Doing a Hank Snow

Before going on to become a federal Member of Parliament, Randy White was the secretary/treasurer of the Abbotsford (BC) school district, where I am a school trustee, in the 1980s and early 1990s. He was a wonderfully funny man who was a treat to spend time with in relaxed situations.

In the year before he went to Ottawa, Randy and I attended the Canadian School Boards Association annual conference in St. John, New Brunswick. I don't think I ever laughed so much in my life as during those four or five days we were together. Randy had lived in St. John during his high school years, and he took me around to see all his old haunts. He also explained to me some of the local vernacular.

"When you wanted to turn back in the direction you came from", Randy explained with his Maritime accent, "you would do a Hank Snow." Randy had no explanation for this odd reference to that old Canadian crooner (Snow was born in Nova Scotia). But to prove to me that he was right, he later told a taxi driver to do a Hank Snow. The man immediately made a U-turn, laughing while he did it.

Today, of course, we would more likely say something like, "Do a 180", referring to a change in the opposite direction. 

What I will briefly explore in this post is whether the Levitical laws and other legal material in the Old Testament (including the rejection of homosexuality) carried through to the New, or whether the biblical writers of Jesus' period did a Hank Snow. Or was something else at work?

The Israelites of the period depicted in Leviticus and its companion books (the latter part of Genesis, along with Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) were not a people with a particular culture. A collection of small families related by blood when they departed Canaan for Egypt in Gen. 46 and following, they returned to the Promised Land one or a few centuries later (depending on whose dating you accept) a much larger group, in most ways indistinguishable from the surrounding ancient near eastern peoples. It is not likely that all (or even most) of them were monotheistic, and few would have had much idea of how being followers of Yahweh (or Jehovah) would make them in any way unique.

What we see in the latter four books of the Pentateuch (the Books of Moses, the opening five books of the Old Testament), is God carving out of the prevailing culture a people for himself. Having taken the Israelites out of Egypt, he now proceeded to take Egypt out of the Israelites.

God accomplished this through the towering presence of Moses, along with brother Aaron and sister Miriam; the promulgation of the Ten Commandments as that which would distinguish their worldview from that of other peoples; the establishment of a system of worship and the rituals that would be associated with its practice; and a series of laws and institutions to regulate everyday life. In most cases, these laws focused on the external--appearance, appropriate relationships, even allowable foods and textiles. We considered many of these in earlier posts.

While in many cases mystifying to us now, beneath these seemingly strange and even arbitrary directions and restrictions one can discern a principled foundation, even though this moral logic was not spelled out in so many words. In no particular order, such principles included:

• The sanctity of the family unit as the building block of society.
• A culture characterized by justice (distributive, restorative, and retributive) and the rule of law.
• Letting punishment fit the crime.
• Life balance.
• Personal integrity.
• An organic relationship among the Israelite people.
• Wholesome relationships; i.e. a fellow Israelite was never to be exploited in any fashion as a means of achieving self-gratification--whether sexually, economically, or politically.
• Loving others as one would oneself.
• Worship that was sincere, not ritualistic or perfunctory.

These principles were applied in somewhat embryonic fashion in those early days; for instance, the equality of men and women, or of masters and slaves, was only distantly reflected in those ancient laws. Some of the restrictions were shaped by practices in the surrounding culture that were to be discarded for reasons we can't necessarily understand now (e.g., not cooking a goat in its mother's milk for consumption purposes in Deut. 14:21). Slavery was still condoned, although in a humanitarian way that surrounding peoples would find ridiculous.

But what the Israelites received, by and large, were not the principles but only the applications of those principles, often quite limited in the extent of their application, and typically contrasting with surrounding peoples and their own practices that were inimical to the new culture that God wanted to establish and then develop. God was blasting through the enculturation that characterized his people in a pretty hard-hitting way.

Some later biblical writers recognized that it was these underlying principles, and a commitment to them, rather than merely legalistic adherence to ritualistic practice, that endured over time; e.g.,

Isaiah 1:13-18 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations-- I cannot bear your worthless assemblies. Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. "Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. 

