Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury --
http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday .
A free verse poem based on Genesis 19:12-26
Her role in history is summed up by 12 Old Testament words:
"But Lot's wife looked back and she became a pillar of salt."
Just 12 words.
One sentence.
A whole life!
In the New Testament Jesus summed her up too
with the second shortest verse in the Bible:
"Remember Lot's wife." (Luke 17:32)
Just three words.
Why should we "remember Lot's wife?"
Why not "remember Sarah."
or "remember Esther"
or "remember Deborah"
Jesus said, "remember Lot's wife."
For what did Jesus want us to remember her?
What kind of lady was she?
We do not even know her name.
Just "Lot's wife."
Most woman don't like to be known as a "wife."
They'd rather be known as themselves...
Not as a tagalong, or Tonto
So we're seeing the disappearance of "Mrs."
And "First lady" or "Pastor's wife."
Women prefer being a whole person,
not as a half-couple.
I don't know how Lot's wife would feel about this.
It would be better if we knew her name.
We could say, "Remember Edith"
or "Remember Lois"
or Remember Amber."
Instead, all we have is "Lot's wife."
Then again,
Maybe that's exactly what she was.
"A wife."
Maybe she was one of those women
whose only goal in life
is to be a wife and mother.
If so, she failed at both.
She was a poor wife,
and a worse mother.
How did her life turn out so badly?
It was certainly not her intention.
Can you imagine a wife and mother
wanting to destroy her family
and leave behind a bad example for all to remember.
Almost 40 centuries later?
Certainly she planned for better.
Like all wives, she must have started out
with better hopes.
To really make something out of her husband,
so overshadowed by his Uncle Abraham.
Perhaps she saw potential there.
And, hoped to help him succeed.
And what of her daughters.
What new mother doesn't
want the best for her daughters?
To get the opportunities she never had.
To make something of themselves.
To go on and get their education,
succeed!
Certainly Lot's wife must have hoped for these things.
But she was a failure as wife and mother.
And she is remembered only as a failure.
Jesus even reminds us to remember her failure.
How did this happen?
What ruined her example?
A simple family decision.
And, what was that important decision?
Was it which God to serve?
Which doctrine to believe?
Some great theological issue?
What momentous decision destroyed this woman's witness?
The decision about where to live.
A simple family decision.
We all make them:
Should we live in the country or the city?
Should we stay in this apartment, or buy a house?
Should we buy a house or build our own?
Should we fix up an old house or build a new one?
Should we move nearer our work or stay here?
Should we just stay here and add on to this house?
Simple decisions.
Family decisions.
Ordinary decisions.
But where Lot and his wife went wrong.
Was in making a simple family decision wrongly.
They ignored the massive moral consequences imbedded in
a simple decision about where to live.
How did Lot and his wife make this decision?
Did they pray about it?
How did Lot decide where to live.
Did he even ask his wife?
If he did, we don't know what she said.
But her later action hints at what she might have said.
Maybe they took that day's equivalent of a legal pad
and jotted down the pros and cons.
Did they consider the educational angle?
The thriving city of Sodom
offered an enriched educational advantage
for their two daughters.
Chalk one vote up for Sodom.
What kind of education could they get
wandering around the academically deprived mountains
With sheep and goats?
Did they consider the material angle?
They were already rich.
After all that's why they were splitting with Abraham.
Both were too rich for one area.
But, beside rich, there's rich-er.
What good is wealth in the wilderness.
The value of wealth is in the spending. Consumption.
They could take their wealth they earned as shepherds
and leverage it to make some really big bucks in Sodom.
And, maybe even of greater consequence,
in Sodom there were *houses*, not just drafty dusty tents.
And there were shops,
supplies,
silks,
entertainment,
dining out...
shopping malls!
Sodom was clearly the best choice materially.
Make that two votes for Sodom.
Perhaps they considered job advancement.
How far can you climb the ladder in the wilderness?
In Sodom Lot could rise up in the world.
maybe become a leader,
perhaps even get on the town council.
Her wandering husband,
Abraham's Tonto,
might become the leading citizen
of such a town.
Now wouldn't that be a good witness for God?
Sodom made good sense materially.
One more vote for Sodom.
Or maybe they considered the move socially.
The isolated mountains were lonely.
Perhaps Lot's wife was going cabin crazy,
at least tent crazy.
She hungered for social companionship.
To be with other women...
go to a carry-in dinner,
a class party,
have a neighbor over for coffee.
Things you don't do in the wilderness.
Was she tired of boring sameness?
same Lot
same two daughters
same hired hands.
Same sheep, same goats, same tent,
same, same, same.
Cooped up.
Lonesome.
Lonely.
In Sodom there would be people!
Lots of people.
Hustle. Bustle. Busy people.
Other women to visit,
women to talk with at the well.
maybe a women's Bible study to join.
Beside all this,
there were her daughters' social lives to consider.
They'd be a marriageable age soon.
What kind of mother would hide
her beautiful daughters in the mountains
with no fine men around
except hired hands?
Score: Sodom 4, wilderness 0.
Who knows what other angles they considered?
We don't even know if they thought about these.
But if they did,
you can see why they "pitched their tent toward Sodom"
then later moved into a pleasant modern house
inside Sodom,
and finally
wound up
becoming Sodom's leading citizens.
So, what was wrong with their decision?
Aren't educational, and material factors important?
What's wrong with considering career advancement
or social life
in making a family move?
Nothing.
It is what Lot and his wife left out
of their decision-making process:
they left out spiritual values.
Lot and his wife made what appeared to be a sensible choice.
A practical family decision with grave moral consequences.
They just failed to consider
the spiritual results of their choice.
What good is a fine education for your daughters
if they wind up sexually seducing your husband?
What good is material advancement
if it all gets destroyed by fire anyway?
What good is a varied and exciting social life
if your daughters get engaged to godless men?
What good is climbing the career ladder
if it leads to spiritual coolness and compromise?
These were the factors the Lots
failed to weigh carefully.
So, Lot's wife was seduced by the good life.
What she missed figuring was
how powerful an attraction
the good life would have on her.
The *good life* satisfied something...
It met an inner craving,
fulfilled a deep hunger in her life...
to have,
to hold,
to live well,
to be comfortable,
to be secure,
....is this too much to ask?
So, Lot's wife moved into Sodom.
And gradually
almost imperceptibly
Sodom got a grip on her.
Her mind set became secularized.
Her values materialistic.
When two angels warn of the coming destruction
she will not believe it.
She cannot leave it.
The angels must take them by the hand
and force them out of the city.
But she is now safe,
for the moment.
A woman forcefully dragged away
from everything she owned.
Everything she had worked for, all these years.
Her house,
garden,
flowers,
back yard,
friends,
stature in the community,
her furniture,
dishes,
fine clothing.
It is all going up in smoke.
One of the angels warns,
"Flee for your lives!
Don't look back."
But it is a useless warning
to Lot's wife.
Her fear of God is gone.
She now loves the good life
more than the Godly life.
Her heart is in Sodom,
Her eyes follow her heart.
She
looks
back!
And... She is frozen...
into a pillar of salt.
And, almost 2000 years later Jesus will say,
"Remember Lot's wife."
To remind us that
a simple family decision can have grave moral consequences.
And,
that, when you move into Sodom
Sodom has a way
of moving into you.
So what do you think?
To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to
Tuesday@indwes.eduBy Keith Drury, 1989. You are free to transmit, duplicate or distribute this article for non-profit use without permission.