Holiness

What I'm Reading Today: Leviticus 18-20

Today's reading contains some of the most familiar (and most misused!) words in all of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament. In the debate regarding the rights of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) individuals, for instance, some individuals have used Leviticus 18 over and over as their primary reason it's okay to deny LGB individuals their basic human rights. Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent" (The Message). That is perhaps the most familiar passage in today's reading.

Many of the same individuals who quote Leviticus 18:22 in the debate over LGB people COMPLETELY ignore Leviticus 19:33 in the debate over the rights of "illegal aliens". Leviticus 19:33 reads: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born" (NIV).

So what are we to make of the 630 laws contained in the holiness codes? Are the edicts simply words intended for us to pick and choose to meet our personal agendas?

No. I don't think that's it at all.

"If not, then what's the purpose of those words?" you might wonder.

Well, I think the answer to that question lies in Leviticus 20:7. That verse reads: "Set yourselves apart for a holy life. Live a holy life, because I am God, your God."

To use a concept I talked about earlier this week, I tend to think of holiness more in light of righteousness (i.e. right relationship) more than I do in light of purity (i.e. right behavior). To use the passages I quoted above, does abstaining from same sex behavior automatically mean a person is in right relationship with God and others. No. Does treating a foreigner well automatically mean that you are exhibiting healthy relationship with God and others? No. You could simply be profiting from the foreigner by using the foreigner as a source of cheap labor. In other words, I believe living into a sense of holiness is much more complicated that most folks on talk radio who toss around passages from Leviticus would like us to believe.

Today, I would invite you to think about the issue of holiness? Do you define it primarily in relationship to behavior, or do you view it more in light of one's relationship with God and others?

Til next time?

Scapegoats

What I'm Reading Today: Leviticus 16-17

Contained within today's chapters from Leviticus lies the origins of the concept we know today as scapegoat. "When Aaron finishes making atonement for the Holy of Holies, the Tent of Meeting, and the Altar," the passage explains, "he will bring up the live goat, lay both hands on the live goat's head, and confess all the iniquities of the People of Israel, all their acts of rebellion, all their sins. He will put all the sins on the goat's head and send it off into the wilderness, led out by a man standing by and ready. The goat will carry all their iniquities to an empty wasteland; the man will let him loose out there in the wilderness."

Some folks might listen to this verbiage and say, "What a strange and unusual concept for a primitive people to practice!"

I don't think the concept itself is all that strange and unusual. And I definitely don't think the practice is all that primitive. I say that because here in the United States we have a similar practice in which we engage. The only difference between the way we and the early Israelites engage in the practice is that we don't use a goat – we use our elected officials to serve as our scapegoats.

Every so often, we gather in voting booths; assign blame; and then send the designated scapegoats off into the wilderness in hopes that the act will absolve us collectively of our responsibility for the problems we are facing. We hope the next batch of elected officials will meet our expectations. When they don't, we simply repeat the cycle all over again just 2 years later.

Lost in the process of sending out the goat/elected officials into the wilderness is important soul searching about the ways in which we have contributed to the problems we face.

Today, I would invite us all to examine the circumstances of our lives (and the condition of our world) and ask ourselves, "Are there situations in which I have preferred to identify a single scapegoat on which to heep the blame in order to absolve myself of all responsibility?" If you find such a situation, use that awareness as an opportunity to step in and break the cycle of blaming. See what you can do yourself to restore health and vitality to the systems in which you participate.

Til next time …

Individual & Community

What I'm Reading Today: Leviticus 13-15

Every Election Day I grow a little nostalgic because it takes me back to the year 1998 when I ran for the Washington State House of Representatives (the equivalent of California's State Assembly). I had been a political junkie since I was 12 – so the experience of running for office was quite an adventure!

There were so many lessons I learned from that experience. One of them had to do with the important of balancing the needs of an individual with the needs of a larger group/community. Let me tell you a story about how I learned that lesson.

Very early in my campaign, a woman got involved with my campaign. For the sake of anonymity I'll call the woman Susan. I knew early on that Susan had very strong feelings for me. She knew I was gay, but on some level it never seemed to register with her. As a result, she sought out every opportunity possible for us to be together.

