Discussion Questions
Glenn says his main burden is “accuracy,” because “a bad interpretation can lead to a miscarriage of justice, with the innocent being convicted and the guilty set free”; where have you seen the story of Lot used to “convict the innocent” or “set the guilty free,” and what specific doctrinal or moral conclusions get distorted when Lot is assumed to be a villain? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen people use Lot’s story in a way that blames the innocent or excuses the guilty? What key beliefs or moral lessons get twisted when we assume Lot is the “bad guy”?
Glenn argues that key lessons (discipleship, evangelism, intercession, conflict resolution) “will be forgotten or ignored” if we don’t see Lot “in a positive light”; what lessons from Genesis 13–19 become unavailable if Lot is treated as a cautionary tale only, and what lessons become unavoidable if Peter’s “righteous Lot” claim is taken at face value? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Lot is only a warning example, what lessons from Genesis 13–19 do we miss? If we accept Peter’s words about “righteous Lot,” what lessons become hard to ignore?
The interview lists five “modern” explanations for why Lot is called righteous (late repentance, lower expectations, God/Peter “forgetting” Sodom, and especially “imputed righteousness”); which of these explanations have you personally leaned on, and what does Glenn’s rejection of them expose about modern evangelical instincts regarding grace, obedience, and moral evaluation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which “modern” reason for calling Lot righteous have you tended to use (late repentance, low standards, forgetting Sodom, imputed righteousness, etc.)? If Glenn rejects these, what does that reveal about how many evangelicals think about grace, obedience, and judging someone’s life?
Glenn says the “broad consensus of history” for many centuries viewed Lot favorably, and that this surprised him; what does it say about the church’s drift that so many today read Lot the opposite way, and what might early Christians have assumed about righteousness that we struggle to assume? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If many Christians in the past saw Lot in a positive way, what does it say about the church today that many read him as the opposite? What view of “righteousness” might early Christians have had that we struggle to accept?
Glenn appeals to a roughly 800-year span of Jewish and Christian sources (Philo, Josephus, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Jubilees, Fathers) and argues oral tradition can be stable—especially with a complex, interconnected story plus a written anchor in Genesis; what criteria should a serious Christian use to weigh extra-biblical tradition without treating it as “canon,” and where do you feel the pull toward either skepticism or credulity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should Christians judge Jewish and Christian traditions outside the Bible without treating them like Scripture? Do you tend to distrust those traditions too quickly, or believe them too easily?
Glenn claims, “If Peter only had Genesis, then I don’t think that he could have said some of the things that he said,” especially that Lot’s soul was “vexed/tormented” in Sodom; how does this challenge the way you think about the apostles’ use of received tradition/history, and what does it imply about how early Christians expected Scripture to be read alongside communal memory? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Peter needed more than Genesis to say Lot was “tormented” in Sodom, what does that suggest about how the apostles used shared history and tradition? How might early Christians have expected Scripture to be read along with the community’s memory?
Regarding the land-choice dispute, Glenn says it’s wrong to claim Lot got the “better” land because Abram remained in the “promised land,” “the glory of all lands,” and God reaffirms, “Everything that you see is your land”; how does this reframe the common accusation that Lot was purely materialistic, and what does it teach about evaluating “wise” choices when God’s promises—not visible advantages—define what is truly “best”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Abram stayed in the promised land and God said it was truly the best, how does that change the claim that Lot was only greedy? What does it teach about making “wise” choices when God’s promises matter more than what looks good?
Glenn says ancient writers depict a shift: Lot was Abram’s disciple, became “disgruntled,” but after Abram rescued him from captivity Lot became “a changed man,” seeing that his injustices were repaid with Abram’s good; where in your life is there a need for this kind of “victorious discipleship,” and how does Abram’s treatment of Lot confront modern patterns of cutting people off, labeling them, or keeping score? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you need the kind of change that comes from being loved and led well, like Lot after Abram rescued him? How does Abram’s kindness challenge our habit of cutting people off, slapping labels on them, or keeping score?
On Genesis 19:8, Glenn argues Lot’s “offer” of his daughters was rhetorical—not a real exchange—because the daughters were already betrothed, the mob’s reaction (“Stop judging us”) signals moral appeal, and their threat against Lot would be irrational if he were “giving in”; what parts of Glenn’s argument feel persuasive or strained to you, and what does this debate reveal about how much “context” we require before condemning a biblical figure as evil? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which parts of Glenn’s case—that Lot’s offer of his daughters was not a real trade—seem strong to you, and which seem weak? What does this debate show about how much context we should seek before calling a Bible character evil?
Glenn presents Lot as an example for believers living “uncorrupted in the world,” even calling him “salt to Sodom,” and the interview ends with an Anabaptist prison letter urging believers not to “look back to Sodom”; what concrete practices (hospitality, moral appeal, separation without withdrawal, resisting “love of this world”) would have marked Lot’s household in Sodom, and what would those same practices look like in your community without sliding into either assimilation or isolation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Lot was meant to live clean in a corrupt place, what daily habits would that have taken in Sodom (like hospitality, moral courage, and not loving the world)? What would those same habits look like in your community without blending in too much or cutting yourself off?