Society, Justice, and Sex

Recently, I have been reading Normand Gottwald's The Tribes of Yahweh. It is a sociological analysis of early Israel's tribal confederacy prior to the monarchy. A sociological analysis is the effort to see how a total social system, its economic, social, and religious elements, function together. In this article, I will give a glimpse of Gottwald's analysis.

It is Gottwald's contention that the uniqueness of Israel's God was integrally related to the uniqueness of Israelite society. How was this God unique? We may note three characteristics. First, the God of Israel, Yahweh, was the sole God, rather than one among many gods. Secondly, and here Gottwald presents it somewhat differently, Yahweh was not a personification of the forces of nature, or of the state, or of a king. Finally, Yahweh did not have a consort; he was not a sexual being. Rather than revealing himself through sexual religious rites, he revealed himself in a political act, the liberation from Egypt and entrance into Canaan.

This unique view of God was integrally related to the uniqueness of early Israelite society. In Gotttwald's view, ancient Israel, as compared to her neighbors, created a social system with a minimum of oppressive political power and a maximum distribution of the land's production. In contrast to Canaanite religion, her ethic was rigorous, her worship intolerant and exclusive, but her political freedom and economic well being were unparalleled.

How did this relate to her unique view of God? The unity of the people of Israel was established by the exclusive worship of the one God. Under polytheism, exclusive worship was impossible, and unity was established politically by force. Further, the gods of polytheism were organized in pantheons, with a supreme god, lesser gods, slaves of the gods, and so forth. This hierarchic divine order gave rise to a hierarchic social economic system. Finally, under polytheism, the rulers of the state were considered divine, and as divine, had sole right to the bodies, souls, and labor of their subjects. In Israel, God was distinct from the world. No one was divine, and therefore, unlimited political power and economic accumulation were not divinely sanctioned.

Among Israel's neighbors, sexuality was thought to be engine that powered nature, the state, the agricultural system, and the gods. By not having a consort and by revealing himself primarily through the political and economic act of the Exodus, rather than through fertility rites, Yahweh was worshipped as one who upheld a just social economic order. In other words, the pursuit of justice rather than sexual fulfillment was seen as the primary goal of life. Within that context, sexuality, when regulated by covenant, was identified as one good among others.

Our society is pluralistic and individualistic. All people have their gods, and pluralism means the official recognition of the gods. Lacking a unifying religious ideology with a rigorous ethic, I suspect our country will gradually drift toward rule by force. This development goes hand in hand with the sexual revolution. Like the ancient fertility rites, the entertainment industry keeps before the public the view that sexuality is the meaning of life. Under these conditions, the passion for justice evaporates.

The church is subject to the same forces that drive society. Pluralism has undermined belief in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ; individualism results in partisan politics, and issues of sexuality have divided the church. We can contribute to the church and the larger society by being faithful to the original vision: exclusively devoted to our one Lord Jesus Christ, committed to a rigorous social, economic, and sexual ethic, and in matters of controversy, dedicated to a long term dialogue with Scripture, tradition, and each other, rather than the quick fix of politics.

Plenteous Harvest, October, 1993.

Comment

This little essay contains a world of ideas, and they are important. First, as examined in other contexts, the transcendence of Yahweh means that the norms of life are revealed. They are given by a God who is not identified with the world. Within the world as it is, there are grades of rank and skill, and these give rise to ethics that favor the strong, the wealthy, and the gifted over against the weak, the poor, and the deprived. In the end, I do not believe that a humane ethic can be built apart from belief in a God distinct from the world. Without a transcendence God, ethics simply reflects the injustices of the status quo.

Secondly, the fact that Yahweh was one, that he had no consort, that there was no hierarchy, implies a fundamental equality among human beings. This equality, seen in the creation stories of Genesis one and two, has been one of the cornerstones of Western civilization. Without that foundation, above all, a recognition of the Lord Jesus Christ who died for all equally, I do not think our civilization will stand.

Thirdly, Gottwald is a sociologist. In his view, the monotheism of Israel was a projection of socioeconomic conditions. In other words, the term "Yahweh" functioned as a religious symbol and action sub-system, or the cultic ideological dimension or plane, of general Israelite society . . . " (p. 614) In this scientific view, Yahweh does not exist outside of or beyond society, but was functional conceptual term term used by Israel to designate the social dynamics of her society rehearsed and reinforced by worship. In short, for Gottwald, the society possessed empirical reality, and God was the projection of social forces and processes.

This is a logical assumption for one adopting a purely "scientific" view, but it is not a valid theological assumption. Theologically, God transcended the Israelite social system, yet acted concretely in it in ways that had an empirical reference. These two aspects, the transcendence and the "emprical act," refer to the first two persons of the Trinity, the transcendent Father and the incarnate Son. The dynamic reality of Israel's relation to Yahweh was then known as Spirit. In fact, if God did not act "empirically" in Israel, then Israel would no longer be Israel, for the secret of her existence was God's act, and not her independent existence as a social system. This is massively attested biblically, and obscured by Gottwald. Only if God can act, can one make sense of God's judgment and grace, for without God's act, these actions become human perogatives and the distinctive character of biblical faith is lost.

Nevertheless, a triune and miraculous approach to understanding Israelite society does not entail the wholesale rejection of Gottwald's results. In fact, his insights have much to offer, because they clearly describe how the character of God is positively correlated to specific social goals heralded by such hopes as justice, mercy, and peace.

Finally, if God seeks to build a soceity of justice, mercy, and peace, where is that society to be found? First of all, it is found in the Kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus. Further, it is to be found in the church to the degree that it lives out the Kingdom of Christ. Thirdly, it needs to be found in the Kingdoms of this world, although one cannot expect them, with their histories of sin and ideologies of violence, to live out a perfect Kingdom ethic.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
October, 1993