The Old Testament: Leviticus IV – Leviticus and Homosexuality

Posted on March 6, 2013 by virgowriter

Since I’ve been paying attention (read: since I came out in the mid-90s), a number of public figures have denounced homosexuality in general and gays and lesbians specifically. ‘The Bible says it’s wrong,’ goes the general tenor of their comments. Interestingly enough, these people tend to do something morally questionable, like, say, hire a prostitute or get addicted to pain pills, etc. At least as reported in the media.

Then there are warm and fuzzy people like Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who has positioned her bigotry behind a PhD (not in psychiatry) and used Leviticus to justify her hate for homosexuals.

There’s a widely circulated, fantastic response to her rant. You can read it here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

This response and others like it (memorably, an episode of The West Wing, wherein President Bartlet takes a radio show host to task for using the Bible as justification for anti-homosexual rhetoric: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM) do a good job addressing how the Bible–specifically Leviticus–has been used to justify discrimination.

It’s hard to pick apart the anti-gay argument here in a fresh way (or one that is as intelligent or as amusing as the links to these two examples). I will say, however, that I still cannot understand how people blindly refer to Leviticus to justify their anti-gay agenda. I fail to realize how a person—a modern person—would do so and still willfully ignore the other laws (such as the ones cited in the examples here).

Basically: if you are going to use the Bible (or at least a book of the Bible) to support your argument, you would have to then use all of it to do so. One can’t say, “I am only referring to the parts that are correct, not the ones which are not.” Doing so suggests that the speaker has a clearer, better understanding of the rules set down than God does. So these people have better wisdom than God? They know which of the rules (kill adulterers! 20:10) should be bent or ignored and which (no gay sex! 18:22) should be honored?

Out of all the versions of the arguments against homosexuality which use Leviticus, I have never heard a retort like this one: This book of the Bible—any book, actually—can’t outlaw something that didn’t yet exist (i.e. homosexuality as an identity). Outlawing gay sex is not the same thing as outlawing homosexuality. To make this clearer: A celibate gay man is still gay. The people who see gay sex and homosexuality as one in the same don’t understand it. Being gay is an identity. Having gay sex is perhaps one expression of that identity but not all people who have gay sex identify as homosexuals—whether some of these people are in the closet is a different matter.

But here’s a history lesson that puts this point in context: although homosexual sex has been around as long as humans have, people did not identify as homosexuals until 1895, as a result of the infamous trials of Oscar Wilde (wherein he was convicted for indecent acts with other males). During the public trial, his mannerism—seen as effeminate—were connected to the explicit sexual details discussed as evidence. Since he was part of the upper class and exhibited affected mannerisms, people then saw his behavior connected with the sex: thus was born the gay stereotypes that have become ingrained in our perception of stereotypical homosexuality. Since then, people started identifying as gay. (If you want to read up on this, check out Alan Sinfield’s The Wilde Century.)

Therefore, although gay sex appears here and there in the Bible thus far, people weren’t “gay” as we know them to be today. Therefore, outlawing that as an identity could not have happened.

Even still, how anyone could still cling to this rule is beyond me. If they’ve read Leviticus recently, they would have to deal with everything else that is there, starting with making sacrifices for sins. Since I don’t hear about a lot of livestock being slain in order for people to atone, I assume this does not happen. I also don’t think there is a standing understanding of how to deal with your child if she becomes a prostitute (if you’re a priest and this happens, she is to be burned 21:9).

We are a modern society and we just don’t do these things. And if some of the examples I mention here are ridiculous, why isn’t the rest of what is put down in this list of laws? Why not treat Leviticus for what it is: a genuine attempt to get things in line FOR THAT ERA? Do people really want to go back to living the way people did back then?

The book of Numbers is up next. I’m guessing this is involves some way to pick your lottery numbers, but this is probably way off.

Posted in Leviticus | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Old Testament: Leviticus III – Priests: The Jacks of All Trades

Posted on March 3, 2013 by virgowriter

I don’t have much interaction with priests (that I know of).  However, outside of noting a collar, I think I would notice a priest by his (or in some cases her) demeanor: friendly, congenial, warm; the kind of person who looks you in the eye while you speak; a person who is open minded to your doubts and willing to answer any and all of your religious questions. Even life questions. Though, to be honest, there have been times when I’ve said hello to a priest who was connected to a family member of mine and detected in his eyes a sparkle of sympathy, as if he was thinking, ah, yes, you’re the gay one; we’ve had conversations about you, and you should know, there’s always time….

But anyway, in general, my sense is that this is a low stress type of job, in part because a person is doing what he or she loves.  They are aligned with people’s joy and pain, happiness and heartache, accompanying them through life’s trying and empowering moments. But of course, low stress doesn’t mean easy. Basically, low stress at times, but not for the faint of heart.

Leviticus, however, paints a different picture of priests, and they had a whole lot more on their plate than I could have ever imagined.

They were expected to be perfect in their Tabernacle overseer/ceremony conductor duties.  Slipping from these VERY high standards resulted in death.  This alone would raise the stress level.  But their duties didn’t end there.  According to Leviticus, they seemed to be responsible for just about every major decision their community faced. According to this book, this involved assessing the severity of various skin conditions and mildew.

