Movement 111

ooh, you are naugih$
reviews: books
It's all about purity and propedy, apparently.
First ask yourself, 'How naughty
am a?' Then ask, 'By whose
standards?'Then read this attractively
packaged (pleasinglly so for
a theologr book) reprint and if you
aren't challenged and perplexed
in equal measure, I suspect you
must have some strange habits
that have just been vindicated.
The bulk of Dirt... is good oldfashioned
liberaltheolos/. lt looks at
sexual ethics as outlined in the
Bible, but instead of succumbing to
simplistic 'this is right, this is wrong'
analysis, Countryman tries to
penetrate the cultural and moral
mind of the Bible writers. Jewish
purity (dirt) and property (greed)
codes are central here, the former
which Countryman suggests
manifests in very different ways in
our culture of licence.
What is unclean is that which
crosses boundaries. Hence
homosexuality, as one man will
invariably assume a supposedly
female role in sexual union. Crossing
such boundaries is an affront to the
God-ordered world. What ignores the
property rights of another man is
wrong. So, incest, rather than
guarding against genetic misfortune,
protects the patriarch's right to his
wife, because she is his property.
Though naturally a man could have
many wives, and other females
under him in his household could
also be regarded as sexual property
if he so wished.
What is unclean is
that which crosses
boundaries. Grossing
such boundaries is an
affront to the Godordered
world
Countryman's sophisticated
analysis warrants careful reading. He
boldly elucidates New Testament
principles, which emerged as critique
of and supplement to the familial,
patriarchal society governed by the
rules of the Old Testament. He then
tries to translate these in a
meaningf,ul way to Western, individualistic
society. The scope of 'sex' is
of course broad, encompassing the
deed itself, marriage, gender,
equality, education of the young and
so on. Pleasingly, Countryman
doesn't duck the issue of the preference
for celibacy expressed by Paul.
However, the work exhibits the
weakness of liberal theologr. Short
of learning Greek, how is the reader
to respond to slick interpretation?
How many academic contortions are
Dirt, Greed and Sex is
so challenging
because it throws
down the gauntlet to
Gomfortable
Ghristianity
permissible before the interpretation
the theologian requires is arrived at?
At times it comes across as just too
convenient to be true.
Other niggles? Countryman's
implication that we cannot say
something is forbidden if the Bible
does not treat of it is unimpressive,
bestiality being a surprising example.
At the least he conveniently forgets
that many at risk animals are at least
someone's property. Perhaps the
actual owner is permitted but not his
shepherds? Countryman also
suggests that physical adultery isn't
that great a deal. And then there's
Dirt, Greed and Sex I
SCM Classics | 9L2.95
p
L William Countryman
meone
$rcm