This same misunderstanding that approved practice was all that was required shows up in Jesus' condemnation of Pharisaical practice in Luke 11:39-42 Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also? But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

But such insight--that a legalistic following of external practices was supposed to be consistent with internal commitment to the underlying values--was a long time coming, and endured even among the Jewish converts to Christianity, as we saw in an earlier post dealing with circumcision.

The great turnaround--the Hank Snow--of the New Testament was that while the principles lying deep beneath the Old Testament laws continued to be honoured, the focus turned from an emphasis on external practices to an internalized value system with the application of the principles left to the person of faith to decide for herself or himself. From the point of view of the legalistic 1st century A.D. Jews, this was revolutionary. 

In my next post, I'll explore this Hank Snow in greater detail. And then we'll look at that abomination in Leviticus re homosexuality in light of this new approach to living one's faith.

Leviticus lives (in a few places and for a few reasons only)

The use of the Old Testament book of Leviticus has been reduced to a very few issues in the church, with homosexuality being foremost among them. Look at this article excerpted from today's (Mar. 1, 2014) Toronto Globe and Mail featuring my former employer, Trinity Western University: 

Inside Trinity Western’s struggle between faith and equality  

A month after Matthew Wigmore came out to friends at his evangelical Christian university, he stood before his philosophy of sex and gender class to give a presentation on homosexuality and reparative therapy. Mr. Wigmore, 19, felt vulnerable. Much of the presentation – which denounced the so-called treatment for homosexuality – was based on uncomfortable personal experiences.

However, the second-year theatre student felt bolstered by a supportive social circle at Trinity Western University, including friend and project partner Dillon James, who is also openly gay.

After a discussion that followed the October presentation, Mr. Wigmore asked if there were any dissenting viewpoints. A hand slowly went up.

“I personally read the King James Version [of the Bible],” the classmate said. “It’s hard for me to see how homosexuality is the right choice. How do you expect to get into heaven?”

A hush fell over the classroom. Before Mr. Wigmore could reply, another classmate interjected:

“Well, you’re a woman and you’re speaking right now. Technically, [The Book of] Leviticus doesn’t allow that.”

Added Mr. James: “And you’re wearing a fur coat – something the Old Testament law wouldn’t approve of either.”

The conversation quickly ended, Mr. Wigmore recounts in an interview (Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/inside-trinity-westerns-struggle-between-faith-and-equality/article17185258/).

[My editorial comment: Clearly the female objector/quoter of Leviticus was not in the mainstream of this TWU class. The professor permitted the presentation, two openly gay students were involved, and a classmate not identified as gay rebuked the conservative woman. Nevertheless within evangelicalism, Catholicism, and other pockets of
Christianity, Leviticus is relied on for a worldview that doesn't approve of gays.]

Here again are the two verses referenced by the TWU student who objected to her classmate's orientation:

Lev. 18:22: Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev. 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

It is not unusual to see, among conservative Christians of a certain age, a  little fridge magnet or plaque that goes something like this: 'God said it; I believe it; that settles it'.  With that mindset, one could quickly conclude, as did the TWU student above, that these verses mean exactly what they say, not just in 1000 BC, but now as well. 

But such reliance on the book of Leviticus, or other legal passages from the Mosaic Code, can cause real problems for the literalist; i.e., when even other biblical writers ignore the teachings. Consider contradictions within the Bible itself in the application (or not) of that early legal teaching versus later biblical books--up to and including one of the 10 Commandments:

1. Is a eunuch (a castrated male) welcome in God's house and in his kingdom?

a. Leviticus 21:17-21 For the generations to come none of your (i.e. Moses' brother Aaron's) descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.

b. Deuteronomy 23:1 If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. 

c. Isaiah 56:3-5 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. 
 
d. Acts 8:26ff Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he

was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,

    and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,

    so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.....”

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

The first passage teaches that a eunuch is not a candidate to fill the role of priest because he could not bring offerings to the Lord's altar. In the second passage this prohibition is extended to any man who wants to be numbered among God's people and to worship him in the Temple. But by the time of the prince of prophets in the Old Testament, Isaiah, eunuchs who converted to Judaism were guaranteed a place of high esteem in the Temple, and in the early days after Christ's resurrection, the apostle Philip was directed by the Holy Spirit to seek out a eunuch and bring him into Christ's kingdom.