They appeared to be the only persons trusted to discern the severity of skin rashes—apparently, quite prevalent at the time.  They determined whether or not a person would be quarantined.

And who knew mold was such a large issue back then?  Turns out, if you suspected a problem, the priest was the one who determined the scope of the issue, provided a way to deal with it, and/or determined whether or not your home should remain standing.

Talk about pressure.  This isn’t like telling people they need to reevaluate their life or perhaps get a different job.  If they made the wrong call, a person or even a community could be in serious peril.  If a skin rash or sore was worse than determined, someone else might pick it up, etc.  Think the mold problem could be handled and they were wrong—bye bye house and perhaps the inhabitants.  And if it spread… This had to involve a great deal of stress.  Unless they were like modern health care providers and erred on the side of caution constantly—nope, let’s quarantine you, just to be on the safe side.  Eh, tear the house down, you never know…

I appreciate just how important the position within the community a priest held.  But seriously, how could they accomplish all of these tasks? How many hours were in their day? It does speak well of them, however, to have believed in their work so deeply that they assumed such responsibility.  Maybe this explains why they deserved the choicest cuts of meat during the atonement rituals.

Posted in Leviticus | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Old Testament: Leviticus II – Mistakes and Uncleanliness

Posted on March 1, 2013 by virgowriter

I was a messy, disorganized kid.  I bathed on a regular basis and my clothes were clean, but the people who know me well will be perhaps surprised to learn that my bedroom was usually a disaster zone.  You had to watch where you stepped and you had to work hard to find empty space on any visible surface (like my dresser). This drove Dad crazy and he would order me to clean my room often.  I was fine with this, for cleaning was a snap: I would take my hand and slide everything behind the dresser.  There, out of sight.  Clean.

This system worked fine for me.  Dad, on the other hand, had assumed I had done what he’d asked, but when he noticed my understanding of cleaning up he would explode.  I’d made the mistake of 1) not doing a good enough job cleaning up and 2) not taking my father all that seriously.  I wasn’t trying to get my father stirred up—no human being would ever willfully push him until his anger surfaced (trust me)—I probably just didn’t see the point.  Still, Dad kept trying.  He probably assumed I’d get it right eventually.

Dad’s a clean, organized person (as is Mom), and so I think it baffled him that his son was anything but.  It took years for me to learn to pick up after myself but I eventually towed the line.  Maybe my Virgo traits were just being stubborn, taking their time to surface.

It’s a good thing I wasn’t making mistakes like these during the time of Leviticus. It seems like it wouldn’t be a book of the Old Testament without angry God surfacing.

Just ask Aaron and his two sons.  Nadab and Abilu mess up some steps in one of their rituals before God. What exactly they do is unclear. He kills them anyway. Seems hard to learn your lesson if you’re not around to do differently. But then if you can be stricken down for making an error, I might not test the waters. Maybe this is why Aaron seems to have NO reaction to this. Really? I’m trying to picture my father in the same situation and seeing a different result.

But following the ritual isn’t something the average person worried about—their heads were full of worrying about what they could and couldn’t eat (animals with split, completely divided hoofs, chews own cud, yes; sea creatures with fins and scales, yes; pork, no) and when they could have sex with women (i.e. NOT during the seven days she was menstruating, a time when she was “unclean”). In fact, women were to be avoided altogether when they were “unclean.” (Good thing we have revised this mentality.  Can you imagine women calling out of work one week every month for being “unclean”?)

In fact, perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to adhere to all of these policies, God made sure people understood that when they made mistakes and touched the wrong animal or a woman when she was “unclean,” they were only shunned for a short period—they would be “unclean” until evening (11:25).  I’m sure the priests wished they’d been so lucky when it came to their mistakes.

If the earlier books of the Old Testament made clear how violent society was back then, Leviticus reminds you—at length—how dirty everyone and just about everything was.  Seriously.  It’s hard to avoid reaching for your bottle of Purell while reading this section.

If I were a pig during this time, though, I would have been thrilled. But the more you think about these rules—keeping them in context—it’s clear as to why: sanitary reasons.  Since pigs carried more diseases than the other animals allowed, they were banned all together.  Sure, perhaps you could have cautioned people about proper cooking, etc.  But some things never change.  People tend to have thick heads when told to do something. So no pork. Not to eat or touch.  And apparently, you had to watch out for people with semen stains on their clothes (22:4).

I get why people would be reluctant to touch certain things. I don’t, however, understand why the testicles of the livestock offered for atonement had to be in good shape (22:24).  This seems like ensuring that the transmission on a car has been inspected and tuned up right before you demolish it.

One of the great things about being a kid—and perhaps an adult—in our culture is that you can experiment, make mistakes.  This is how we learn.  But kids need limits—and this is why some things are off limits.  You also need to know that perfection is rarely—if ever—obtained.

But since so many of the laws set down along with the Ten Commandments demand compassion and understanding, it seems strange that such intolerance would surround rituals here. Can’t adults be afforded SOME leeway?  Also: given how specific these rules are, I don’t know how people lived without constant fear—how could you NOT mess up? And when you did, there was no father who could stand up for you; rather, you went right to jail, did not pass go—automatically guilty. And I thought having to pick up after myself when I was a kid a big deal.

Posted in Leviticus | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment