Holiness for the Obama Generation
November 27, 2009
Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America
Part of an ongoing series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America.
As the pool of candidates narrowed in the 2008 Presidential Election primaries, pundits noticed a peculiar strength in eventual victor, Barack Obama. The 47-year-old African American was perceived by many as a peacemaker who would bring an end to the so-called “Culture Wars” which had dominated American politics since the Vietnam War. Laying aside whether or not one believes this really was Obama’s intention—and to what extent he has been successful—it is remarkable that our country has reached a juncture where such a perceived intent could be a political strength.
The factors contributing to this change of public heart are diverse and disputed, but at least one underlying cause is shifting views on the nature of personal morality and societal ethics—especially amongst those voting for the first time in the 21st century. Reflecting from within the Judeo-Christian tradition, I believe we can find a fresh relevance for our ancient texts in this environment of cultural redefinition. In particular, the portrait of Holiness as defined by ritual purity, individual behavior and social justice as found in the Law passages of Exodus and Leviticus offer a unique moral vision to the upcoming post-culture war generation.
The command from God to Moses in Leviticus 19:2 “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy,” presupposes two audacious ideas:
1) that the personal decisions of an individual has lingering effects on the Holiness of the community, and
2) no amount of personal Holiness can cleanse the stain of an individual who participates in an unjust system.
These two ideas—often held as conflicting by both sides in the culture wars—demand we revisit our definition of “Holiness.” What contemporary implications exist for a text which discusses premeditated murder in the same language as the unrestrained slaughter of created animals (Lev. 17:6) or a holiness code which equates the consequences of sexual immorality (Lev. 18) with those of defrauding the poor (Lev. 19)? Is the idea of a Jubilee year—and the specific notions of Sabbath and debt forgiveness—pertinent to a society of runaway resource exploitation and restless consumption?
Obviously, one cannot lift a context-less English translation from a printed page and call it a “relevant ethic” any easier than one can create a papier-mâché rod from its pages and demand he be called “Moses.” Yet, we do the text, our traditions and ourselves a great disservice when we delegate the messages of these Pentateuchal passages merely to the realms of ancient cult or antiquated superstition. As our societies revisit the entrenched battles and political labels of previous generations, the ancient law of the Pentateuch can provide us with refreshing perspective on ageless questions.
|
||||||||||
reed
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
November 28, 2009 at 23:52
Reed,
More and more it seems to me that the Christian walk is one that attempts the dangerous path of paradox, and the paradox of the Pentuetech that you describe here is one of the big daddy paradoxes of the Bible. My problem is that while I love the passages about social justice, about Jubilee, about God’s preimminent concern for the poor, the stranger, the widow and the orphan, I hate the passages about homosexuality, and genocide, and stoning adulteress’ and about not wearing clothing made of a cotton/wool mix, and a hundred others. To quote Walter Brueggemann, “I am an arena of contestation” when it comes to the Levitical law.
November 29, 2009 at 10:12
Unfortunately even if I am diligent and can successfully post everything I want to about this topic, I don’t think I’ll be any closer to relieving the tension you describe. I think you identify a big reason we don’t talk about the Law much (not to mention it can be quite boring to read, especially without context).
However, I believe what we CAN’T do is continue lifting the passages we like from the Law (whether it be the sex stuff or the Jubilee year) whilst pretending the stuff that makes us uncomfortable simply isn’t there. This isn’t to say we should follow its letter (a ludicrous, impossible and potentially sinful idea) but I think it does mean we can ask better questions about the moral vision of the ancients who wrote this stuff down. The two audacious presuppositions I listed above, I hope, will be a good start. We can add to them the stupefying notion that 3) somehow the Law’s maintenance made the holy presence of God possible amongst his people.
November 29, 2009 at 10:32
Reed:
This is a thought-provoking post, one which should unsettle Christians on both sides of the political spectrum.
I especially liked this sentence: “What contemporary implications exist for a text which discusses premeditated murder in the same language as the unrestrained slaughter of created animals (Lev. 17:6) or a holiness code which equates the consequences of sexual immorality (Lev. 18) with those of defrauding the poor (Lev. 19)?”
Christians, it seems to me, should be both/and when it comes to political issues, not either/or. In other words, Christians should be both for just social structures and for personal responsibility, both for good business practices and for the relief of poverty, etc. The Left has taken the social side of the equation, and the Right has taken the individual side. Christians should take both.
The problem is, as James points out, that we moderns have social and ethical commitments that sit uneasily with the text of Leviticus.
So, really, there are two issues here: (1) Transcending the divisions between Left and Right and formulating a holistic Christian ethic that (2) resonates more than alienates in a modern historical context. Of course, we might add a third issue: (3) Formulating an ethic that can transcend and critique modern ethical prejudices too. We recognize the “barbarities” of the ancient Israelites. One wonders whether we recognize our own.
George
November 29, 2009 at 14:20
George,
It seems that we have all found a way to dialogue about these issues (way to go, Reed!) – and it also follows logically that if we have found a way to unite, then the apocalypse is upon us. :0)
I did want to chime in about this statement:
“Christians, it seems to me, should be both/and when it comes to political issues, not either/or. In other words, Christians should be both for just social structures and for personal responsibility, both for good business practices and for the relief of poverty, etc. The Left has taken the social side of the equation, and the Right has taken the individual side. Christians should take both.”
As much as it grates on me that the Republican party is co-opting the Evangelicals in this country (many of whom I am quite fond, for the record), it would be untoward to deny that the mainline Prostetant churches have been the platform for politcal leftists for many years now. It seems that the Spirit of God that brings unity to the body ought to also bring wise and tempered social and political discourse as well (should we call for a run on the independent platform?).
Reed,
You have articulated what I was getting at in my sardonic post about how we use the Old Testament in a very serious (and probably infinately more productive) way. Thanks, great post.
Shawn
November 29, 2009 at 15:00
I too am curious. I am especially excited to see how or if you bring Christology into the mix. If I come into the time I might venture a post along these lines about Christ as fulfiller of Law and Spirit as replacement of Law. But that would most likely not be until after the end of the semester.
November 29, 2009 at 18:03
Are you guys familiar with the theonomist movement? It’s also known as Christian reconstruction and dominionism. It’s leading thinkers were R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Douglas Wilson, etc. It is a small movement among conservative Reformed churches, but it has had an outsized influence vis-a-vis its actual numbers. Its basic thesis is that the Old Testament civil law is a blueprint for how Christians ought to influence the political and legislative structures of their countries.
The reason I mention it is because James’ comments express what many don’t like about theonomists, namely, their support of some of the less pleasant penalties of the law (e.g., stoning adulterers and whatnot). The theonomists are not pro-genocide, by the way, seeing those commandments as one-time mandates given to the nation of Israel when it entered the promised land.
By the same token, theonomists rather rigorously critique those of us who pick up on themes of the law (i.e., equity, debt forgiveness, kindness to strangers, etc.) but don’t seek to embody them in legislative codes modeled after the Old Testament’s own. This does seem to be a matter of consistency: If you’re going to use the law, do so with hermeneutical integrity; don’t just pick and choose what fits you.
So, assuming the theonomists are wrong and the OT law is not the model or blueprint for Christian attempts to influence the political and legal structures of modern society, what is a non-arbitrary hermeneutic for using the law?
November 29, 2009 at 21:26
So true George.
Tony
I’ll leave the Christological implications of Leviticus to you. The NT confounds and frustrates me lately, whereas the OT has opened up in so many lovely ways.
Shawn
Thanks. We’ll see if you feel the same way in a few posts.