Even though I am a Buddhist, I offer the following essay in an attempt to make some useful comments about the book in the Bible known as Leviticus. Specifically, I hope to inspire debate concerning how Leviticus bans homosexual relationships. But first, I want to offer a few biblical observations above and beyond Leviticus. These should serve as food for thought, my attempt to prep you (i.e., soften you up) for what follows.
Food for thought
ONE: Before the Creation, there was only God, and He was perfect. After the Creation, sin arose; therefore, God created sin. Or maybe the pre-Creation God wasn't perfect, and His action of creation was an attempt to take His imperfections and place them outside of Himself, to reside (as it were) in that which He created which of course was not part of Himself.
THREE: We speak of the Gift of Life. But obviously this "gift" was given to something that was not yet alive. It was given to inanimate matter which, nonetheless, was part of God's Creation, a Creation which He declared was "very good." Once alive, however, sin and damnation become possible. After which the sinner might well long for his original state of being before he was given the "gift" of life. Also, this gift could not be appreciated until it had been bestowed. This seems to indicate that being alive brings with it an appreciation of this status. Rather than "appreciation," I would call it a prejudice.
Of course, Buddhists sidestep this by regarding everything in the universe as not only being alive but also having the potential of attaining Buddhahood. I hasten to add: By "being alive," I don't mean merely having the potential of manifesting life but that life force itself is already contained within everything ranging from stars to atoms.
FOUR: When Moses first brought the Ten Commandments to the Jews, he destroyed the tablets upon which they were written by God Himself. And Moses did this out of anger at the idolatrous behavior he saw his tribesmen engaging in. To me this is strange, since Moses had no way of knowing God would give him a replacement set. Let's be very clear about this: Moses took it upon himself, in a fit of anger, to destroy something holy (that is, written by God Himself) which was intended by God to be given to the Jews. That should call into question Moses's claim to leadership, and cause all of us to gravely question just exactly who he was.
FIVE: Here I quote the Second Commandment:
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children of the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Based on that first sentence, what are we supposed to do? Destroy all statues in all of the art museums of the world, since they are "carved images?" Destroy all paintings of persons, places, or things since they are "likeness[es] of anything that is...[on?] the earth beneath?" To be sure, the second sentence merely tells us not to "bow down to them or serve them." But that doesn't tell us we can't appreciate their beauty.
General Petraeus
There are haters out there who quote Leviticus to show that God (to put it mildly) disapproves of homosexuality. However, I doubt these same people would urge that General Petraeus be put to death for his adulterous affair with Paula Broadwell who, also according to Leviticus, should also be put to death. If someone is going to cite Leviticus, they shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, while ignoring passages that could harm a great American patriot. From Leviticus Chapter 20 (KJV):
[13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[10] And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Bishop Gene Robinson
Gene Robinson was elevated to the rank of Bishop by the Episcopal Church in the United States, as the result of votes taken by laity and clergy. This was done with all parties being aware of Robinson's active and declared homosexuality.
A few weeks ago, on Channel 11 (WTTW) in Chicago, I saw a late night special on this man. And I admit to being impressed by what I saw. However, also featured was a lay woman who was eligible to vote on whether gay marriage ceremonies should be allowed in Episcopalian churches in the US. Tearfully, she had to say no because it seemed to violate scripture (that is, Leviticus). After the special was over, I realized that nobody had attempted to address the Levitican prohibition. That is, no one tried to reinterpret what was "really" meant by Leviticus 20:13 (cited above).
But, to be fair, neither did that crying woman insist that Gene Robinson be put to death. To be consistent, she should have, considering this is what Lev. 20:13 commands.
I do, however, believe that the Episcopalians, at least as reflected in this TV program, did not address what seems to be a no-doubt-about-it Biblical prohibition. And I fault them for this oversight.
Sir Elton John, the Abominable(?)
Time out: The definition of abomination: Something that causes extreme disgust and hatred or loathing.
Elton John has been one of the most enduring figures in pop music for four decades, having sold 250 million records. I dare say, when his fans go to see him in concert, they're not thinking, "There's a faggot who should be stoned to death." They do not feel the sense of abomination which Leviticus would freely bestow. I, for one, don't feel this sense toward him or toward anyone else for that matter.
In fact, given the fact that Elton John was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II should surely indicate that she didn't find him to be an "abomination." So I have to wonder: "If the Queen, Elton John's fans, and all others who are accepting of gays are supposedly created in God's image (and therefore sharing God's values) don't find all gays to be abominations, how did we all manage to drift so far from the spirit of Leviticus?"
Was that spirit, at least insofar as gays are concerned, an abomination? Specifically, a reflection of the prejudices of Moses who felt he could add his own laws, while claiming they came from God? Maybe people are coming to see what a fraud Moses was? After all, we're far more accepting of gays than ever before, even allowing them to get married in some states and countries. It's easy to hate what we don't understand. But as we got to know gays, directly or indirectly, we could see they were capable of love for each other. And that is what became important, rather that Moses's personal opinion.
Dealing with scripture
Rule # 1: Just because "it is written" doesn't bestow validity.
In my own tradition as a Buddhist, it is written that the Buddha never lies. However, within what he claims to be his foremost teaching (The Lotus Sutra), there are several instances in which he did lie - and obviously so. He had asked his disciples in more or less these words, after offering these lies, "Can it be said that I have been guilty of telling a lie?" To which his disciples answered, No. However, it is obvious to me that he did lie and, most importantly, expected his disciples to call him on this. No teacher worthy of the title expects his disciples to always go along with him; dissent is expected and is necessary for the attainment of Buddhahood for the disciples.
I make this claim after having read aloud the entire Lotus Sutra (Burton Watson's 326-page English translation) well over 150 times. Perhaps I am wrong in my conclusions, but I am more than ready to present my case to any who would disagree.
My spiritual practice and resulting views have caused me to declare: "I am now a member of a Buddhist sect that has exactly one member and one leader - and they are one and the same - which would be me. And I'm not recruiting."
The Buddha spoke of acquiring wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, which is to me something that far transcends scripture. Anyone who acquires even a piece of this wisdom is entirely free to discard any scripture that contradicts this universal wisdom. Go for it!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for U.S. President in 2008 and 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
"If we're to advance spiritually, we have to call our leaders to a higher standard - and that includes patriarchs past and present" - Steve.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment