If you’ve grown up hearing Biblical stories, then you’re certainly familiar with the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. My guess is that even those who didn’t learn about Sodom and Gomorrah in religious studies or in church are at least familiar with the generalities of the account. After all, the word “sodomy,” which has been adopted for common and legal use in English lexicon, is based on the events surrounding this story.

Sodom and Gomorrah were two Middle Eastern cities that formed an alliance with the cities of Admah, Bela and Zeboin in antiquity. They were once thought to have existed on the plain around the Jordan River, just north of the Dead Sea. However, archeologists believe they have discovered these two cities, buried under debris three feet thick, just southeast of the Dead Sea.

Genesis tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God as punishment for their sins. In fact, in Genesis 13:13 we read that “the men of Sodom (were) wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” The story that unfolds is that virtually no one in the cities was righteous (remember Abraham’s bargaining?), and that some of the sinfulness of the people of these cities clearly relates to sexual immorality. The two cities are finished off with the raining down of fire and sulfur (brimstone) in Genesis 19:24.

But, is that really the entirety of the story? In other words, is the totality of what we are to learn from this account that sexual immorality is wrong? I’m not sure it is.

You see, there are good scholarly debates in theological circles about the exact nature of the “sin” of Sodom and Gomorrah. While there is general agreement that the regular rejection of sexual prohibitions by the cities’ inhabitants is part of the sin referred to in scripture, we too often associate these cities and their wrong-doing only with sexual immorality. And that limits not only our understanding of this account, but also our understanding of God’s view of sin.

Consider that the prophet Ezekiel cites God’s word to him as this: “Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

What if Ezekiel’s explanation is correct, or at least is partly correct? While there is a reference to “detestable things,” this explanation certainly does not highlight sexual immorality as the sin that caused the destruction of the cities. And if Ezekiel has it right, doesn’t that change the way we think about sin — how we miss the mark?

I believe Ezekiel’s view implores us to be honest about how we are missing the mark in many things we do in the church.

Every time we feed ourselves without feeding others, perhaps Ezekiel stands in the corner of our decorated social hall. Every time we focus on building up our bank account so we can add more buildings and members, perhaps God cringes, only seeing the poor and needy in our community.

How interesting that in two verses, God (through Ezekiel) uses the terms “arrogant” and “haughty” when describing the sins of the people of these cities. At first, one would not expect such terms as they describe attitudes, not actions. Yet, although they sound out of place, they make perfect sense. For when you believe you deserve your fortunes while others suffer because of their inferiority, it is only natural to let those less fortunate remain in their inferiority. And if you glorify yourself and believe you are the Lord of your own life, then who needs God anyway?

Maybe, at least to some degree, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah extend far beyond the physical self and get to depth of the soul. Perhaps we have overlooked this account as something relevant to us, while people in our community can certainly be classified as “poor and needy.” I wonder if the words “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned” come to their mind when they see our new buildings, expensive outfits, and frequent feasts.

When we review our church budgets, how much is going to new buildings and initiatives that create a bigger church compared to the funding that is going to the down and destitute in our community, those who Jesus really seemed to care for? How much is dedicated to helping others outside the church compared to funds that do nothing but create “more” of a church institution (including the pastor’s salary)? While every church is a family, it should never close in on itself and exist for itself.

Let’s face it, we all mentally check the “Not a Sexual Deviant” box when reading this tragic account about which clearly God wants us to know. And then we go on, assuming it therefore has little to do with us.

But, what if we are wrong?