupid 'the abomination was anti-wokeness' line.  That's not worth the effort. 

Again, when you insist I remain ignorant or embrace falsehoods in order to agree with you, I'll choose disagreeing every time. In fact, the heavy reliance on such mendacity by Christians trying to square the LGBTQ movement with a biblical worldview always made me side with the biblical world view. 

None of this is to bother with Pavlovitz's suggestion that these 'Bible thumpers' are prideful, or don't help  the poor or don't care.  In every church I ever served, those 'Bible thumpers' tried to help those in need.  But this is focusing on the exegesis he is using.  It is not wasting time addressing that typical tactic so universal among leftwing political activism that must assume malicious motives and intentions and behaviors, rather than engage in the actual subject at hand.  The bad exegeses should be enough to raise the warning flag. 

By the way, a little fun study-the-Bible moment that says a lot.  I checked the biblical text for Ezekiel that he uses (it appears to be from the always flexible New International Version).  I consulted 55 translations.  Out of 55 translations, the Hebrew word (gawohn) in Ezekiel 16.49 is translated 'Pride' or 'Prideful' 47 times.  For example, from the Revised Standard Edition:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

That's 85% of the time.  In terms of usage within the Scriptures, that word is rendered 'pride' or 'proud' more than any other way.  Yet in an odd twist of coincidence, Mr. Pavlovitz manages to grab one of the few modern translations that uses 'arrogant', rather than 'pride.'  Odd that.  Especially since this Twitter post was in defense of Pride Month.  

My favorite non-pride translation, BTW, was the New English Translation that translates the word as 'Majesty.'   Remember kiddies, know your translations!  And more importantly, pay careful attention to how those translations are used and who is using them.