2. Is the Sabbath (i.e., Saturday as a day of rest and worship) to be kept by God's people today?

a. Lev. 23:3 There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the Lord. 

b. Exodus 20:8-10 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns (N.B. The context of this declaration is the proclamation of the 10 Commandments).

c. Ex. 34:21 Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

d. Isaiah 58:13-14 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
    and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
    and the Lord’s holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
    and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, then you will find your joy in the Lord,
    and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land
    and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

e. Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, we gathered with the local believers to share in the Lord's Supper. 

f. Romans 14:5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable.

While Sabbath-keeping was urged on the Jews throughout the Old Testament period, Christians from the beginning celebrated their faith together on Sunday, which they called the Lord's Day. Note that the day on which Jesus was resurrected (Sunday) was also called the Lord's Day. The great (5th century) St. Augustine stated that Christians are bound to keep nine of the ten Commandments [because the New Testament repeats and re-introduces them in a different form] but are free to break the Sabbath. An earlier (2nd cent.) church leader, Tertullian, said, “We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath." To St. Paul, Sabbath-keeping was a matter of indifference. Keep in mind that Paul described himself, in his pre-Christian days, as a Hebrew of the Hebrews and and Pharisee of the Pharisees who would have carefully observed Levitical teaching.

3. Are there foods which a follower of God should not eat?

a. Leviticus 11:46-47 This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten. 

b. Deuteronomy 14:1ff You....are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. You shall not eat any abomination.

c. Acts 10:9-15 Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

St. Peter knew his Levitical teaching, but when he argued with God on the basis of those laws, God rebuked him for doing so.

I could give more examples, but I simply want to illustrate that biblical writers themselves were not nearly as literalistic as the TWU students and many others who want to use Leviticus and other biblical legalisms to condemn certain behaviours. Am I simply arguing my case for the Bible being gay friendly by positing that it can't be trusted, or is something else going on? 

Sans Peur

I am a proud member of the Clan Sutherland. Our clan motto is Sans Peur (Without Fear). My daughter has it discretely tattooed on the inside of her left wrist. I have been thinking of doing the same thing myself, but I'm afraid it will hurt (I trust you noted the irony).

One of my relatives has several daughters. During a visit, one of my nieces announced that she was thinking that she might like to get a tattoo. Her father, who is rather conservative by nature, immediately whipped out his Bible and turned to the Old Testament book of Leviticus, sometimes referred to as the Holiness Code. He went to chapter 19, verse 28, which to my astonishment he had already underlined:

You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks for yourselves. I am the Lord.

For my relative, this was decisive. It was unequivocally God's will that his daughter should not procure a tattoo. What I wanted to ask him was,

1. Ever eat lobster? Shrimp? Prawns? Crab? Better read Lev. 11:10 where they are banned, along with several dozen other potentially edible living organisms ranging from rabbit to bear to snails to crocodile. Grasshoppers are okay, however.
2. If a man entered your house and tried to assault you, would you object if your wife attacked the intruder and saved your skin? Well you may have to fit her for a prosthesis should she immobilize him in the wrong fashion, as God's law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 indicates: If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
3.  You are a pillar of your local church. If the grandson of an illegitimate person were to start attending, would you have any objection? No? Then clearly you haven't considered God's clear teaching in Deut. 23:2, which would forbid church attendance not only to a child born on the wrong side of the blanket, but also his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchild: No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
   
4. I sported a beard for about ten years. Unlike the rubes on Duck Dynasty, I got a routine trim. Should you have taken me to task for such obviously sinful behaviour? God says you should have in Lev. 19:27: You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
5. You seem to love your wife and daughters dearly. But do you consider them to be, in human worth, about 60% of what you are? No? Apparently you should according to Lev. 27:1-5: The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels...

I could go on for several paragraphs, but I simply wanted to illustrate the problem with using a certain kind of bibilical literature, written in a particular cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical context, and applying it literally to today's culture and context.

But while my relative would not consider any of my five examples above as relevant to life today, he and many others would quickly cite other teaching from Leviticus with respect to the issue of gays:

Lev. 18:22: Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Lev. 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Given that these are two of a mere handful of biblical passages that address the gay issue at all, the question must be asked, Do I take these as definitive for making a decision about God and gays, or do they go the way of shellfish and untrimmed beards?

So you know what we'll look at next.