I have never in my life seen someone as devoted to an effort as Susan was. She poured hundreds of hours into the campaign. While I always tried to be careful and certainly do nothing to lead her on, I also never directly confronted Susan about the situation.

As time passed, I was confused why the campaign wasn't generating more volunteers. I occasionally talked about it with Susan (who by now was the campaign's volunteer coordinator), and she said she couldn't figure it out either.

While we had a great run and a respectable showing, my biggest regret from the experience was that we never were able to get the number of volunteers I had hoped for.

After the election, I learned why that was.

Susan would tell many potential volunteers that their help wasn't needed; we had the work covered. "If we ever had a need for your help," she would say, "I'll get back to you."

She didn't.

Throughout the months of the campaign, she used the lack of volunteers as an excuse to create time for us to be together.

What I learned from this experience is that by not dealing with one person's issues (and accompanying behavior), I was not only being irresponsible. That's because one person's issues can be so deep that they affect the life of many others. A good leader knows that and deals with that. I wasn't a good leader - as I chose the path of least resistance and tried to look the other way.

In this day and age that emphasizes the supreme importance of the individual; it's so easy to forget the basic truth that one life often affects the wellbeing of others. That's why it can be so important to deal with individual circumstances. If you don't, the situation can get out of hand and impact the lives of others.

That message comes through loud and clear in today's reading where we read a long list of ways to deal with situations where one individual becomes ritually unclean. As you read about the various situations, it eventually becomes clear that the author(s)' goal isn't simply to isolate one person during their time he or she is unclean; rather, the goal is to ensure the individual's issues don't spill over and infect the condition of others.

I would invite you to carry that learning with you today. When you encounter situations with individuals that are challenging, be aware that the situation has implications that will touch the lives of others. Use that awareness to inform your response to the situation.

Til next time …

Purity & Righteousness

What I'm Reading Today: Leviticus 11 & 12

When I was in seminary, I learned an important lesson about two different streams that were contained in aspects of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament.

The first stream had to do with the pursuit of purity. The emphasis of such passages had to do with preventing individuals from coming into contact with those things that would defile the individual's body or mind. If you did (or in some cases, did not) do certain things, you were considered pure; if you did not (or in some cases - did) other things, you were considered impure. Once lines were crossed, very specific rituals had to be performed in order to restore an individual to a condition of purity.

One of the primary characteristics of such passages is that they are incredibly directive since everything was black and white. If you touched an object, you were impure: so DON'T touch it. If you did not wash your hands after encountering an object, you were impure: so WASH YOUR HANDS. That's the way passages dealing with issues of purity were handled.

The second stream of Scripture had to do with the pursuit of righteousness. This stream has a very different feel to it. Instead of being linked to a physical condition like purity, passages focusing on righteousness had to do with a state of being – or perhaps I could say - a quality of the heart.

You might, for instance, not touch a forbidden object (meaning you were pure) – but in your heart you are consumed with lust or desire for the object (meaning you aren't exactly righteous).

Issues of righteousness are much more complex for an individual because they involve one's inner life. Those issues prevent complexities for the community since it is difficult for one person to make judgments about issues involving righteousness involving another since they can't fully know the heart of the other person.

Lots of Jesus teaching tended to emphasize the latter stream of Scripture – the emphasis upon righteousness. One of the best examples would be Jesus' teaching about adultery. There Jesus suggested a person might not actually physically commit and adulterous act (meaning the individual is still technically "pure") – but if the person looks at another with lust, the person is in dangerous territory. Same with Jesus' teaching on killing. You might not actually have taken someone's life, but if you have hatred in your heart toward another, you are on shaky ground.

If we are not careful, we can lose ourselves in the academic aspect of the discussion/debate between purity and righteousness and forget what really matters: both streams of Scripture were intended to draw us into a healthier relationship with God. They simply represent different approaches to getting there.

Today, I would ask you which stream you find yourself identifying with/gravitating toward. Are you someone who focuses on right relationship with God as established through the principles of purity, or do you seek right relationship more through the principles of righteousness?

Til next time …